The end of evangelicalism?
David Sessions Jan 28, 2009 25 COMMENTS SHARE
Click here for a follow-up to this post.
Michael Spencer is in the midst of a relentlessly bleak three-part series on the end of evangelicalism, which predicts that the United States is on the verge of an unavoidable, irreversible large-scale evangelical collapse that will render it a shadow of its former self and the scorn of an increasingly secular society. In part two, he speculates at length about what will be left—where Christians will turn in the midst of the burning rubble. (I suggest you read both before continuing.)
A bit of a foreword before I began responding/adding to these two massive posts with a massive post of my own. There is little disputing that American evangelicalism is the midst of an epic decline, and will soon be a different entity than most of us recognize. I agree with many of his predictions, both about how evangelicals are falling and how they’ll try to rise again. But I think I might be a part of a slice of culture that he doesn’t address—a remnant many fighting the lost battle for an intellectual, orthodox faith would be encouraged to discover. I’m speculating, though, so I reserve the right to be wrong.
This will probably take several posts to articulate, so I’ll start by narrowing the discussion to this question: who really is the new young evangelical? Several of the “why it’s happening” points in Spencer’s doomsday scenario all fold into this question. He believes (numbers taken from part one) that 1) “evangelicals have fatally identified themselves with the culture war and political conservatism”; 2) they’ve failed to pass down their faith “in orthodox form that can take root and survive the secular onslaught”; and 3) haven’t developed Christian education that can compete with the “rising tide of secularism.” All of these errors mean the hope of the next evangelical generation is in the hands of people my age who might have grown up believing more in a right-wing cause than a merciful God, and are appropriately upset at the discovery. And I’ll admit, it's not easy to be optimistic. The American church looks less appealing now than perhaps it ever has. But on all three of Spencer's points, I think there is more reason for the church to hope than many people see.
1. Politics. I have strenuously argued against the mainstream media’s notion of a “new,” more left-wing young evangelical, and the “emergent” church’s own efforts to paint itself as the new mainstream. The Obama phenomenon has clouded all of this even further. An irresistibly fashionable candidate who embodied wisdom, deliberation and unity, Obama was a magnet for “searching” young evangelicals who hate the nationalism, partisanship, culture wars, and narrow political ideology in their backgrounds. The man met the moment, and, just like for the rest of the country, voting for Obama was a way to make a clean break with the past decade.
But there is absolutely no evidence that the same thing would have happened with any other Democrat candidate: not Hillary Clinton, not John Edwards. This suggests that the young evangelical “party shift” has far more to do with what they’re running from than what they’re running toward. There are many whose critical view of their roots is so overwhelming that they can’t picture themselves in the church at all, but I think that reaction may be less visceral and prevalent than Spencer fears. Bible Belt politics are without a doubt the strongest turnoff to evangelical twenty-somethings, but their reactions don’t necessarily turn them to permanent secularism and cynicism. It’s something that needs to happen; young Christians need to be critical, to make clear that we’re not happy with the going cultural perception of our faith. All of them won’t grow out of their need to rebel, but many will soon turn to fixing what’s been lost.
2. Lack of orthodoxy. The second mistake after assuming the politically disenchanted are gone forever is to assume they’re flocking to heresy. There’s been an extraordinary impulse to uncritically link the “questioning” sector of the young evangelicals with other sectors—particularly, the loose theology and left-of-center politics of, for lack of a better term, the emergent church. Before I proceed to cut it to size, I’ll say that I think this movement is the product of many right impulses and good intentions: broader politics, less flag-waving, more emphasis on aesthetics, and more contextual reading of Scripture. But its greatest weaknesses are its lack of intellectual stamina, its youth-culture obsession, and its worship of emotional reactionism in both theology and politics. The “social gospel” as a dogma is the prosperity gospel inside-out—different direction, same detachment from reality. In this sense, with a significant swath of young Christians moving toward a progressive ideology that’s as selectively “biblical” as the religious right, you could say they’re open to heresy. But, as Spencer agrees in part d) of his second post, they’re smaller in number than their noise level suggests, and the natural consequences of being a “wind of doctrine” is that, after a while, people get tired of flapping around.
