Clark Pinnock is, probably, one of the most important and
one of the most controversial Canadian evangelical theologians. Pinnock’s early
years (1960s) as a theologian were fairly conventional. Many evangelicals were
walking the extra mile at this period of time to prove that Christianity could
be both intellectually responsible and respectable. The rise and prominence of
Christian apologetics emerged in this decade as an important discipline within
Christianity, and Pinnock provided much needed leadership in this timely era.
Pinnock, at this time, tended to be seen as an important Christian rationalist.
Books on Christian apologetics were front and centre in much of Pinnock’s
thinking at the time. A Defence of
Biblical Infallibility (1967), Set
Forth Your Case (1967), Evangelism
and Truth (1969) and Biblical
Revelation: Foundation of Christian Theology (1971) were just a few of the
books that rolled off the press in those years. The work of Francis Schaeffer and
the L’Abri community in Switzerland did much to inspire and inform Pinnock at
this time, also.But, there were
hints of much more to come even in this period of time.
The recent intellectual biography of Clark Pinnock, Clark Pinnock: Journey Towards Renewal,
by Barry Callen, has done a fine job of highlighting how and why Pinnock, again
and again, has taken a different path and trail than his more Calvinist and
Reformed Evangelical friends, and the price he has paid for doing so.
The Wesleyan tradition has had a stronger appeal for Pinnock, and this has
meant he and J.I Packer have not exactly been on the same pages on many issues.
This has meant, for Pinnock, he has often been on the margins of the
Evangelical world and ethos, whereas someone like Packer has been much more
part of the establishment and Sanhedrin. It is somewhat sad, though, that the
Calvinist and Wesleyan traditions have come to be opposed in the Evangelical
clans, and sadder still that the former has trumped the latter. The Christian Tradition,
at its noblest and best, has always held the two traditions in tension. The
Greek Fathers of the Patristic era and Colet, More and Erasmus (The Oxford
Reformers) would have found such polarization silly and counterproductive. The
theological language of “Synergism” tell its own tale. Both God and humans work
to their utmost to bring about the desired transformation that will renew and
reform persons, societies and the earth.
The differences between Clark Pinnock and J.I Packer are
legendary, and they have done much to clarify some important distinctions
within the North American Evangelical clan. Pinnock has, in the last decade, done more to unsettle and
disturb the North American evangelical ethos with his notions of the “Wideness
of God’s Mercy” and “Open Theism” than most. Both stances have brought into
question a certain notion of how God deals with those who have neither known
Him or turned their backs on Him, and, equally important, God’s omniscience and
sovereignty. The Calvinism of Packer has towed such a discussion in one
direction. The position of Pinnock has pulled the debate in another direction.
This discussion has certainly widened out the possibilities of what it means to
live in the open and ever enlarging world of the Evangelical tribe. The
differences between Packer and Pinnock go back to the 1970s at Regent College
when both theologians tugged the hearts and minds of North American
evangelicals in different and diverse directions.
But, the theological clashes that Pinnock has had with many
theologians within the Evangelical and Calvinist clan has often obscured the
fact that he has, also, taken some rather significant political, social and
economic positions. It is these broader positions that, interestingly enough,
have brought him rather close to J.I. Packer and the American republican way.
Both men, in the last two decades, have been very much at home in the American
republican political, social and economic clan. It is true that on certain
speculative theological issues (Calvin or Wesley?) Packer and Pinnock part
paths, but they tend to join warm and affectionate hands on many matters that
deal with social, economic and political issues. This must be noted, recognized
and realized. Both men are kindred spirits and soul friends on some substantive
issues, and such issues tend to make them court theologians of the American
republican way. We must remember many Puritans were, in origin, suspicious of
the state, and most modern Puritans (of which Packer is a leading apologist)
remain in the same place; so does Pinnock. When we linger too long at the
Wesleyan-Calvinist debates as worked out through Pinnock and Packer, we tend to
miss important aspects of their political theology, and where a theologian
stands on such issues is of utmost importance in the real world of history and
time.
