BOOK REVIEW

HANDBOOK OF EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS

EDITED BY WALTER A. ELWELL
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, ~ 1 9 9 3xii , $29.99.

+ 465 p.,

Reviewed by Timothy Erdel, archivist, theological librarian and assistant professor of religion and philosophy a t Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana. The Missionary Church springs from a confluence of a t least four broad streams-Anabaptist, Pietist, Wesleyan Holiness, and Evangelical. These movements, whatever their differences, all give priority to Christian experience, mores, service, and outreach rather than to the rigorous rational analysis of formal beliefs. Their theologies are more likely to be informal and occasional than academic and systematic. But of the four, Evangelicals regularly produce the most systematic theologians, in part because Evangelicalism draws fairly heavily on the Magisterial Reformation, especially Presbyterian and Reformed patterns of thought. When one reviews the thirty-three bio-theological entries in Evangelical Theologians from the unlikely perspective of the Missionary Church, the results are interesting, though perhaps not wholly unexpected. Does the book include any theologians from the Missionary Church? Yes, but only if one counts Henry C. Thiessen, who receives a sympathetic and insightful analysis from Elwell himself. Thiessen's emphasis on a pretribulation rapture, on the importance of the Holy Spirit, on a pastoral approach to theology, and on belief in God's inspiration of the Scriptures as the best way to counter critical questions in Biblical studies may reflect his Missionary Church background. So too may his profound humility and his patience in the face of suffering, which Elwell so admires. Elwell discusses Thiessen's pastoral ministry a t

Pandora Missionary Church, though not his tenure as district superintendent of the Missionary Church Association (MCA)Ohio District (1912-16). Again, he mentions his roles as teacher (190523) at, and principal (1919-23)of, the Fort Wayne Bible Training School, but not that he was forced out of his positions a t the school and of the MCA itself in 1923 for failing to emphasize sufficiently the crisis experience of entire sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Ironically, it was the brief denominational statement sharply defining the MCA position over against his own views which propelled Thiessen into a more formal study of theology. Further questions come to mind. Does the work include other theologians who influenced the Missionary Church? Certainly, as much as we were influenced by any theologians. The list of those included is worth noting: Augustus H. Strong, James Orr, B.B. Warfield, Francis Pieper, Edgar Young Mullins, W. H. GriMith Thomas, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Louis Berkhof, H. Orton Wiley, J. Gresham Machen, Thiessen, Cornelius Van Til, John Murray, Gordon H. Clark, G. C. Berkouwer, Charles W. Carter, Helmut Thielicke, John F. Walvoord, Francis Schaeffer, Carl F. H. Henry, Anthony Hoekema, Bernard Ramm, J. Rodman Williams, Edward John Carnell, John R. W. Stott, Robert D. Preus, Charles C. Ryrie, J. I. Packer, Donald G. Bloesch, Thomas Oden, Millard J.Erickson, Clark H. Pinnock, and Alister E. McGrath. Perhaps a better question would be, does the work give adequate attention to the Anabaptist/Pietist/Wesleyan Holiness orbits? Not really, but then quite a few perspectives are missing. Just who have been the theologians of the Missionary Church? J. A. Huffman and S. A. Witmer were easily our greatest theological educators, each influencing many outside the Missionary Church. W. 0.Klopfenstein and Kenneth Geiger both made useful editorial contributions, and Geiger was a convener ofthe Wesleyan Theological Society. Wesley Gerig is our best known biblical theologian. As befits the name of the denomination, missionaries have often led the way in scholarship. Three even hold two earned doctorates, though only William Craig is widely recognized among theologians. Michael Akangbe, Jacob Bawa, Claire Henry, Dieumeme Noelliste, Garnett Roper, and Pronoy Sarkar are among the growing number of Missionary Church leaders from the TwoThirds World who have mastered the vagaries of contemporary Western theological scholarship. But do any belong in this book as systematic theologians? Probably not, though Craig has made formidable contributions in biblical, historical, and philosophical theology. Allin all, the lackof Missionary Church names is not that puzzling. But one is still struck by some amazing omissions. There are no

Anabaptists-neither persons more marginal to Evangelicalism such a s H. S. Bender or John Howard Yoder, nor those clearly within the camp such as J. C. Wenger, Ron Sider, or Thomas Finger. Nor are there any Pietists. Nor Friends. What about D. EltonTrueblood? At least Wiley and Carter represent the Wesleyan Holiness movement and Oden Methodism, but three of thirtythree is not many given church demographics. In the age of Pentecostalism, none are included. J . Rodman Williams, a former Presbyterian, is a good choice for the Charismatic movement. There are no women. This may be a bit tougher, but how about Georgia Harkness (a conciliar Evangelical), Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, Henrietta Mears (is it her fault she was restricted to Sunday School?),or one of the Evangelical feminists? There are no African Americans. While there are several Europeans, no one represents the Two-Thirds World. Latin America alone would bring to mind such names as Orlando Costas, Samuel Escobar, Emilio Nunez, and Rene Padilla. Evangelicals are currently a t the forefront of the greatest revival of orthodox philosophical theology since the Middle Ages, but one would never guess this development from Evangelical Theologians. Biblical and historical interests do protrude a bit here and there, but biblical and historical theologians will have to be located in some other reference tool. Missiologists, who often see issues before anyone else, are also left out in the cold. None of the Evangelical gadflies such as Donald Dayton or Jim Wallis are included, but then neither are more conservative writers notorious for their personal polemics such a s Norman Geisler, John Warwick Montgomery, Rouses John Rushdoony, or John C. Whitcomb. Influential theological gatekeepers are missing, none more glaringly so than Kenneth S. Kantzer. Perhaps the greatest irony in all this is that the editor, Walter Elwell, himself a remarkably knowledgeableand fairminded thinker, is all too keenly aware of these omissions, though he does not mention them in his Preface. Perhaps he will be moved to reflect on the vicissitudes of editing in a fallen world when he writes his memoirs. What exactly does the book offer? It still presents a goldmine of information and insights on the backgrounds and beliefs of thirtythree extraordinary theologians who have shaped modern Evangelicalism, especially what might be called its Post-Fundamentalist mainstream, where a decidedly Calvinistic hegemony still dominates scholarly organizations and publications. But many theologians managed to transcend narrow confessional lines and make broad and generous contributions to Christian thought. Perhaps Missionary Church pastors will be persuaded to plunder this gold from Evangelicals.