Most certainly, there are many more things I love about Christianity than what I hate. However, I thought I would spend a bit of time here and open up the conversation in a different direction. These are the top eight things I “hate” about Christianity, in order.

(Oh, and since we have thousands of first-time visitors here everyday, let me be clear…I am a very committed Evangelical Christian.)

8. Unanswered prayer = God’s “no”. Prayer in general is hard. It is hard to keep up with someone whose relationship techniques do not mirror anything we practice on earth. The though-you-do-not-see-him-now-but-believe-in-him” (1 Pet. 1:8) thing is really bizarre. And when it comes to prayer (i.e. talking to God) it culminates in some frustrations. When I pray for something that does not get answered (i.e. my request does not happen), people often say, “that is God’s ways of saying “no” or “not now.” So, in Christianity, God’s ignoring is another way of rejecting a request? I don’t like that. I am not saying it is not true, its just I would prefer something else.

7. Testimonies, BC and AD. No, it is not the testimonies themselves, but the burden of what a testimony must bear. There has to be a former way of life before Christ (BC) and what you have become after Christ (AD). The burden is that in order to have a “great” testimony, pressure is placed upon you to present yourself in a nice and polished way that says, “Look what God has done with me: Can you believe it? You can be like me too.” Testimonies are more valid (not to mention more believable and inspiring) when the “finished product” (the AD) is never really finished at all, but still broken. I don’t like the shallow “now and then” of the Christian testimony format.

6. Watchdog ministries. Watchdog ministries. Lighthouse ministries. Appraisal ministries. They go by many names. They are full-time Christian snipers. Let me back up. There are certain ministries that exist to find and expose false teaching. I have no problem with exposing false teaching. Indeed, it is part of what we are to do as teachers…correct false doctrine. However, it is very rare to find a ministry or a person who does this well. Most of the ministries and people who do this are arrogant, ungracious, and counter-productive and themselves need to be exposed. I have worked for one of these ministries (a long time ago). After a while, the ministry becomes obsessed, concerning itself with nothing else other than beating someone up in the name of the Lord. When there is no controversy, like a drug addict in withdrawals, they begin to create controversy ex nihilo or go back to dead horses and kick them. Their goal soon loses the priority of truth, learning, and understanding. I think that many people would have nothing to talk about if there was not someone to kick.

5. Seeker-driven Churchianity. (“Churchianity: a term a took from my friend Michael Spencer). That’s not really the best way to put it. A better way might be “compromised Christianity.” The reason why it is often called “seeker churchianity” is based on its primary desire to fulfill the “Great Commission” through reaching the lost. But there is a line crossed. I cannot always tell you where it is, but I will go out on a limb here and say that the majority of Evangelical Churches today have crossed that line a long time ago. I carry I poker chip in my pocket. Written on it are the words “Leaving Lust Vegas.” It was taken from a church that was doing a sermon series about lust and decided to use a modern Hollywood and Las Vegas theme to communicate their message. I can’t imagine how much it cost to have these chips made (not to mention how little practical effect they really have). I also have a flier from a sermon series called, “Girls Gone Wild, Bible Style.” This was from a different church who was attempting to reach its audience in a relevant way. I understand why they do this and even admire their intentions. However, I hate it when the Church so much wants to reach the world that one can hardly tell the difference between the culture of the Church and the culture of Hollywood. The church is different and we should do things a particular way. Wal-Mart is different. Disney World is different. The movie theater is different. Fraternities at the University of Oklahoma are different. Congress is different. Just because one is different does not mean they cannot be relevant in accomplishing that which their purpose demands. Why is the church so scared of being different? Continue Reading »

I am normally one of those people who attempts to see the good in all things. I continually tell people that they need to calm down. “Get a grip.” I tell them. ”Things are not as bad as they seem.” “You have to look at the good.” But today is not one of those days and the issue is not one of those issues. The alarm is sounding and I don’t plan on handing out earplugs.

It has been over a decade since Mark Noll penned the piercing words: “The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that there is not much of an Evangelical mind” (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind). Sixteen years to be exact. It was a call for Evangelicalism to recover from the spiritual atrophy brought about by a neglect of the mind in favor of a shallow form of Christianity that offered no history, creed, or hope, only self-help remedies without any foundational basis.

