McCall Review of Delotavo Contemporary Evangelicalism:
Alan J. Delotavo, Contemporary Evangelicalism, Wifp & Stock Pub., Eugene Or. 2007.
Delotavo’s mastery of English leaves MUCH to be desired! He w/could have benefited from a review by a driven Graduate Assistant prior to publication… which reflects badly upon not only Delotavo, but also Wipf & Stock. He consistently misused the colon instead of a comma, and similarly throughout the book, Delotavo left out both definite and indefinite articles before direct objects, which increased the already difficult task of reading his challenging book. Furthermore, Delotavo at various times misplaces his comma in the sentence itself (e.g. pg. 29: “The celebration of the Lord’s Supper was then, not more of a ritual…”). Moreover, subject-verb agreement errors were prevalent throughout the book. Delotavo also repetitively misuses the M dash, and resulting from this misusage has numerous incomplete sentences (e.g., pgs. 15, 39, 64). At several junctures, Delotavo errantly chooses one conjunction in preference to another, as well (e.g. pg. 24 prior to citing James 1:26-27, Delotavo uses “and” instead of “but”). Moreover, Delotavo consistently uses introductory clauses in an awkward and confusing manner, insomuch as he even produces incomplete sentences at times (ref. 34, “Although spontaneously…”, pg. 36: “But the point…”). Delotavo’s usage of the term “salvational” instead of salvific was cumbersome (e.g., many times prior to 35). Also at several junctures in the text, Delotavo uses contrary tenses within the same paragraph when explaining the same instance (ref. the Present Active Indicative ‘witnessing’ under “Life and Proclamation”, pg. 35, followed directly by the past tense ‘was’). In numerous places (too many to here recount), Delotavo further misused a definite article where an indefinite article would have been more apropos (perhaps English is not his first language?). Delotavo similarly uses conjunctions and adverbs errantly within the same sentence, causing confusion (e.g. pg 38: “Although…. yet at…”). Delotavo also misuses various conjunctions (e.g. using “although” instead of using “in contrast” on page 40). Delotavo often bounces back and forth between the usage of singular and plural pronouns within the same paragraph, as well (e.g. pg. 38: “However, we should… endowments… It was [should be: they were]…”). Delotavo clearly writes from a Western-influenced perspective, however, as the personalized aspect of Christianity is stressed throughout, perhaps with the effect of even denigrating the corporate aspect of Christianity. A positive that cannot be overlooked, however, is his usage of footnotes instead of endnotes, which allows the reader to see concurrently the references, and therefore does not necessitate them to turn to the end of the book to find them.
Overall, I had a large problem with the first 2 chapters of this book, as Delotavo over-exaggerated the negatives of particularity. I sensed his first two chapters to be building toward a pronouncedly negative view of the organized church, and that he was thereby going to proffer some sort of cell-based “home-type” of church group ( as inferred by pg. 24, etc., but I was errant in this presumption, as I have later discovered). I do deem it true that Delotavo made some needed and well-warranted rebukes of the institutional church, however. I disliked D’s stress on the gospel, which I perceive to be inadequate for living-out a faithful and faith-filled Christian life (we are in need of solid food, and not mere milk in today’s world, note). But I greatly enjoyed his review of Evangelical thought which was found in chpts 4-6. Delotavo’s goal was noble, but I am not sure he attained it in this book: i.e., to demonstrate that Evangelicalism, in its modern manifestation is the penultimate expression of the primal Christian church (ref. specifically pg. 88). Whereas I agree with his over-arching sentiment, I think he could have done better in explicating his point(s).
