How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative 2

I finished Roger Olson's book a few days ago and enjoyed it very much. The word "Evangelical" is a tough word to define seeing that this is a diverse movement rather than an organization or denomination. But when talking about Evangelicals, Olson takes on Bebbington's four characteristics and then adds a fifth of his own. When we are calling ourselves or someone else an evangelical this is what is meant:

1. Biblicism - belief in the supreme authority of scripture.
2. Conversionism - belief that Christianity always includes a conversion to Jesus Christ by personal repentance by faith.
3. Crucicentrism - worship, piety, and devotion centered on the cross.
4. Activism - Concern for and involvement in social transformation through evangelism and social activism.
5. A respect for the great tradition of Christian doctrine.

I believe these to be good, working characteristics of what it means to call oneself an Evangelical. I would put myself in the midst of this movement. The problem is, the media paints a picture of an evangelical in a much different light. When they bring on an Evangelical to their talk show, what they are saying is that they are going to have a Conservative/Fundamentalist (you can almost use these words interchangeably anymore).

So, how do we separate ourselves from being tossed into the Fundamentalist camp when we say we are Evangelicals without throwing out our heritage as being part of the Evangelical movement? After all, I very much am in line with these five things listed above and don't want to toss any of those five things out. This is why Olson uses the language when he calls himself a "Post-conservative Evangelical". He isn't a right wing conservative, but he is also not a left wing liberal (although if you are a Post-Conservative the Fundamentalists love to label you as a liberal). So this is the middle-ground that Olson is helping to pave by calling himself a "Post-Conservative".

While we are at it, so we don't have a misunderstanding here, Olson defines "conservative" as "that habit of the heart that reacts against anything nontraditional and tends toward an idolatry of some perceived past "golden age" when church and society were good and not yet corrupted by forces of secularity and liberal thinking."

Conservative theologians are those that believe that all important theological matters were cleared up in the first eight centuries. But they also tend to see the Reformation as the golden age of Christian Theology and exalt those (Luther, Calvin), ironically, who had the nerve and the Spirit to question the status quo and bring about reform. But even though they pay lip service to the reformers, any idea of continual reform goes out the window. With most conservatives there is a "hardening of the categories" and most systematic theologies are simply a restatement of past conservative theologies in updated language because of course, "we've got everything right by now, and just need to protect it against new ideas." How did the movement of the Reformation with it's motto "Reformed and always reforming" become one of stagnant defense against any new thought? It's a mystery this book seeks to ponder.