In light of that, he underestimates the potential effects of his b) and c) predictions—respectively, an energized Catholicism/orthodoxy, and a “small” movement for theological reconstruction. Those two are already happening in force. I’ve lived in both the Washington, D.C. area and in New York City in the past few years, and the trend among twenty-somethings is distinctively, resoundingly toward theologically serious Christianity. I’ve met more than a few post-evangelicals exploring Catholicism. Reformed Sovereign Grace churches are overwhelmingly popular with young professionals and young families in the D.C./Virginia/Maryland area, the similar Redeemer Presbyterian is the hot ticket for culture-shapers in New York. The wildly successful Mars Hill churches in Seattle are, while constantly in the shadow of the over-the-top Mark Driscoll, attracting throngs with raw, no-holds-barred theology. There is no self-help feel-good-ism there, no whitewashing multiculturalism. That these churches receive such a response in the most socially liberal metropolises in the country is, I think, a sign of orthodoxy’s increasing attractiveness. Let’s not dismiss that too quickly.
3. Uncompetitive education. I may have the weakest response of the three on this point, but I still think Spencer does some underestimating. I assume he means higher education, since most evangelicals don’t attend religious primary/secondary schools. Taken broadly, Christian higher education seems to still be a prehistoric animal full of obsolete ideas and narrow theology. But there is a movement against that trend in the most unlikely places. In the theological sector, there’s The Criswell College, a “southern Baptist” school in Dallas that’s turned into a hotbed of a sort of conservative Anglicanism. (The Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, is followed almost cultishly, leading to some of the best critical thinking about theology and society I’ve heard out of a Bible school.)
In the political/cultural sector, there’s even more evidence. Despite the overwhelmingly conservative politics of students going into places like Patrick Henry College, The King’s College, New Saint Andrews College, etc, the post-graduation results are diverse and encouraging. Most of their students are extremely intelligent, serious-minded individuals who manage to reconcile intellectual curiosity with a healthy respect for tradition (“orthodoxy,” if we’re talking about theology). These institutions are positioned to have a greater effect on the next era of evangelicalism than any seminary, because they emphasize serious theology in cooperation with real-world experience. Read their press materials and they might sound like power-hungry right-wingers. But talk to the students who have achieved the most post-graduation, and you’ll find something different.
These schools among the first Christian institutions that prepare students for careers and influence outside the church, and base it on classical liberal ideas that still find broad common ground in society. Whether students come into these schools with solid theological grounding or not, they quickly pick it up in the competitive, high-achieving atmosphere. And wrestling with men like Neitzsche and Marx and Heidegger, it’s impossible for them to emerge with anything resembling fundamentalist Christianity. Their walls are broken down, but in an environment where they can slowly—and more confidently—put their worldview together again. And their qualifications and connections poise them for positions of power Christians have never had.
Conclusion. This is long enough, but a quick word in summary. Evangelical excesses and missteps of the past 30 years may indeed be sending the United States toward an anti-Christian apocalypse. But the lack of hope for any kind of renewal is, I think, based on a vantage point buried too deep in the beast. If you’re still in a Southern evangelical church it may be hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. If you’re up here looking down there, it’s not as dim. Which leads me to a final admonition for the way we look at the next few years: The solution isn’t going to come from the Bible Belt. It will come from those who have left it, been on both sides, and best know how to fix it.
Now, time for you to tell me how I'm wrong.
Update, Feb 6, 2009: A follow-up to this post here.
| SUBSCRIBE | | CATEGORIES: Evangelicals, The TimesCommenting is closed for this article.
