I am increasingly of the belief that one of the biggest problems - and the root of many other problems - with contemporary Evangelicalism is what I call "hyper-Reformation theology." I don't mean hyper-Calvinism. I use the term "Reformation theology" to refer to five points which are far more fundamental to the Reformation that the points of Calvinism: namely, the five solas. By the term "hyper-Reformation theology," I mean a collection of exaggerated caricatures of these essential doctrines which are currently popular among Evangelicals. The most visible of these is "hyper-sola scriptura", which I have discussed before, but there are similar positions for each of the others: "sola fide" and "sola gratia" become an excuse for antinomianism; "solus Christus" and "soli deo gloria" mean we shouldn't ever mention any dead saints, and Mary the mother of Christ is not to be mentioned except at Christmas. Now, I deliberately state these absurdly, but I really think that these sorts of caricatures are behind a lot of the problems in contemporary Evangelicalism, and I know that, for my part, it was not until recently that I had any real idea of how to finish the sentences ("scripture alone ... what?"). Now Johnny-Dee is pointing to a very interesting article by J.P. Moreland on "hyper-sola scriptura" which he provocatively calls "Evangelical over-commitment to the Bible." I don't agree with everything he says, but I think he appreciates the nature of the problem and the fact that it can be addressed without rejecting inerrancy or "sola scriptura," properly understood. He also has some interesting reflections on how we got here, which have to do with the sociology of education.
A lot actually. I don't want to start making a list (I might not stop). Regular readers may wonder why I still use the title so prominently, given my concern for history and tradition, and frequent attempts to distance myself from many elements of popular Evangelicalism. The answer is that I agree with the statements of faith of all the major Evangelical para-church groups, including their view of Scripture (my increasingly great respect for tradition has not altered that), and I continue to believe (perhaps more strongly than before) in "generous orthodoxy" - the view that the collection of doctrines we require all of our church members and leaders to subscribe to should be closer to the length and level of detail of the Nicene Creed than to the length and level of detail of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or even the Westminster Confession. (I say "closer to the length and level of detail of the Nicene Creed" - I certainly don't think that affirming only the Nicene Creed is sufficient for church leadership, and I don't think it's probably enough for membership either - you need at least to hold a view of the authority of Scripture - but I certainly don't think that one should have to affirm a book length statement, even for leadership, unless that book is the Bible itself.)
The reason I bring this up (besides the need to define myself in relation to our recent fascinating Ecumenical discussion), is that I've just read a review by Carl Trueman of a book entitled Is The Reformation Over? on Reformation21 (the magazine not the blog), which was recommended to me by a friend. The review is very well written and I think it does a good job of describing some of the shortcomings of modern Evangelicalism, and giving reasons for nevertheless not giving up on the Reformation. I agree with nearly everything he says.