Clark Pinnock, in the 1960s and 1970s, leaned very much in
the American anarchist direction. He had a passion and concern for issues of
injustice, the marginalized and the downtrodden. Articles by Pinnock such as
“The Christian Revolution” (Post
American: 1971) and “Liberation Theology: The Gains, the Gaps”
(Christianity Today: 1976) placed Pinnock at an important place in an emerging
Evangelical social conscience in the 1970s. Pinnock’s concern in this area did
much to give him a real affinity for Jim Wallis and the Sojourners Community in
Washington DC. Pinnock walked side by side with Wallis in many areas, and he
wrote for both the Post-American and Sojourners magazine. When Pinnock was at
Regent College between (1974-1977), he was at the forefront of arguing that
theology should and must be political, and, in being political, Jim Wallis and
the Sojourners community best embodied what a prophetic political theology
might look like. Pinnock would often host public forums and teach classes while
at Regent on political theology, the importance of Karl Barth, and the
connections between Barth and Jim Wallis. In short, a type of protest and
anarchist left prophetic politics was where Pinnock stood at this period of his
life. John Howard Yoder was, also, and inspiration and mentor to many.
Anarchist and protest politics was seen as prophetic, and intentional
resistance communities were the way to go. The Berrigan brothers (Dan and Phil)
stood in this line and lineage, also. Pinnock, therefore, looked to Barth,
Wallis, Yoder and the Berrigans, and their interpretations of the Bible, as
important leads and guides into a sort of prophetic political theology. The
year Pinnock left Regent College he had an article published in Evangelicals and Liberation (1977). “A
Call for the Liberation of North American Christians” was an animated, feisty
and passionate plea for North American Christians to awake from their apathetic
political slumber and face the injustices in the world. Pinnock seemed to be
poised to be a leader of the North American evangelical turn to liberation
theology. The moral outrage was there, but the means by which such a vision
could be implemented was rather thin and weak.We need ask this question: can we equate moral outrage, protest
and anarchist politics as prophetic? What are the problems with this model and
paradigm?
It is interesting to note that Pinnock began to shift from
this anarchist left position in the late 1970s just as the American republican
tradition was emerging in all its power and force. Pinnock would align himself
with such a republican way. This was a period of time when Thatcher had come to
power in England, Reagan in the USA and, eventually, Mulroney in Canada. The
turn, by Pinnock, from the anarchist left to the republican right is recounted
in Pinnock’s essay, “A Pilgrimage in Political Theology”. Pinnock continued to
go after the Christian anarchist left in “The Pursuit of Utopia” and “Pursuit
of Utopia, Betrayal of the Poor (Crux:
1987). It is important to note that Crux
is the flagship magazine of Regent College, and Regent College (in Vancouver,
BC) has strong right of centre leanings. Preston Manning has been on their
board of directors, and he has taught courses there. It is hard to imagine Ed
Broadbent being asked to be on the board of Regent College or teaching courses
there. Regent has also sponsored events for members of the Reform/Alliance (now
Conservative party of Canada). The alliances are there for those who want to
connect the obvious dots.
The shift by Pinnock from the anarchist left to the
republican right is interesting for two reasons: American models are front and
centre and, equally important, the anarchist left and the republican right are
suspicious of the state. Both the Christian right and the left in the USA (for
different reasons) shy away from and are often cynical of the state. This is,
needless to say, hardly the best of the Canadian High Tory and Conservative
way. We do need to ask ourselves why Pinnock turned to American models rather
than, as a Canadian, dipping his bucket in the more Canadian way. Canadians who
turn to the USA as their models, and are apologists for such a model in Canada,
are what we call compradors, and, in this sense, Pinnock is both an apologist
for the empire and a theological comprador.
Pinnock, throughout much of the 1970s, attempted to thread
together theology, the charismatic movement and political thought. The content
of such a combination shifted and changed, chameleon like, as the times
changed. Pinnock’s article, “An Evangelical Theology of the Charismatic
Renewal” (1977) signaled an obvious interest in this direction. The movement
away from the American anarchist left of Wallis and Yoder meant that Pinnock
began to blend his charismatic theology with American republican politics. Yes,
there is no doubt we should be open to the Holy Spirit and for reform and
renewal of the church, but the big questions is this: who defines the content
of such things? Is the Holy Spirit a fan and cheerleader of the American
republican way and tradition? This question becomes even more pressing the more
modern evangelicals turn to the republican tradition in the USA as their great
and good place.
Pinnock’s turn to both the best of the charismatic tradition
and the political outworking of it seemed to have some affinity with those like
David Mainse of 100 Huntley Street and Bernice Gerard, but this was not to be.