David Sessions is the editor of Patrol and is a political reporter for PoliticsDaily.com. His writing has appeared in Slate and New York, among others. Based at Patrol''s headquaters in New York City, he blogs a lot of nothing about everything from media to politics to music.
Email / Twitter / Facebook / RSS
united-states Mar 10, 2010
A Self-Critical America is a Better America
movies Mar 03, 2010
Military Critics Keep Sniping at 'The Hurt Locker,' Missing the Point
Web-Patrol Feb 08, 2010
Reading Assignments for the Week
american-idiots Feb 06, 2010
On Governing, American Stupidity and Congressional Corruption
Sarah-Palin Feb 03, 2010
It's Not Profiteering If Sarah Palin Does It
video-patrol Jan 27, 2010
Why Financial Reform Must Happen Now
wtf Jan 27, 2010
"The Truth Shall Set You Free"
Not-So-Fast Jan 27, 2010
In Your Dreams, Cowboy
islam Jan 27, 2010
Liberté de Conscience
Faith-Crisis Jan 25, 2010
Questioning Everything, Going Mad
On Books
The Skeptic's Survival Guide
| Jan 21, 2010
In The Hopeful Skeptic, Nick Fiedler offers a practical approach to skeptical faith.
Reporting from the Right
| Jan 12, 2010
Two new conservative Web sites, Big Journalism and The Daily Caller, mirror the battle over the Republican Party.
Fear Factor
| Dec 07, 2009
When evangelical organizations use homophobia and political dishonesty to motivate members to contribute.
I think you have made some good, solid, optimistic observations. I have two comments.
1) Speaking from a southern evangelical small town baptist church perspective, I CAN see light at the end of the tunnel. With people my age (40 something) coming into leadership, there is already a move toward the article’s solutions, albeit often a slow move.
2) When you say “the solution isn’t going to come from the Bible Belt. It will come from those who left it….”, you are slightly contradicting yourself. Those who left it and have been on both sides, WERE reared and given foundations (in the BB) that lend them the insight to possibly be the agents of change.
— a mom · Jan 29, 01:51 AM · #
It is truly amazing to me that American Protestants, many of whom say they want a return to orthodoxy, fall short of a real return to Orthodoxy. There are approximately 40,000 Protestant denominations in the world today, they all read out of the same bible, and none of them agree with each other. I am reminded of some scriptures which point out that “God is not the Author of confusion”, “how can two walk together if they be not agreed”? etc., etc. On the other hand, in genuine Eastern Orthodoxy, which is not the Roman Catholic Church, you find the ancient, historical, original Christian Church founded by Christ and the Apostles themselves. This Church is growing rapidly in America, has never changed it’s dogma, worships in the same way it did in the first century, has never had a crusade, never had an inquisition, was responsible for giving the world the canon of scripture and the very creed that defines what a Christian is and believes, has survived radical Islam, Atheist Communism and is thriving in the world’s cesspool of secularisim. What we are witnessing in evangelicalism is an inevitable regurgatation of heresy. As a matter of fact, Prostestantism is the engine that drives Western Secularization. What comes next is a deeper Nihilism. At any rate you did hit upon something that I difinately agree with, many lack the ability for critical thinking!
INXC.
Seraphim
— Seraphim · Jan 29, 07:42 AM · #
i tend to agree with michael on the future of evangelicalism but i do see hope from the edges and the global south.
— andrew · Jan 29, 08:33 AM · #
If evangelicalism as we know it disintegrates, it may be an opportunity to rebuild a Church of Godfollowers that is less focused on denominational branding and more focused on modeling Jesus’ active love to transform hearts and communities.
— sharongracepjs · Jan 29, 09:09 AM · #
As someone attending one of the Sovereign Grace churches you mention, it definitely strikes me as odd to hear people talk about “the end of evangelicalism.” Where I live it is thriving and young, by God’s grace.
— Sarah P. · Jan 29, 09:27 AM · #
This is fascinating stuff. I agree with a number of his premises but can’t persuade myself that everything is as gloomy as he concludes.
