This book is a collection of essays written in respond to the postconservatist movement in Evangelicalism. In Part 1, Justin Taylor and D. A. Carson write good introductions and a review that mainly focuses on presenting the shift from a creed-based to a spirituality-based identity among Evangelicals. Part 2 is focusing on the correspondence of truth, foundationalism, and the problem of language. In Part 3 of this book, the text turns to theological method where the postconservative view of Scripture is examined. Part 4 of the book turns to the historiographical discipline. And the final chapter of the book, Part 5, presents the sketch of the future of evangelical theology.
Because of its great length with its multiple contributors, there is (necessary) repetition in some parts of the book. Overall, Reclaiming the Center successfully presents the arguments against postconservatism, and defends the Scriptures.
In his essay, D. A. Carson intensely critiques Stanley Grenz’s work. Grenz asserts that because God is triune, “communitarian focus is mandated” (37) He argues that Christian theology is not the theology of the individual, but of the community. Christian theology must be communitarian, because it is linked to a particular community, namely, the community of the disciples of Jesus” (37 ff.) Grenz argues that “The ultimate authority in the church is the Spirit speaking through Scripture…, however, is always a contextual speaking: it always comes to its hearers within specific historical-cultural-context” (37). Carson does not find this convincing, rather he raises a question “But on what ground do Christians claim that their vision for community-building is best?”
J.P. Moreland and Garret DeWeese argue that modest foundationalism is necessary to find basic evidence for truth. This is correct general theory of justification in epistemology. They further argue that perception is a basic source of evidence, therefore, inerrancy is the property of the Bible which makes it the basic source of evidence (106).
On his essay, Smith refutes some postmodernist thinkers such as Murphy, MacIntyre, Haurwes, Kallenberg, Grenz and Franke. These thinkers have argued that language is constructed locally, which means that we cannot know things outside language. He argues that we do not have to have certainty to know many things, such as our existence. “Instead, we can show humility by giving reasons for our beliefs, all the while acknowledging that it is possible, we could be wrong” (133).
A.B. Canneday criticizes how Grenz and Franke treat the Bible and argues that the communitarian model results in the lost of gospel itself (151). Canneday references to Vanhoozer to bring things back the Scripture. He argues that the “Scripture comes to us with its own theological categories and structures for understanding God and his ways” (158). Thus, the task of theologians is to embrace the Bible for “understanding God and his ways, … rather than to draw upon contemporary culture as a source of theology” (159).
Perhaps, Chad Owen’s essay would be better as a part of the introduction, along with Justin and Carson’s essay. He describes evangelicalism based on three focuses: “A commitment to biblical reliability that results in a stand for Scripture against the prevailing trends of assault; an emphasis on evangelism and the need for a conversion experience; and the importance of the life of discipleship” (304).
Postconservatism is moving away from these convictions, and he concludes with a basic concern in this regard. “My concern is that some postconservatives are motivated by a sort of theological seeker-sensitivity that compels them to a sort of theological worldliness that is antithetical to Scripture and the faith once delivered to the saints. I hope I am wrong” (304).