Pinnock’s brand of the charismatic and republican thought was much more refined,
more nuanced. James Skillen, in his well written book, The Scattered Voice: Christians at Odds in the Public Square (1990), lists
three types of American republicans (or conservatives). There are the
“Pro-American
Conservatives” of the Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James
Dobson and Tim LaHaye types. We could call these the more populist types. There
are the “Cautious and Critical Conservatives” of the Charles Colson, Mark
Amstutz and Doug Bandow types. There are “Sophisticated Neo-Conservatives” of
the Richard Neuhaus, Michael Novak and First
Things type. Pinnock would be most at home with the “Sophisticated
Neo-Cons”. The David Mainse and Bernice Gerard blend of the charismatic and
politics usually slips quite quickly into the Pat Robertson, James Dobson and
Jerry Falwell approach that Pinnock would have serious questions about.
Needless to say, Pinnock is much too sophisticated a thinker to doff his cap to
this more populist republican tradition. But, there are affinities between the
various types of American republicans, and this is where Pinnock will turn for
his notions of reform and renewal.
The turn to the American republican right, by Pinnock, in
the 1980s, was further unpacked in his missive, The Untapped Power of Sheer Christianity (1985). This tract for the
times attempted, in a thoughtful and judicious way, to thread together both the
charismatic tradition and American style republican politics. Many of the
heroes of the American republican right are trotted out as models and saints to
emulate. The Untapped Power of Sheer
Christianity genuflects to such American republican worthies as Novak,
Neuhaus and the emerging Christian right in the USA. Pinnock, in this sense,
became a court theologian for the empire. It is interesting to note that Pinnock
dedicated the book to “all the men and women in Canada who struggle for
reformation and renewal in the churches of our land” and “in loving memory of
Francis A. Schaeffer who was valiant for the truth throughout a long and
fruitful life”. The important thing to note here is this. Reformation and
renewal is defined as charismatic and republican, and Schaeffer (well known for
his republican leanings) is held high as one who “was valiant for the truth”.
The meaning cannot be missed. If Canadian churches ever hope to be reformed and
renewed, they will move in both the charismatic and the American republican
way. Surely, as Canadians, we do need to ask some thoughtful and critical
questions about such an uncritical stance, within Canada, to the American republican
heritage.
The same year that The
Untapped Power of Sheer Christianity took wings and left the press, Pinnock
wrote an “Introduction” to Harry Antonides, Stones
for Bread: The Social Gospel and its Contemporary Legacy (1985). Antonides
was, at the time, the director of the Christian Labour Association of Canada
(CLAC). The argument of Stones for Bread
is simple and simplistic. The Social Gospel tradition in Canada has not been
good for Canada, and the sooner and quicker we turn to a market economy and
system, the better off we will all be. In short, Pinnock like Antonides, are
apologists for the American republican way. Antonides does this from a
Calvinist perspective, and Pinnock does this from a Baptist (and to some degree
Arminian perspective). Both men, regardless of their theological sources, tend
to reach the same conclusions when it comes to many social, economic and
political issues. Pinnock, Packer and Antonides link warm and affectionate arms
with well funded American republican Christians, and, in doing so, they turn
their backs both on a much older Canadian High Tory political theology and some
of the finer and finest insights of the Canadian social gospel tradition.
I have mentioned above that Packer and Pinnock have clashed
and locked horns on the Wesleyan and Calvinist approaches to free will and
God’s grace and sovereignty, but both men come quite close when it comes to
many important social, economic and political issues. American republican
thought seems to be the intellectual home and hearth of choice. Pinnock’s “A
Pilgrimage in Political Theology” was published in Liberation Theology (1984), and most of the high mucky mucks of the
republican right were contributors to this book (Ronald Nash, Harold Brown,
Michael Novak, James Schall, Edward Norman, Robert Walton, Carl Henry, Dale
Vree and Richard John Neuhaus). The interest in the 1990s by many evangelicals
in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions produced two important books: Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward
a Common Mission (1995) and
Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox in
Dialogue (1997). The authors of these books have strong American republican
leanings. The point to note here is this. J.I. Packer contributed to both Evangelicals and Catholics Together and Reclaiming the Great Tradition, and many
of authors in these books lean towards the political right. Charles Colson,
George Weigel, Mark Noll, Avery Dulles, Richard John Neuhaus, Peter Kreeft and
Carl Braaten are well known for their republican commitments. In short, Packer
and Pinnock although differing and fragmenting the evangelical world on
speculative issues are, in many ways, the best of buddies on many of the hot
button issues in the ethical culture wars. Even though Packer has been in
Canada for almost 25 years, he still tends to draw much of his authority from
both the English or American traditions. It’s as if Canadian theologians are
either incapable of doing theology or incompetent if they do it. In a recent
book, The Future Shape of Anglican
Ministry (2004), Packer has an article in it called, “Pastoral Self-Care:
Riches from the Anglican Devotional Tradition”. Packer does not mention an
Canadian Anglicans. William Perkins, Richard Baxter, George Whitefield and C.S.
