Evangelical Bickering

For theologians and Christian academics (and perhaps certain evangelicals "in the know"), a recent storm has been brewing among prominent evangelical leaders, namely between Norm Geisler and Michael Licona:

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/november/interpretation-sparks-theology-debate.html

Various evangelical leaders (especially at Biola) have sided with Licona, suggesting that Geisler is overreacting in his judgment that Licona has abandoned the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture (based on an interpretation of Matthew 27's account of "raised bodies"at Christ's death).

Now I am not surprised that such criticism and vehement response has occurred.  Remember that whole Rob Bell brou-ha-ha (which I finally read his book and think that it is less a book and more a long blog post, unworthy of serious response just as much as any of my blog posts).  J.P. Moreland also underwent much scrutiny when he presented a paper at an ETS meeting in which he argued against the dangers of idolizing the Bible and not using it in a proper manner.  Those who reside on the outside or fringe of evangelical conservatism get less heat; perhaps it is expected that they hold views contrary to the fold.  But those who are within the pack are often criticized if they begin to say anything that sounds as if they are straying from the center of the evangelical core.

What I wonder is how someone like Geisler can ask Licona to recant, or how he can call him "unorthodox" or "non-evangelical".  On what basis?  Whose orthodoxy?  Tradition or the Magisterium are ruled out.  The orthodoxy of conservative fundamentalists or evangelicals.  But who are they, for they are legion.  Do Moreland and William Lane Craig count as orthodox (although they hold a doctrine of the Incarnation that is fairly close to a condemned heresy, viz. Apollinarianism)?

And why does a re-interpretation of Matthew 27 no longer qualify Licona as an evangelical?  In fact, it makes him the model evangelical.  For he attempted to understand the Scripture based upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that is available to all believers and by serious scholarly research that applies appropriate hermeneutic techniques that respect the genre and context of the passage--everything that they teach us to do at evangelical universities.  There is no Tradition or Magisterium telling him that he got it wrong.  And if he arrived at his view based upon the method of Scriptural interpretation that is the paradigm of the evangelical approach, how can he be considered to be going against evangelicalism?

Again, I'm not surprised this happens, since it happens quite frequently--one evangelical calling another evangelical a heretic.  But if our only doctrinal or interpretative ground is the Scripture as understood from personal reading and the Spirit's witness, then whatever view comes from that, the evangelical must embrace if they are to be evangelical at all.