Evangelicals

Evangelical Typecasts

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

For God and Country

It is interesting. It is even more troubling.  CNN Religion Editor Daniel Burke has posted an article to CNN Politics titled 7 Types of Evangelicals: And How They’ll Effect the Presidential Race.  The post is interesting in that it describes differences among those who label themselves “Evangelical”, and creates categories for each.  It is troubling, at least to me, because little to nothing in the post conveys what an actual Evangelical essentially is.

Burke begins with the tired old refrain:

It’s an axiom in American politics, duly repeated every four years: Evangelicals are the country’s biggest and most powerful religious voting bloc, especially during the GOP primaries.

But then he offers something that offers a hint of something fresh:

Like many political axioms, though, it papers over a complex reality.

It is true, Evangelicals are not monolithic.  Evangelicals are individuals who have different ideas about different candidates for office – from both parties.  Many of us are able to see positive characteristics even in candidates with whom we disagree.  Few of us are likely to find any candidate that represents everything we would prefer.  At least not those of us who think for ourselves – as God gifted us (and all humanity) to do. So I appreciate Burke’s explanation to those who do not understand Evangelicalism that we Evangelicals reflect a complex reality.  Our complexity should not be confusing, just diverse.

Evangelicals are diverse in may ways. Some among us believe more water should be used in a baptism than others of us do; and some believe a lower age for that baptism is appropriate (maybe even preferable) than others of us.  Some among us like a little wine or a few beers, others prefer to stick with Iced Tea. Some among us like the excitement and activity of a large church, others among us prefer the intimacy of a small family-like church; most among us are somewhere in between. Some of us prefer newer songs, others the hymns from ages past; some prefer cheerful music, others tunes that set a more reflective tone; most enjoy a mix of all of the above.  Some of us appreciate the connectivity of a denominational affiliation; others, aware that no denomination has the corner on the market of God’s favor, choose to remain organizationally independent.  There are all sorts of ways in which Evangelicals are diverse, different, complex.  But none of these differences has anything to do with what makes us Evangelicals in the first place. Nor does Burke in his attempt to analyze and categorize an Evangelical political landscape.

Burke’s categories are interesting, even somewhat amusing. They are as follows:

  1. Old Guard
  2. Institutional Evangelicals
  3. Entrepreneurial Evangelicals
  4. Arm’s Length Evangelicals
  5. Millennial Evangelicals
  6. Liberal Evangelicals
  7. Cultural Evangelicals

Continue reading →

What’s Glenn Beck Doing at Liberty University?

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

It was with some bemusement that I took note of the speaker for Liberty University’s 2010 Commencement: Glenn Beck.  I am not sure what message was conveyed by this choice. One possibility seems commendable. Another possibility, I fear, may be a sad reflection of attitudes within and around contemporary American Evangelicalism.

Liberty University, long steeped in Baptistic Fundamentalism, maintained its commitment to the conservative politics held by founder Jerry Falwell while broadening its umbrella in recent years by making a transition to be more of an Evangelical institution.   I applaud them for this move.  Not only do I believe that Evangelicalism is  more Biblical than Fundamentalism, an Evangelical worldview is unquestionably more conducive to a comprehensive education. 

Glenn Beck, while controversial, is a voice in the Public Square not to be ignored. I don’t much buy into Beck’s conspiracy theories. And I categorically oppose his audacious and unqualified call for people to leave churches that promote ‘social justice’.  But I do not dismiss him, as some on the far Left are inclined to do – or, at least, wish they could do.  (i.e.: MSNBC)  In short, not only is Beck an intelligent and articulate pundit for cultural conservatism, he also freelyspeaks about God.  BUT Beck is a Mormon, not a Christian.  So the god he speaks about, therefore, is NOT the Triune God revealed in the Bible.

So what is a Mormon doing speaking at a Baptist graduation? Continue reading →

Manhattan Declaration

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

From time to time a new and faithful expression of faith is necessary. I am not speaking of a new faith, or of new doctrines, but of the historic Christian faith prophetically applied to current and world events.  Such a statement of faith has recently been produced: The Manhattan Declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration is a collective affirmation of fundamental Truths shared by Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians living in the United States. In particular, this declaration addresses:

  • Sanctity of Human Life
  • Sanctity of Marriage
  • Rights of Conscience and Religious Liberty

Some may question why believers who hold some vastly different perspectives would join together and unite their voices to address these social issues.  On the other hand, why would they not?  These issues that both result from and contribute to our social decay are intolerable and need to be addressed.  Francis Schaeffer referred to such joint operations as “co-beligerence”.

This afternoon I signed my name to this declaration. While I don’t presume anyone really cares what I sign, or even what I think, it was a way for me to lend my voice to an effort that needs to be heard.  I invite you to check it out – and sign-on, if you share the concerns and agree to these solutions.

Manhattan Declaration(.doc)

Emergent & Reformed Coming Together?

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

Sometimes listening in to others’ conversation is unavoidable – like when you are standing between two aquaintances at the Kroger’s check out line.  But sometimes eavesdropping is highly informative – especially when a conversation is in print.

Such an informative, though seemingly improbable, dialogue has been taking place at Christianity Today.  Tony Jones, of Emergent Village, and Collin Hansen, of Christianity Today, have been engaging one another about each other’s books, and about the movements they represent: Emergent vs. Young Reformed.