I think you’re right that he underestimates the dedication and numbers of his Part 2c category – the category I’d put myself in. Some of these people, as you point out, are very influential. And not to get all awash in historic sentimentalism, but bigger movements have started with far, far fewer people. (Martin Luther and his 95 Theses?) It just takes a dedicated, passionate few who can give answers to those are tired of intellectual bankruptcy and shrill, narrow politics.
It’s obvious that evangelicalism is evolving to fix some of the problems he’s talking about. Just in the past year, we’ve seen decided moves away from culture warring. It remains to be seen whether these movements towards a “Third Way” are actually viable (I have my doubts sometimes) but the point is that evangelicals are seeing these warning signs and struggling to find answers.
— Alisa · Jan 29, 09:35 AM · #
Addendum —- regarding my historical sentimentalism. Can’t forget that God is somewhere in all of this. There are movements that struggled to start for hundreds of years and when the time was right, things began to move pushed by the passionate, dedicated, intelligent, clearly God-blessed few.
I’m not saying God will find evangelicalism worth saving. There are so many parts of evangelicalism I wouldn’t mind seeing die. But God WILL find a vibrant, intelligent, passionate, relevant Church worth saving. We can be sure of that.
— Alisa · Jan 29, 10:06 AM · #
I lived in the Southern evangelical community, and am beginning the long climb out of the rubble of so-called “orthodoxy” into an understanding of God and the world that doesn’t separate the spiritual and the physical. Seeing as I am both sides of the issue, I can understand that evangelicals are going to continue to put up an epic fight— more so than some might expect from them— to regain their legitimacy. They will fail, but the martyrdom will be long and bloody. Their end is further off than perhaps suggested by the articles in question. Even so, the undoing of that movement will be the self-same undoing witnessed by the bygone spiritual trends of social groups past: lost relevancy means either redefining spirituality in the “modern” (regardless of what century we’re talking) or being made into museum artifacts.
Ironically, I feel like a lot of this “emergent” stuff will definitely be forgotten more quickly than much of the stereotypical conservative evangelistic trappings, if only because their hold on this society was deeper and lasted much longer than Emergents can hope for.
What’s paramount for myself as a believer then, is to find significance in understanding that I will never quite swallow the complexities and paradoxes of Christianity or Christian Spirituality, which is what makes its poetry and history all the more significant.
— John W · Jan 29, 12:53 PM · #
Fascinating, well-thought piece. I am, I suppose, something of an evangelical conservative Anglican (if the first two modifiers don’t contradict one another)… which makes me part of the movement toward Orthodoxy of which you speak. And I agree with Alisa, God’s Church will not fail.
Seraphim,
I’d be cautious bragging about the historical purity of Eastern Orthodoxy. You have as bloody a history as any church that’s been around long enough… what with St. Vladimir (St.? St.?), the bloody schism of the Old Believers (they believed that you did, in fact, change your style of worship enough to get tortured and killed for it), and some very regrettable affiliation with the KGB. Of course, many of the great, inspiring, and praiseworthy things you claim for the Eastern Orthodox Church are quite right… but it’s a long fall from a high horse, and the Eastern Orthodox Church has taken its share of lumps.
— Mark P · Jan 29, 02:44 PM · #
I’d be very very careful of conflating “orthodoxy” with being “theologically serious”. Mars Hill is an excellent example. They’re orthodox, sure, but they’re also a joke.
Meanwhile, those of us on the left end of mailine protestantism and catholicism who’ve spent the 60s,70s and 80s immersed in theology while ya’ll were trafficking in Moral Majority nonsense, DC Talk,—arriving at every insight the emergent folks hit but about 25 years earlier—we’re the “unserious” ones?