He attempts at first to define Evangelical thought and structure. He pompously avers that his book will proffer a heretofore un-done task: asserting a definitive evangelical framework. I was initially put-off by his insistence to offer a definitive framework b/c I thought it might be too constricting, and thereby would cause some people to be aversive to it (this is but one reason why I left the Southern Baptist Church, note). He asserts that “without a definitive framework, mission is… risky” (2). I question if it is even possible in fact to define an “ecclesiology” for an entire movement/coalition such as Evangelicalism. In todays post-modern environ, people possess a pronounced tendency to aver a mentality reminiscent of “to each his own.” So then, a globalized ecclesiology is seemingly outside of possible attainment…
The book states that it attempts to address the ambiguity within Evangelicalism, the need to identify the ecclesial structures of Evangelicalism, and the confusion of Evangelical ecclesial identity (4). He states that he attempts to “prove” (4) that Contemporary Evangelicalism is the prototypal form of the early church in the post-modern environ. Delotavo was not only somewhat pompous in his assertion here, but similarly was throughout this book as well (also, e.g., “I identify the plain biblical approach…” [10, emphasis my own]).
Delotavo asserts that the “life of faith”, the “life of witness”, and the “life empowered by the Holy Spirit” are the structures by which the Church is truly founded (20). I deem it true that the order would have been better inverted, as the empowerment of the Spirit is foundational to the other two purported “structures”. Delotavo unfortunately mixes conjecture and speculation with Biblical assertions throughout the book without any forewarning or statement to the effect of said transition (e.g. on pg. 20 concerning “Belief and Identity”). I question pointedly Delotavo’s assertion of the overarching centrality of Christ (21), for Christ is what he is only by the ‘anointing’ of the Spirit, which may perhaps lead one to the assertion that the Spirit should be the overarching central element of Christianity.
Delotavo apparently advocates a Hegelian-influenced understanding of the derivation of “truth” (i.e. thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis; ref. pg. 51), which is essentially the entire argument of his book. Indeed, the history of Christianity, Deloatvo avers, is marked by polarities, which are then temporarily ‘fixed’ by renewal movements, but then invariably the renewal movements fall prey to irrelevancy. This allows Delotavo to claim that Evangelicalism is the penultimate “synthesis” (using the Hegelian terminology not explicitly used by Delotavo, note) of Christian thought and practice. At the end of part II, D proffers his own “synthesis” (pg. 78), which again shows Hegelian influence, in stating that Contemporary Evangelicalism is the “gospel-faith”. But does not each and every ‘faith’ that is Christian contend to be the “gospel-faith”? This terming of the “faith” as the “gospel-faith” is ambiguous, at best.
I disagree with Delotavo’s insistence (pg. 68) that Evangelicalism is neither ascetic nor separatist, and contend instead that it is MODERATELY both ascetic and separatist. I also disagree with Delotavo’s contention on pg. 69 that evangelical theology is not “solely propositional or [based] only on [the] conveying of information”, and posit that the evangelical movement is largely based on just that in practice (but maybe not in theory), and rightly so, instead. I appreciate Delotavo’s usage of Ramm’s 5 posits re: evangelical theology (73), but I question Delotavo’s incorporation of- and seeming approval of- the 4th element b/c the 4th element of Ramm’s formulation entails evangelical theology to be nonnegotiable in its affirmation of objective truth, which seemingly belies Delotavo’s earlier insistence upon the personal aspect of faith (as aforementioned above). In a personal note to Vondey, it seems that Delotavo has been heavily influenced by McGrath’s Introduction to Systematic Theology (ref. his repetitive citations of McGrath, e.g. pg 75)…
Delotavo rightly characterizes yesteryears’ Evangelical theology as being based upon regeneration, living a new life, and loving our fellow man, and not as being a speculative enterprise (84). However, he does not note that the Younger Evangelicals (ref. Stu Weber) are right in the middle of the speculative theological enterprise (which I hope to join in the coming years with SDC, note). I also question Delotavo’s third layer of the evangelical framework being composed of the centrality of the work of the Holy Spirit (84-85), and posit instead that the large majority of Evangelicals are CHRISTO-centric, and not PNEUMATO-centric. Indeed, go to any SBC church, and one will regularly hear stories of how Jesus “helped me” do ‘this or that’, wherein it would be more appropriate to assert that the Spirit “helped me” do ‘this or that.’ It seems that even Delotavo himself recognizes and does this, for even in the same paragraph concerning the Spirit, he consistently uses the phraseology of “Christ-centered” (84-85) instead of “Spirit-centered” (affirming my assertion that most modern evangelicals conflate the roles of Christ and the Spirit in terms of daily living, note). This substitution of “Christ-centered” for “Spirit-centered” has the effect of limiting the role of the Spirit in the life of the believer, I do contend.