I am familar with Hansen from his work with Christianity Today.  A few years ago I read with great interest his piece, Young, Restless & Reformed.  I was excited to have confirmed what I had been seeing with my eyes – that many, many young adults are hungering to know God, and have found, as I have, the best expressions of theology flow from the hearts and pens of both old and contemporary Calvinistic authors.  Hansen’s article has now blossomed into a book (that I have yet to read).

I am also somewhat familiar with Jones.  He is one of the leading voices of the Emergent movement that is seeming to polarize Evangelicalism.  But while I was familiar with Jones, quite honestly I’ve read only a little of his writing. I have read much more of other Emergent leaders.  But I had recently listened to an interview Jones did on Steve Brown, etc., and came away impressed with his heart and conviction – though still not with all his theological premises. 

So it was with that familiarity that I read the 5-Day discussion: Emergent’s New Christians & Young, Restless, Reformed.

I found the discussion refreshing.  It is not just that both articulate varient positons well.  Having read at least some works by both I expected that. It is more the tone. They are both open, honest, and seeking to understand as much as to be understood.  It is the mutually expressed desire for agreement – even though they both know they differ from one another, in some respects even significantly.  I think this is a great example to many of us. It is a good expression of what Francis Schaeffer writes about in The Mark of the Chirstian.  But sadly it is not common enough.

I have been interested in the Emergent movement for several years. Like many others I have some significant concerns with some of the things associated with this movement.  Unlike many of my Reformed friends, however, I have been far less critical.  For one reason, it seems to me that it is very difficult to lump all things Emergent under one umbrella.  Emergents appear almost as diverse as the broad category of Protestant. (Scot McKnight seems to concur. See: Five Streams of the Emerging Church.) A second reason is that some, maybe even many, associated with the Emergents have offered some profoundly important insights that the rest of us would do well to consider.  And finally I have tried to be patient because this movement is still in it’s infancy. As the movement matures I assume so will some of their positions.  Frankly, I would not want to be judged today on the basis of things I said when I was seven years old; or twelve; or eighteen; or even thirty five!  I have to take the immaturity of the movement into consideration whenever I hear or read things that appear off base.

Still, I do have my concerns. The analysis of D.A. Carson, or Mark Dever, or McKnight have real merit. 

But I wonder if something might be happening. In fact, I suspect it is. And this discussion fuels my specualtion.  I wonder if some of the Emergents, in their hunger for authentic experience of Christianity, might begin to see and embrace the truths of historic theology, perhaps particularly those expressed by the Puritans.  While they gets bad PR, Puritan theology was & is radical, profoundly deep, and highly experiential. Those seem to be among the traits that the most sincere of the Emergents are seeking.

The various streams within the Emergent movement will no doubt take some proponents in differing directions as the movement develops.  We won’t know where until the Emergent movement grows up. But I hope Jones’ and Hansen’s discussion may be a beginning of something BIG.  I for one am hoping we may be seeing the beginnings of a river of neo-Puritanism.

Gospel Advancement & World Perspective

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

 The March/April 2008 edition of Mission Frontiers magazine addresses a very important issue effecting the contemporary American and European church.   While the Gospel is advancing wildly in several parts of the world, many formerly active church members are walking away from the church – and often Christianity – across North America and in Western Europe.  

 

It was not long ago that these regions were the strongholds of Evangelical Christianity, and the seemingly inexhaustible source for mission sending and support for generations to come.  But no longer is this the case.  Now these giant of faith are themselves mission fields.

 

MF Editor Rick Wood suggests the problem is the Gospel.  It is not that the Gospel itself is defective.  Instead Wood observes that what is often presented as the Gospel deficient and misleading.  And practically speaking, what we present as the church is often the only Gospel that most people know and understand. 

 

What is the result of a compromised Gospel?

 

1. Ineffectiveness. 

 

Once people realize that what they thought they bought into is not what they get in reality, inevitably they grow frustrated, distrusting of the church, and finally chuck it all.  That’s what Wood sees happening.

 

In the long run we are losing ground in the “home-front” at the very time we are seeing the Kingdom advanced on the frontiers. 

 

2. Impotence. 

 

The Gospel alone is the power that transforms lives.  The Apostle Paul was adamant about this. He challenged the Galatian believers because they were embracing a Gospel that was “no gospel at all”. 

 

As Evangelicals, if we proclaim a message that distorts the Gospel, simply for the purpose of getting people to easily join us, we will see our churches full of unchanged members.  Our churches will be composed of those who are spiritually unhealthy, self-absorbed, and consumer oriented, not those who seek first the Kingdom and glory of God, and who are committed to faithful discipleship and service. 

 

Sadly, I think Wood is dead-on right.  I’ve had a number of conversations with those who have expressed similar sentiments. They feel misled. They are understandably skeptical and disenchanted. And while not all have walked away entirely from their faith, I’ve found many no longer see any value in being part of the visible church. 

 

Because I believe Wood’s article offers a radically important perspective, I will publish it in a subsequent post.  It is worth reading for anyone who is missions-minded, theologically oriented, or if you or someone you know has grown disenchanted with contemporary Evangelicalism.