Die begrenzte gemeinschaft ("The boundaried People") and the character of Evangelical Theology

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2002 by Grenz, Stanley J

In 1997 Jon Stone concluded that neo-evangelicalism is "captivated by the issue of defining its boundaries." In support of his claim, Stone cites the "flood of books and articles" that has flowed from evangelical pens since World War II. In his estimation, this phenomenon "documents a sustained effort at defining the limits of evangelicalism by affirming and reaffirming its boundary differences with both liberalism and fundamentalism."' As Stone's comment indicates, the tendency to delineate boundaries has been part of post-fundamentalist neo-evangelicalism since its inception in the 1940s. Yet in recent years, this concern appears to have taken on a new intensity, as evangelical theologians have begun to debate among themselves the question as to just how encompassing the evangelical "big tent" can be.

The current quest for boundaries carries potentially crucial ramifications for evangelical theology. The goal of this essay is to explore the implications of the phenomenon of boundary-setting for the shape of evangelical theology in the postmodern context. To this end, I first look at the concept of boundaries itself. I then turn to the question of the nature of evangelicalism as a boundaried people. Finally, I apply the results of my study to the question of the role of evangelical theology within evangelicalism as well as to what I see as the nature of the Evangelical Theological Society.

I. THE QUEST FOR BOUNDARIE

Simply defined, a boundary is "anything forming or serving to indicate a limit or end."2 Viewed from this perspective, boundaries are an inevitable part of life. They are present everywhere, even when the demarcated limits are fuzzy or difficult to decipher. Hence, religious groups are likewise marked by boundaries, despite the current trend to highlight the fluidity of the lines running between them. As Stephen W. Sykes notes, "The fact that the boundaries of a religion may be difficult to determine with precision does not mean that a religion has no boundaries."3

1. Boundaries in the Bible. The concept of boundaries runs through the Bible. The idea is especially prevalent in the OT, where the term is closely tied to actual physical demarcations. So important were boundaries in the ancient Near East that special stones were erected to rim political or economic domains. These markers delimited national frontiers and property lines.

The ancient Israelites considered boundaries to be of divine origin. God was responsible for setting boundaries throughout creation (Ps 74:17, cf. Gen 1:4-8; Ps 104:9; Jer 5:22). He had likewise determined the habitations of the nations (Deut 32:8; Acts 17:26), including Israel (Exod 23:31; Num 34:1-15). For this reason, Isaiah could cite the overrunning of national boundaries inherent in military conquest as one of the sins of the king of Assyria (Isa 10:13).

Upon their entrance into the promised land, God determined the borders of each of the tribes of Israel (e.g. Josh 22:25), and he apportioned the inheritance of the various clans within the tribes, accomplishing this task through appointed leaders (Num 34:16-29) or the practice of casting lots (Num 34:13; Josh 14:2). Because these apportionments were believed to carry divine sanction, the stones that the ancient leaders had set in place to demarcate property boundaries were not to be altered (Deut 19:14; 27:17; Prov 15:25; 22:28; 23:10), and moving an ancient boundary stone came be seen as a sign of great wickedness (Job 24:2; Hos 5:10).

The boundary did not only mark the limit of a domain; it stood as well for the territory itself. This is evident in the use of the Hebrew term gebul, which can signify both the actual boundary or the territory thus bounded. Moreover, each geographic or tribal territory, together with its boundaries, carried religious significance. Each was connected to a particular deity that was to be worshiped by the inhabitants within that domain. Magnus Ottosson notes the importance of this concept for the religious self-conception of the Hebrew people: "The frequent use of the expression gebhul yisrael, `the territory of Israel,' points to a conscious, most likely religious understanding of the boundary of the national territory whose Lord and God is Yahweh."4

The connection between a bounded territory and a corresponding deity points to a deeper sense of boundary present among the ancient Hebrews. The OT writers speak of Israel as a particular people, a people who are distinct from the nations. Hence, they viewed Israel as what we might call a begrenzte Gemeinschaft, a "boundaried" people.

The genesis of Israel's awareness of their special boundaried status lay in their conviction that as a nation they were God's covenant partner. In fact, the sense of boundary is inherent in the Hebrew term berith, insofar as a covenant-which indicates a "binding relationship"5-is by its very nature limited to those whom it brings together within the bond that it forges. This is the case, even if the relationship is that of a vassal to a suzerain, which provided one of several prominent ancient Near Eastern practices that gave rise to the Hebrew concepts Although covenants were a part of life in the ancient world, the idea that a people could be the covenant partner of their god, together with the relational exclusivity inherent in this idea, appears to have been unique to Israel. As Bernhard Anderson concludes, "Covenant expresses a novel element of the religion of ancient Israel: the people are bound in relationship to the one God, Yahweh, who makes an exclusive (Jealous') claim upon their loyalty in worship and social life."7 Weinfeld adds that Israel viewed the covenant to be so exclusive so as ife. Weinfeld adds that Israel viewed the possibility of dual or multiple loyalties so exclusive so as were permitted in other religions."8 On this basis, then, the possibility of dual or multiple loyalties such ancient Hebrews were theto see themselves as a boundaried people in a unique, even exclusive, sense.