Come on, you’re smarter than that, David! You’re following after Andy Sullivan here, making sweeping claims about movements and thinkers that you haven’t explored in much depth. Example: post-evangelicals exploring Catholicism is precisely a function of needing a theologically serious way to address social justice issues. Catholicism of this hemisphere since dorothy day—vatican ii—gustavo guiterrez is all about developing that moral vocabulary.
— Kevin Erickson · Jan 30, 01:53 AM · #
I’m glad someone agrees with me that Mars Hill is a joke. Mark Driscoll is a chauvinist disguised as a minister, the kind who capitalizes on scandals like that of Ted Haggard to make himself heard. Which would be okay, if he actually had something to say.
— John W · Jan 31, 01:35 PM · #
David, I think you have some excellent observations that I hope the I-Monk will take to heart. Dispensational evangelicalism is fading, for sure. That’s because it’s rooted in an easy-believism that won’t keep its converts walking with Christ (because they were never really with him, only with his fire insurance) and an eschatology that simply will not stand the flames of persecution that will inevitably come to this great land (try telling a Pakistani brother that the great tribulation is some future experience!).
All in all the hope for the evangelical church is a purified body with a purified gospel that has passed the test of prosperity. We won’t sell as many books, or pack as many pews, but then again, what’s been selling as evangelicalism these past 2 decades has produced little that will last.
If more Christians would watch their life and their doctrine, as Paul urged young Timothy, we could avoid many of the mistakes we’ve seen. God-centered theology, when matched with a God-centered life, will sustain a person, a church, a spiritual kingdom until the consummation of all things.
— Kirk Whitworth · Jan 31, 02:42 PM · #
it be the end for them for good to much evil they are.
— kevin · Feb 1, 09:24 AM · #
IMonk’s lamentations are misplaced. He is bemoaning the decline of institutionalized, consumer-based, slick-marketed, parallel culture evangelicalism. The kind we’re fighting against as well. Perhaps, in the next 30 years, many churches will close. Maybe Christian bookstores will disappear from our shopping centers. Maybe the “Christian” or “inspirational” section of books and music will be eliminated from mainstream retailers. What’s the problem? 90% of all that is crap anyway. Evangelicalism has become a mile wide and an inch deep. If we contract in order to mend the ill effects of our overextension and to reconstruct the theological and intellectual roots of our faith, who says that’s a bad thing? Who says that will make the church weaker? The only things that are going away are those things that were not built to last. Why mourn their passing?
That’s why you can’t quantify the church. You can’t say, “Oh look, Christianity is in decline because there are fewer Christians.” That doesn’t mean a damn thing other than the seeds that fell on thorny soil never took root. Christianity is in the hearts and minds of the true believers and thrives best as a one-on-one, case-by-case upholding of the truth and courageous application of the same to people’s lives. If mass-consumer evangelicalism morphs into a serious, working, powerful faith by the time our children come of age, who cares what the numbers say?
— Croft · Feb 2, 04:56 PM · #
Thanks for the engagement.
1.I never predicted the end of evangelicalism. I predicted a collapse that would deeply reconfigure it, with mainstream evangelicals suffering the greatest fallout.
2) My definition of evangelicalism is mainstream, not emerging or outside of evangelicalism. It’s strange to read commenters talking as if I was saying THEIR alternative evangelicalism was vanishing. Not at all. In fact, I said the opposite.
3) David has taken any evidence of deviation- such as the Calvinistic reusurgence- and overestimated its significance. In my denomination, the largest Protestant denomination in the country- 6% identify as reformed. And a few small colleges are encouraging, but they won’t slow down what’s coming.
4) Read Christine Wicker’s numbers in Fall of the Evangelical Nation. The collapse is unavoidable, but it will NOT be the end of evangelicalism. I never suggested or predicted such a thing. In the second post, I was clear on what would be left: megachurches, charismatics, Calvinists and the remnants of missional/emerging. Out of this, something new and post evangelical will come.
Thanks again.
— iMonk · Feb 5, 12:34 PM · #
“In the multitude of people is the king’s honour: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince” (Proverbs 14:28).