Since this time, a lot has happened. But, broadly speaking, not too much progress toward a reformation of the mind. Biblical and theological literacy continues to shame us.  We have seen the children of Evangelicalism turn bitter and pout about their heritage, demanding that all things must change, but not really knowing why or how. They began to implement a sour change that gave birth to a short lived movement without a sustainable or defendable creed, and no certain hope. 

We have seen the iconic fall of the “seeker” mentality when Willow Creek admirably confessed that their method of discipleship was bankrupt. According to Bill Hybels, leader of Willow Creek and the seeker-sensitive movement:

“Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back, it wasn’t helping people that much. Other things that we didn’t put that much money into and didn’t put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for.” Continue Reading »

There used to be a time when your loyalty to the Protestant cause was judged by how much you hated Catholics. But today, with all the ecumenical dialogue, the Manhattan statements, the ECT council, and the postmodern virtue of tolerance, people are much more willing to let water under the bridge. “Maybe we overreacted” is the thought of many. 

To the Catholics, Protestants are no longer anathema (which is pretty bad), but are “separated brethren” (which is not so bad).

Attitudes are changing, we could argue, for the better. But have the issues changed?

Four hundred years ago we had a “situation” in the church. We call it the “Great Reformation.” Catholics understand it as yet another rebellious schism. The first major division in the Christian church happened in 1054 when the Eastern church got fed up with the Pope and thumbed its nose at him (or something like that). The Great Reformation was the second. For Protestants, this was not only a reforming of the church, but a reclaiming of the Gospel which had been obscured and overshadowed by the institutionalized church of the day.

While there were and are a lot of issues that divide Roman Catholics and Protestant, there are two which overshadow the rest: authority and justification. The issue of authority has been called the “formal” cause of the Reformation while the issue of justification was the “material” cause. In this brief post I would like to focus on these two issues.

1. Authority: Where do we go for truth?

To the institutionalized church of the day (now known as the Roman Catholic Church), both Scripture and Tradition (notice the capital “T”) represented the one ”deposit of faith” that was handed down from the Apostles (i.e. written and unwritten tradition). The church, as represented by the Pope and the congregation of bishops, could interpret both infallibly being protected by the Holy Spirit. Think of a three legged stool. All three (Scripture, Tradition, and the Church) serve as the stool of ultimate authority for the church. Continue Reading »

We talk a lot about this: essentials and non-essentials. In fact, at the Credo House of Theology (our headquarters), right when you walk in the front door you will see written on the wall in Latin the words in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. Translated into English, this means, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This phrase (often wrongly attributed to Augustine) comes from an otherwise obscure German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century named Rupertus Meldenius. It has served as a place holder for a sort of Evangelical Credo (statement of faith). It expresses the idea of orthodoxy and grace. It reminds us that there are essential Christian beliefs and there are non-essentials.

I remember hearing a pastor once say concerning doctrine, “You are either one-hundred percent right or one-hundred percent wrong. There is no in-between and there are no gray areas. God is not confused or unsure. Why should we be?” While this might be true concerning God, for us things are different. For now, we see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12).

As well, Paul spoke about those things that are “of first  importance [protois]” (emphasis mine). Christ spoke about straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:24) and the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23).

This is one of the things that (should) distinguish us as Evangelicals. We are those who unite around those things that we believe are the weightiest, the things that are the most important, the essentials, while we (should) give liberty in the non-essentials. I often tell people that there are some things that I believe that I would die for; there are some things that I believe that I would lose an arm for; there are some things that I believe that I would lose a finger for; and then there are some things that I believe that I would not even get a manicure for.

Like in all areas of life, we need to learn to choose our battles carefully. But in order to do this, we must first come to know the difference between essentials and non-essentials.

But (as the criticism goes) it is not that easy to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. I have written on this before. More importantly for now, many Evangelicals have simply never been exposed to this and therefore practice their theology in a much more legalistic way, believing every conviction that they have to be representative of a hill upon which they should die.

Here I want to elaborate upon and expand the discussion a little bit. While we need to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, we also need to recognize that there are different types of essentials. Along with this goes my belief that there are different ways to “break fellowship” based on our beliefs. In other words, not all essentials are equal. Some are essential to the very foundation of Christianity, but some are only essential to a particular denomination or expression. This will require different types of breaks in fellowship.