In an interesting citation of George (pg. 97), Delotavo gives me food for fodder in thinking that the Renewal Movement (this may have import for Regent University’s PhD program, note) is essentially equitable to Evangelicalism. Noll, as cited by Delotavo, likewise makes an excellent point that is directly applicable to Regent’s Renewal PhD program (and Pentecostalism in general) on pg. 96, which indicates that we should be ever diligent to balance the excitement of Pentecostalism with the formalism in other religions, so as not to lose the substance amidst all of the charisms.
I found the Four Codes of Contemporary Evangelicalism, as posited by Delotavo (pg. 103) to be extremely helpful in attempting to sort through the malaise of Evangelical theology, and they are probably the most profitable thing found within this book (all of chapter 8, note). Missions could, should, and would transcend denominations if we but act correctly as the body of Christ. I appreciate his stress on Evangelicalism needing to be a “matter of life”, and not merely a matter of belief (114). Frankly, as one who is at times ‘put-off’ by excessive pentecostal displays of charisms, I appreciate Delotavo’s coverage of the Spirit’s presence within Evangelicalism (even if I do not agree with him that it is present in such way indicatively, I do affirm it should be…). I actually find myself in agreement with his view re: tongues being only occasional in the present milieu, as the [post] modern church has an adequate supply of multiethnic and multilingual members so as to render their necessity almost nil. Indeed, at this point in my theology, I do not see the need for a theology that entails tongues to be a present reality, and I frankly deem them to be products of a desire for wonder (to use Bultmaanian language), and not a product of sincere (without wax) Christian experience. I find myself also in agreement with McGrath, as cited by D. on page 119, in reference to the danger of Scripture being surpassed by the “immediate personal revelation to an individual.” That is an ever-present danger that must be ardently fended off with due diligence.
After a brief period of agreement with Delotavo, I am back at odds with him re: his view of mega-churches being modern replicas of Spirit-filled early churches. Instead, I view it to be true that mega-churches are subversive to authentic Christianity, and thereby inflict much harm on the body of Christ (they are too non-personal and anonymous).
After debunking current forms of evangelicalism, and after tearing apart the RCC prior to the reformation, Delotavo finally offers his constructive argument in chapter 10: a New Reformation. And of course, Delotavo deems it true that this “new reformation” is possible only in and through the agency of Contemporary Evangelicalism. One finds the key assertion to the entire book, in my humble opinion, on page 143: “When churches within Christianity become more truly Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered, Bible-based, life-oriented, missional, and transdemoninational – their internal commonality will naturally result in profound ontological, relational, and functional unity and oneness” (which presumably is his form of Contemporary Evangelicalism?). His thesis, then, is that Evangelicalism is true Christianity, and whereas I agree with his sentiment, I do not agree with the way he got here at this conclusion (as least as presented by this book).
I especially liked his concise summary of Evangelicalism on page 203, as substantially modified by me:
- Theological Framework:
- Pneumato-centric focus.
- Bible-based theology.
- Practical-oriented applications.
- Ecclesiological Framework:
- Spirit-empowered.
- Christo-centric.
- Missional-based.
- Transdenominationally-focused.
All in all, Dr. Vondey, this is a good book, despite the MANIFOLD English grammatical and syntax errors. However, I am leery of the first two chapters of this book, and caution needs to be expressed in the reading of this book. Delotavo is quite pompous in his assertions, and if not read by discerning eyes, he could be interpreted as THE authority…