I think we miss the point with our stories and prescriptions. Most of the children grow up and leave the church. Many to most will not come back. I have my own observations, of course: the youth who chose Buddha over Christ; the homeschooled son who joined the service and became a drunk; the two sons being prayed over who looked like they could have been brick walls; the smiling daughter, who seems to brim with the joy of the Holy Spirit, reading trash; the young woman who goes to “Sex in the City”, yet can’t find Job in the Bible.
We can go back and forth about the causes and what to do about it. But the fact of the matter is: I think just about everything I’ve read kind of misses the point. The youth aren’t going to stay with it once they reach the age of “maturity.” Churches consequentially will empty out as the few diehards left argue with each other about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Or something like that.
Sure, there always will be a remnant. But after God personally told Elijah that there was a remnant, Elijah still would not go back to face Jezebel. God had to raise up someone else.
— Michael · Feb 5, 02:01 PM · #
I don’t think that the collapse of evangelicalism is something that should be viewed as a particularly “gloomy” thing. Perhaps our particular “brand” of church must decrease so that Christ might increase. Of course we can only accept that if we open our eyes to see the dramatic failures of the American Evangelical church to create actual disciples that engage and transform culture in a positive and loving way. Younger people are leaving the church at very high rates—but not all of them are leaving God. It is the churches duty to understand where they are failing in connecting these people to God in a vibrant faith expression. Not that it’s all the church’s fault—but a great deal is I believe.
I am interested in how you describe the “social gospel“as detached from reality” and “selectively biblical.” I know the social gospel movements of the 20s and 30s were, but does that same thing apply to today’s movements just because they are emphasizing similar missional concerns? Divorced from the rest of the concerns in the Bible it can be called “heretical” if you want to use that word, but the social concerns are parts of the Bible that have long been ignored by Evangelicals in a fright of works-based faith, but the words of Jesus don’t always mesh with our Evangelical priorities and doctrines. How are the words of Jesus about caring for the poor and healing the sick “winds of doctrine” that will die down in time? Maybe only when the Holy Spirit has left our churches completely will that wind stop blowing—then we might find the church (kingdom) where it was supposed to be all along, within the hearts of his people.
— luke · Feb 5, 02:24 PM · #
Luke,
There are various levels and intensities of social justice teachings, but, painting with a broad brush, they’re divorced from reality this way: “social justice” is a pretty meaningless term. No one is promised an equal outcome in American society or in Scripture, and concern for “social justice” is often codespeak for supporting government-mandated “equality” fantasies. Prosperity gospel makes an idol of wealth and success, and social gospel makes an idol of opposing wealth and success.
We should absolutely care for the less fortunate, and give greatly of ourselves to help them. But “social justice,” like some religious right obsessions, is closely aligned to a political ideology that isn’t supported by Scripture and has no foundation in the Constitution.
— David · Feb 5, 02:42 PM · #
With respect – I would suggest that those who attend Sovereign Grace type churches or one of the other new reformed city churches should be very careful in commenting.
Much of what you say seems like confirmation bias to me.
As much as i love these movements, it can be easy to forget they are a tiny minority of the complete picture.
— Chris E · Feb 5, 05:57 PM · #
Thanks for your response David. I appreciate the dialogue.
It seems like you are saying that you are against “equality” as a type of fantasy—does that mean that you are for inequality? I agree that “social justice” can be a buzzword that aligns groups with particular political ideologies that aren’t biblical in themeselves—but isn’t justice very scriptural? “social” is just as opposed to “personal.” Yes sometimes it can be opposed to wealth and success—though that is painting with a broad brush like you said. I don’t feel like that excuses us from seeking justice—and what does it mean to really give and care for the less fortunate if we are content to let the gap widen between rich and poor. I don’t find capitalism supported by scripture—though that doesn’t mean I think socialism is either. “Social Justice” does not have to be wed with the government. And I would also be suspect with putting the Constitution and American society as a form of authority for how Christians should live. I find that much less supported by scripture than the themes of justice and sacrificial giving to the poor and caring for orphans and widows.