Let me start with a chart, then I will briefly break it down:

click on chart to enlarge

Essential for salvation: These are the most essential doctrines of all essentials. This includes what every Christian should always be willing to die for. In essence, if someone does not believe the doctrines that are “essential for salvation,” they are not saved. Continue Reading »

Last week nearly 10,000 people invaded the French Quarter of New Orleans for a three-day conference. It wasn’t a convention of Mardi Gras mask-makers, a congregation of Bourbon Street miscreants, or an assembly of Hustler devotees. No, this was the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. This is a collective of the world’s religious scholars. SBL is the largest society of biblical scholars on the planet. The program of lectures and meetings is the size of a phone book for a mid-sized city. Too many choices! So many great biblical scholars were there: N. T. Wright, Jon Dominic Crossan, D. A. Carson, Bart Ehrman, Stanley Porter, Frederick Danker, Alan Culpepper, Craig Evans, Robert Stein, Joel Marcus, April Deconick, Elaine Pagels, John Kloppenborg, R. B. Hays, Peter Enns, Buist Fanning, Harold Attridge, Luke Timothy Johnson, Peter Davids, Craig Keener, Ben Witherington, Rikki Watts, Robert Gundry, Emanuel Tov, Walter Brueggemann, Eric Myers, Eugene Boring, J. K. Elliott—that’s just a small sampling of the names. Liberals and evangelicals, theists and atheists, those who are open and those who are hostile to the Christian faith—all were there.

Overall, the Society of Biblical Literature is comprised of professors who teach religion, humanities, biblical studies, history, ethics, English literature, and theology at virtually all the schools in the nation that offer such subjects. Not just the United States, but a multitude of other countries are represented (although because of the long distances and short conference, many scholars did not come). Private schools, public schools, elite schools, and unknown schools—all were represented. Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Tübingen, Chicago, Duke, Dallas Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Seminary, Princeton, Yale, Biola, Claremont, Manchester, Durham, St Andrews, Westminster Seminary, Wheaton, Gordon-Conwell, Emory, TCU’s Brite Divinity School, SMU, University of Texas, Northwestern University, Rice, Brandeis, London School of Theology, Münster University, Notre Dame, community colleges, even unaccredited schools were represented.

As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty.

The annual SBL conference is a place where young scholars can present their papers, meet senior scholars, and talk to publishers about book projects. Great opportunities are at SBL! Master’s students meet with professors whom they’d like to study with for their PhDs. They make appointments, go out for coffee, or just happen to bump into them at the conference. Continue Reading »

Revised, updated and massively expanded.

(Please note: these are not really meant to be serious. This in no way reflects my doctrine—don’t go there. Lighten-up! After all, it is categorized under “funny”).

1. “Heads bowed, eyes closed . . .”: During a church service, you may hear a preacher abruptly break into this unexpected dialogue with the audience: “Heads bowed, eyes closed. If you have accepted Christ into your heart [more later], I want you to raise your hand.” Don’t get scared. Nothing bad is going to happen to you. It is not a fancy way to steal your money or pull anything sneaky. It is the preacher’s way of helping the uncomfortable seeker feel more at ease about accepting Christ. It is best if you just follow instructions here.

2. “Into the Word”: This is a portion of an important phrase that may be communicated by seasoned Christians in many different contexts. It always has reference to the Bible. Yes, I know, the Bible is more than one word, in fact it is thousands, but once you are a Christian, it becomes singular and has a definite article, “the,” attached to it. If you hear someone say, “Are you in the Word?,” this is another way of saying, “You need to read the Bible if you are going to be spiritual like me.” IMPORTANT: This has no relation to the phrases, “Word to your mother,” “Word up,” or just plain “Word.”

3. Backslidden: This has no reference to the past event of sliding down a hill on your back. It is used to refer to those Christians who are now suspect in their original confession due to their current participation in a particular sin.

4. “Ask Jesus into your heart”: Although there is nowhere in Scripture that people are commanded to ask Jesus into their heart, this has become the primary means by which Evangelicals believe a person becomes a Christian. Don’t be scared here. Heart surgery, high cholesterol, and cardiovascular exercise (or lack thereof) have no bearing on Christ’s presence in your heart. He does not actually live there.

5. Soul Winning: Please understand, this  is not a game. It is the act whereby one person tells another about Christ and the person believes, thereby having their souls “saved” (i.e. “won”). I know that normally if there are winners, you would think there are losers, but not in Soul Winning.