Lewis are held high. Jeremy Taylor, William Law and Wesley are ignored (the
reasons are obvious). But, there are no Canadian Anglicans. Packer turns to
England and the USA as his great and good place, and Pinnock turns to the USA
for his leads and models. When both men do this they reflect an imperial model
of doing theology and, in the process, do Canada and Canadian theologians a
disservice.
We do need to ask, as Canadians, whether we want to turn to
empires as the source of our theological leanings. Surely there is a tradition
in Canada of good political theology that dares to question the USA (whether in
its republican or democratic forms), the faded English empire and offers a
different way. We do need good post-colonial theologians, philosophers,
political theorists and activists. Those like George Grant and Stephen Lea*censored*,
as Anglicans, have been at the forefront, in Canada, in the areas of theology,
philosophy, political theory and political economy. Poets such as Milton Acorn
and Marya Fiamengo articulate, in the clearest and finest manner, a Canadian
High Tory political and religious vision. Novelists such as Mazo de la Roche
and Catherine Parr Traill tell the older High Tory tale in exquisite detail.
Historians, labour activists and constitutional specialists such as Donald
Creighton and Eugene Forsey unpack the drama of the Canadian way that is quite
different than anything we find when we turn to either the USA or England as
our mentors and great teachers.
It is one thing for Americans, when they come to Canada, to
bring their baggage, training and socialization. As Canadians, we always hope
they will learn something of our ways while they are here. It is quite another
thing, though, for Canadian intellectuals, thinkers and theologians to be
apologists for the American way in Canada. This is what it means to be a
comprador, and, in many a worrisome sense, when those like Packer and Pinnock
turn to the American republican way while living in Canada (and enjoying much
of its bounties and benefits) rather than the Canadian way, they become court
theologians of the empire. We, as Canadians, do need to talk back to such a
position and challenge some of our establishment theologians to ponder the
meaning of a more prophetic and critical way. Surely, the Bible and Tradition
ask this of us.
There is no doubt that J.I Packer will be seen, in time, as
one of the most important Puritan theologians of the 20th century.
He has been at the forefront in shaping, forming and giving predictable and
clear headed direction to the Reformed and Evangelical clans. But, Clark
Pinnock is a much more interesting theologian. He is like the fox who gets in
amongst the pigeons. Pinnock has dared to question the dominance of Calvinist
theology in both the Reformed and Evangelical tribes, he has probed political
traditions the Packer has not, and he has engaged, in a dialectical and
dialogical way, theological areas Packer has studiously ignored and
avoided.
There is much more that could be said when tracking and
tracing the political theology of Clark Pinnock. If we only turn to his
speculations on the “Wideness of God’s Mercy” and “Open Theism”, there is much
we miss that is of considerable importance. Pinnock has, again and again,
turned to the empire as his great good place (whether of the anarchist left or
the republican right), and we do, as Canadians, need to ask ourselves this
rather simple question: do we need to polarize in our political theology
between socialism and capitalism? Is there not in Canada an indigenous political
theology of the commonweal that can best be worked out through a cooperative
approach between society and the state? We are neither as anti-statist or as
anarchist as the USA, and it might be more prudent if our theologians turned
less to the empire as their north star and more to the Canadian way. Clark
Pinnock does not do this well. Neither does J.I Packer. There is no doubt they
have some differences, but on the much larger political, social and economic
questions they tend to be comprador theologians, and, as such, boosters for the
American tradition. We, as Canadians, do need to challenge such a position, and
rightly ask whether God, at day’s end, will hold high the American
republican flag.
rsd