Those are just my thoughts and perspectives at this point though and are always open to being discussed, shaped, and changed. Thanks for your perspective.
— luke · Feb 5, 07:45 PM · #
You’re right that Scripture doesn’t endorse any kind of economic theory. But to use the term “social justice,” you have to think social INjustice is a pretty big deal. You have to believe some social groups are oppressed by others and that the rich are getting wealthy on the backs of the poor. If social justice simply means studying society’s problems and looking for solutions, then fine. But if it means what the term inherently connotes—economic egalitarianism—then you’ve lost me. Not because I don’t care about the poor, but because there’s no evidence that that will do anything except shove society toward the lowest common denominator.
Sure, the Bible doesn’t bodly endorse capitalism, but the failures of the redistributionist impulse in America—particularly in the areas of poverty—are numerous and frightful, scenes of astounding waste and incompetence. On the other hand, there are many examples of effective compassion, and it’s a shame for Christians to pursue the former instead of the latter. It’s, to me, no different than the religious right’s determination to outlaw gay marriage: fixation on a partisan government panacea instead of doing the work (note: the WORK ) the church is supposed to do. Compassion that’s focused simply on leveling economic gaps isn’t real compassion, it’s just benevolent social engineering.
— David · Feb 5, 08:21 PM · #
Re #3 — i think a big part of Michael’s point is about the primary/secondary experience, given the relative weakness of religious education among evangelicals broadly defined.
So what we’re talking about is confirmation/pastor’s class/Sunday school/youth group, and how the faith is taught and formed in those settings. Right now, they assume it’s mostly being delivered somewhere else, which it ain’t. The branch of the movement that figures out how to effectively deliver solid, orthodox faith formation other than through having their own in-house K-12 school will become a major factor in future evangelicalism.
— Jeff · Feb 5, 10:14 PM · #
I agree with the earlier comment re: movements such as Sovereign Grace and Acts 29 not getting to inflated an idea about how much influence they have. The Calvinist resurgence makes an awful lot of noise, but these churches are starting to collapse in on themselves: check out sgmrefuge.com and sgmsurvivors.com
Not to be too harsh, but it’s a lot of the same smooth marketing covering over theological shallowness and a lack of concern for social justice that gets criticized in the more mainstream evangelical churches. Just because Mahaney and Driscoll purport to sit in Calvin’s seat doesn’t make them any less of a blow of the winds of doctrine than the emergents are.
— TBG · Feb 6, 01:02 AM · #
When people speak of equality, I always wonder what they mean… equality under the law? Equality before God?
Most uses of “social justice” seem to imply David’s economic egalitarianism: equality of condition. Justice means everybody having the same stuff, living the same way. This idea inevitably leads to injustice and chaos… rather than justice and order. And it’s simply an impossible Utopian. You can’t artificially elevate the poor to wealth, but you can artificially bring the wealthy down to the level of the impoverished — and that’s all social engineers and central planners have ever done.
— Mark P · Feb 6, 11:22 AM · #
It seems to me you missed the point. What will emerge out of the collapse of Evangelicalistm as it stands today is what we used to have in Evangelicalism before it began its Fundamentalistic Flirtations. What Evangelicalism is today is much more like Fundagelicalism. It resembles a J. Frank Norris kind of paroday of itself. It’s a sham. The real church will emerge as Post Evangelical — somewhat smaller and struggling to find what composes orthodoxy from among the various denominations and house church movements that believe/interpret various doctrines differently. But Spencer is spot on as are you when you say it’s what young evangelicals are running from. The Religious Right is largely responsible for burying the once great broad interdenominational movement of Christians from many tradions.
— Tim Adkison · Feb 7, 09:28 AM · #