6. “I see that hand . . .”: This is related to #1. The pastor has just asked for raised hands while everyone’s heads are bowed and eyes closed. “I see that hand” can mean one of two things: 1) Someone is indicating that they have accepted Jesus by raising their hand. 2) The pastor is acting like someone has to be more heroic and finance the new building. VERY IMPORTANT: Avoid any temptation to look for the hand when the pastor says “I see that hand.” Although science is inconclusive, we are not sure if you looking for the hand raised has any bearing on the effectiveness of the salvation process. It is best to be safe and avoid giving in to this temptation. To be very spiritual, just thank the Lord for that person and pray that they become a Calvinist.

7. Contemporary Christian Music: Avoid at all costs. Yes, many of your Christian friends will act as if they like it. Musicians, sociologists, and psychologists are perplexed as to the reasons why. We believe it is due to the pressured environment of the Christian community for Christians to do all things Christian, but this has no bearing on your salvation. Please, don’t feel pressure to like it.

8. Christian Movies: See “Contemporary Christian Music.”

9. Baptism: The spiritual act of going under water. Yeah, I know, most people don’t understand it, but you must do it anyway. Oh, also, someone else has to push, drop, or lower you; otherwise, it is ineffective.

10. “Blessed”: This word must take the place of many words, but the most important replacement is with the word “luck.” Super-spiritual Christians (SSC) will often be offended and pugnaciously correct you if you ever say, “Good luck.” Even if you are just using it as a casual phrase with the best of intentions, the SSC will see it as an opportunity to correct you and show you how Christian they are compared to you by saying “I don’t believe in luck, only God’s blessings.” When you have someone correct you, just act as if you have learned something and then be on your way.

11. The Water that Jesus Turned into Wine was Diluted to a Watery Grape juice: Although there is no biblical, historic, or cultural evidence to suggest it, you must believe that Christ did not turn the water into wine, but into watery grape juice. This is a cardinal doctrine.

12. Lord’s Table (Baptist): It goes by many other names, but this represents the time when you eat a really small cracker and a small cup of grape juice and afterwords are more spiritual because of it. Think mystery. It is very important to know that this is not the church providing lunch. As well, those who are on the Atkins diet cannot become Christian because of the high carbs in both the juice and cracker.

Lord’s Table (Presbyterian/Anglican/Methodist/Catholic): Free booze.

13. Public Prayer: You will often find yourself in a situation where others are praying and you don’t know what to do. As a general rule, you should remain quiet and attempt to pray with them. If your mind drifts just try to make a quiet, yet slightly audible, sounds like “um” (not “ummmm”), “yes Lord,” and “amen.” They may be completely out of context, but you will still be better off. This is very well accepted.

14. God D*%n: The only phrase that you can use that will immediately let others know that you are not a Christian and the only exception to the once-saved-always-saved doctrine (despite the fact that it is not really taking God’s name in vain).

15. “Jesus”: This is an acceptable answer to pretty much every question in the Christian community. For example: Who is God? Jesus. Why are you alive? Jesus. Why are we here? Jesus. What website were you looking at? Jesus. What did you learn about today? Jesus. What is your favorite music? Jesus. What book are you reading? Jesus. Why don’t you want to go to _________ with me? Jesus. What planet is that? Jesus. It always works.

16. “Jesus!”: Bad word, see # 14.

17. Rush Limbaugh: This is the only person in existence who has not asked Jesus into their heart but is nonetheless going to heaven. Continue Reading »

1. Theological Maximalist

Most every doctrine is essential.

One who seeks unity only with those with whom there is maximal agreement. There is quite a separationist mentality in this group. They are ready to fight for every crumb, believing it to be in honor of the Lord. If it is the word of the Lord, it is the word of the Lord. How can one regulate its importance? All issues are equal, or at least close to it.

Historic Roman Catholicism, some Eastern Orthodox, and Fundamentalists would normally share this perspective.

2. Theological Minimalist

Most every doctrine is non-essential.

One who sees Christianity as a system of belief that only recognizes the least common denominator. It’s a bare-minimum approach. In other words, let’s just find out what all those who call themselves Christian believe and say that this is true Christianity, and then let’s not talk about anything else. Talking about what divides, well . . . divides. And division is bad, bad, and double bad. Therefore, let’s just all get along.

Many of those in pop Evangelicalism church take this perspective.

3. Theological Centrist

Lets meet in the middle.

One who seeks unity by finding areas of compromise. Taking the dialectical method, opposing positions are rarely correct, but the truth is found in a center. Opponents would say that this approach compromises the vitality of the truth, while adherents would respond that no one really has the exclusive truth.

Many in more liberal Churches share this perspective.

4. Theological Centralist

Let’s unite around the central issues of the faith and give liberty in other areas.

A centralist is focused on the most important elements of the faith so that the other issues can be seen in light of the perspective it provides. This type assumes that there are essential (cardinal) and non-essential (non-cardinal) issues of the Christian faith and seeks to create a doctrinal taxonomy or hierarchy. Ultimately, the only issues that should divide are those which deviate from the center. They believe that the center provides the anchor from which all other conversation will find its ground. The center, to the centralist, is the person and work of Christ (i.e., who he is and what he did). This does not mean that non-essential issues are not important, only that we should allow liberty in places where there can be legitimate disagreement.

Most Evangelicals and some Eastern Orthodox hold this perspective.

It is in this camp that I can be found roasting marshmallows.

Here are some differences between the four positions:

Maximalist: Let’s find all denominators.
Minimalist: Let’s find the least common denominator.
Centrist: Let’s create a new denominator that is somewhere in the middle.
Centralist: Let’s find the most important denominator.

Maximalist: We will militantly divide over all issues since all issues are of equal importance.
Minimalist: Issues that people disagree upon unnecessarily divide, therefore, let’s not discuss disagreements.
Centrist: Let’s all move more toward the middle ground, then we can get along.
Centralist: If we are united around the centrality of Christ, let all other issues find perspective in this agreement.

Maximalist: The truth is in the maximum.
Minimalist: The truth is in the minimal.
Centrist: The truth is in the middle.
Centralist: The truth is central.

Maximalist: Approach to Church history: All traditions that do not completely agree with us are anathema.
Minimalist: Approach to Church history: Find the minimal areas of agreement and form a new tradition.
Centrist: Approach to Church history: Use the dialectical method of understanding history as a stepping stone to the evolution of truth.
Centralist: Approach to Church history: Find the central areas of agreement and recognize this commonality.

Maximalist: Non-essentials = essentials (there is no such thing)
Minimalist: Non-essentials = non-importance
Centrist: Non-essentials = everything
Centralist: Non-essentials should be put into their relative positions of importance to the degree that they affect the central issues.

Where do you roast your marshmallows?

This was going to be just a comment on the last post. But seeing as how the last post is getting so much traffic, I decided that I should turn it into a short post all its own.

I get it. I was wrong. I recant.

I wrote a blog post yesterday criticizing the wisdom of John Piper’s tweet from a couple of days ago:

He said: “An easy way to gather a wimpy army is to summon all the soldiers who are boldly determined not to sound like Fundamentalists.”

I called into question the tactfulness of using the word “Fundamentalist” in such a way proclaiming that I myself don’t want to sound like a Fundamentalist, yet I am not a wimp. I then explained what Fundamentalism has come to mean in distinction to Evangelicalism (that part of the post I stand behind as absolute fact that is beyond question something I believe to be true).

However, on my 30+ minute commute to work, on I35 it hit me…

I think I “get” Piper’s quote now. He is saying that if your goal is not to sound like a fundamentalist, then you have the wrong goal set. Our goal should be to proclaim the truth, not to keep from sounding like a group that people associate with imbalance and intolerance. In other words, whatever the truth is, we should not be shy about proclaiming it. Those shy about the proclamation of truth are wimpy and, often, simply don’t want to sound like Fundamentalists!

I agree. We are weak when we are so scared of wrong associations that we keep silent. We are wimpy when we won’t stand up for what we believe because we are scared we might be wrong. We are impotent when we cover our mouths because we are scared that the truth will offend someone.

Amen Piper.

Also (i.e. however, but, etc.), I would add something that is just the opposite to balance it out and let you know how I am thinking about this. Here is a new pithy statement that I would stand behind just as much as Piper’s for the same reasons:

“An easy way to gather a scared army is to summon all the soldiers who are boldly determined not to sound like Liberals.”

What do I mean here? The same thing. When your pursuit of truth becomes defined by a preset notion of who you want to be and who you don’t want to be, then it is impotent, sterile and timid. If you are scared that you are going to look like a liberal, it means that you have made camp and are afraid of offending your other comrades in your camp.  A liberal, in this case, is someone who is going to progress beyond the status quo to advance the cause, for good or for ill. Theologically, if you are too scared to sound like a liberal, you are probably going to maintain a life and career of confirming prejudice. You will never challenge the status quo, even if you are convicted of its truth.

I am glad that Martin Luther was not scared of sounding like a liberal. 

We need those who are not scared of sounding like a Fundamentalist, Liberal, Evangelical, Emerger or whatever. We need those who follow truth and conviction without shame or fear of reprisal. We need those who defend the camp and those who are scouts. Above all, we need those who proclaim the Gospel without fear of wrongful association.

Defining terms.

You know what they say: whenever you are losing an argument, just stop and require your opponent to define their terms ad infinitum. That way the argument gets lost in the hopeless idea that all you are doing is talking past each other. It is a dirty move in debate, but, in reality, we do need to stop every once in awhile, catch our breath, and define our terms.

The term “fundamentalist,” I find, is very ambiguous. It is very difficult to know what people mean when they use it. Nine times out of ten I would not call myself a fundamentalist; eight times out of ten I would repudiate the designation. This is why I was quite taken aback when John Piper tweeted this the other day:

“An easy way to gather a wimpy army is to summon all the soldiers who are boldly determined not to sound like Fundamentalists.”

I was even more surprised when so many people “retweeted” (RT) it (i.e. they thought it was a good statement that they should pass on through their Twitter account).

When I read this, I thought to myself, Sheesh, I am quite determined not to sound like a Fundamentalist. In fact, I don’t want to sound like one, act like one, or be designated as one. So there! But then I thought, I am not wimpy. I am not wimpy at all. You should see me get after my bag in my garage. There ain’t a wimpy bone in me. Well, come to think of it, I have been getting sick a lot lately. But I will get over it. You know why? Because I am not wimpy!

But I suspect that I am defining “fundamentalist” a bit differently than Piper. At least, I hope I am.

I am an Evangelical, not a fundamentalist! I say this with a bit of pride. But I have come to recognize over the years that many times when I make this distinction, some people don’t get it. “But, but, but, I thought they were the same thing,” some people respond.

The Fundamentalist movement began in the late nineteenth century in reaction to liberalism. So far, so good: I am not  a liberal. I am going to use some traditional hard-and-fast designations here (that still work!). A “liberal” in Christian scholarship refers to a movement in Christianity brought about during the enlightenment. Liberals of the time rejected traditional Christianity for a more “enlightened” version. They challenged everything from the historicity of Christ to the possibility of miracles. “Higher criticism,” as it is sometimes called, brought into question just about everything that the Bible seemed to teach. The Fundamentalist movement was an early twentieth century movement that sought to counter theological liberalism by reaffirming orthodox Protestant Christianity. It was an issue of identity. Christianity was beginning to lose its identity as liberals, who looked nothing like the historic Christian faith, were calling themselves Christian nonetheless. Still so far, so good. There were some great men involved in this movement, e.g., J. Gresham Machen and B.B. Warfield. At the time, the term “Fundamentalist,” first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner, became synonymous in American Protestantism (especially in the south) with “orthodox Christianity” or simply non-liberal Christians. I can identify with that.  Continue Reading »

Many of you have heard of the “Evangelical Manifesto.” But a whole lot of you have not. The latter are the point of this blog post. I am writing this post to discuss why the Manifesto, in my opinion, did not “work.”

I love the idea of the Manifesto. In fact, it represents so much of what I have been discussing concerning Evangelicalism and the implicit non-institutional identity that we have. The Manifesto was a confession of faith put together by many high profile Evangelical leaders attempting to define and clarify what Evangelicalism is. It had high hopes to remind Evangelicals of our tradition and our mission. Its hopes were to draw attention once again to the center—the anchor—of Evangelicalism by expressing a unified confession of what Evangelicalism is along with what it is not.

However, it did not work – well, that may not be the way to put it. It did not “work” in the sense that it never gained the notoriety or publicity that I believe was intended. The media barely recognized it, if at all. Churches and leaders did not draw attention to it. There was not even too much discussion about it on the bigger blogs.

Why? Why didn’t the Evangelical Manifesto “work”?

It is all about timing.

1. The election: It was produced just before a very emotional political campaign and essentially told Christians (at least this is what they heard) not to worry so much about political party affiliation. At the time, this was like saying Evangelicals are not committed to a particular candidate, which, in turn, said Evangelicals are not necessarily against abortion! I know it really did not say any of that, but that is what many heard because of the timing. Evangelicals were not in a state of mind where such encouragements would be effective. In fact, at the time, some Evangelicals saw it as a between-the-lines proposal encouraging us not not to let their Evangelicalism affect their vote. Continue Reading »