In a comment to Matt’s post, Michael Spencer says:
I don’t believe I, or any other post-evangelical, is saving or perpetuating evangelicalism. I’d gladly go out any number of doors were those doors available to me.
Post evangelicals like Patrol and myself are endeavoring to help evangelicalism hear the voice of the de-churched, discouraged, unplugged and estranged in its midst. Hearing those voices is important. As irritating as it can be, there is something that needs to be heard. Post-evangelicals are not feigning some kind of authority to remake evangelicalism or to blame someone for the demise of evangelicalism. The other shoe has dropped. The collapse is happening. There are churches that will thrive and there are churches that will never know anything happened. But there will be a quiet departure of millions of former evangelicals to something- or nothing- else.
That’s all there is to say, and I don’t pretend it is anything earth-shaking. For me and many like me, we’re living in another reality than what is typically discussed among more hopeful evangelicals.
The idea that collapse of evangelicalism is currently underway is more wishful thinking on the part of “post-evangelicals” than anything that can be backed up with evidence. For some reason it has become a staple of online commentary to translate one’s feeling of “I don’t like X” to “X is dying.” It’s usually found in political discussions (e.g., conservatism is dying; the Democratic Party is dying) but has been making its way into the religious sphere.
I suspect that the truth is just the opposite. There are more people that attend a Willow Creek associated church than there are “post-evangelicals” in all of America. Even on Spencer’s group blog, Boar’s Head Tavern, you are unlikely to find more than a fraction of the fellows who would claim the “post-evangelical” for themselves. And as for Patrol, they represent the thoughts of about a half-dozen young people in New York, some of whom work get paid by evangelical organizations (which makes you wonder why they would be gleeful about a decline).
Ironically, what Spencer claims for post-evangelicals (he includes Patrol but they are not really even Christian anymore, much less post-evangelical*) is really just a strain of evangelicalism that has a long history. Everything from the Jesus movement to the seeker-sensitive movement has had the goal of “endeavoring to help evangelicalism hear the voice of the de-churched, discouraged, unplugged and estranged in its midst.” Paint it with a patina of post-modernism if you want, but post-evangelicalism is still just Willow Creek without the crowds or the budget.
I do however agree with Spencer that there is a “quiet departure of millions of former evangelicals to something- or nothing- else.” As our culture becomes increasingly more individualistic we are seeing an increase in the the belief that the church should conform to people’s whims rather than the expectation that they form themselves to fit into a community and tradition (the fact that post-evangelicals think there is no community or tradition worth preserving says much more about them than it does about evangelicalism). Most of the disgruntled will move into the churches that have already been established to serve their de-churched needs (young people will go to the emergent movement, Yuppies will go the Willow Creek route). Others will cross over to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Still others will just decide they can worship God in their own way—or not at all (which seems to be the path Patrol is headed).
The real question we should be asking ourselves is why the dissenters get so much attention. If a thousand students in Campus Crusade for Christ were to claim that evangelicalism was thriving on colleges across the land, people would sneer and say they were clueless and naïve. Yet four twenty-somethings in New York can say that evangelicalism is over and adults—who should know better—rush to say how we should listent to them since they have their pulse on the culture.
Perhaps its simply that people prefer to hear stories about decline rather than being told that the status quo—for better or worse—is remaining the status quo. If that’s the case, let me make an pronouncement: Post-evangelicalisms is dead. Time of death 2:01 EST on November 16, 2009.
Now that post-evangelicalism has died let’s welcome the new, new thing: Post-post-evangelism. Wherever someone is discouraged by the new-Calvinists, unplugged from Chris Tomlin hymnody, or estranged from the embarrassing evangelicals who ruined everything, you’ll find our church planters at work. New churches will be forming in a tavern, strip mall, or URL near you. Check your local listings.
*The editors of Patrol recently wrote: “As we try to make quite clear, we have no interest in the term “evangelical.” We accept the label “post-evangelical” mostly out of convenience, though it is only a rough way to describe the ragtag collection of evangelicals, Catholics, Jews and agnostics we represent.”
November 16th, 2009 | 2:21 pm | #1
“The real question we should be asking ourselves is why the dissenters get so much attention.”
Is it better to ignore them?
That way they don’t get the attention.
November 16th, 2009 | 2:27 pm | #2
Is it better to ignore them?
Good question. I don’t think we should ignore them because even while their numbers are few and their criticisms are often overstated, evangelicals need to hear as much criticism as we can. Even if we conclude that the criticism is wrong we must listen to it and consider how we are measuring up.
Which, ironically, is one of the things that seem to be missing from the “post-evangelical” sites I visit. Often (like at Patrol) they don’t have comment sections so they don’t get feedback fro m those who disagree. They don’t seem to be so open-minded about dissents against their dissent.
November 16th, 2009 | 2:31 pm | #3
Joe – I’m currently an editor at the campus newspaper at the University of Nebraska and my experience would suggest Spencer’s ideas have some weight to them.
There aren’t many campus ministries at UNL connecting with the unchurched or dechurched. Amongst young people at least, evangelicalism is a very inbred group – if you grew up in it and weren’t a victim of one sort of abuse or another, you fit in. But if you’re experience was generally abusive growing up (as mine was) or you have no church background, there generally isn’t a place for you in most evangelical groups.
Again, that’s just my experience, but I think you’re possibly making the same mistake you accuse Spencer of, namely that of only seeing what you want to see.
November 16th, 2009 | 2:32 pm | #4
It seems to me that we should listen to them only when we measure the criticism against Scripture and are willing to say “Ummm, no, you’re wrong about that”.
I think we need to admit that a group of people who have left the church, or a group of people who never were part of a church, have very very little to say, and the too often the church has gotten itself terribly derailed by listening to those voices.
Think “seeker-sensitive” or “emergent” or whatever…
November 16th, 2009 | 2:36 pm | #5
Jake,
I’ve heard that before, but I don’t think I’ve seen that. At least not among bible-believing churches.
Having said that, campus life in general, because of the age of the participants, tends to be pretty much narcissistic. For that reason, while acknowledging the good that CampusCrusade and IVCF have done, I think any ministry that replaces church is a problem.
Kids exclude, they just do. What might happen if it was churches reaching out on campus, and not a para-church thingy.
I wonder how much of the exclusion is a misperception, or at least a minority thing.
November 16th, 2009 | 2:41 pm | #6
Joe Carter: “Good question.”
Thanks.
” I don’t think we should ignore them because even while their numbers are few and their criticisms are often overstated, evangelicals need to hear as much criticism as we can. Even if we conclude that the criticism is wrong we must listen to it and consider how we are measuring up.”
Well, you may then have answered the “why” in your original question of your post: “The real question we should be asking ourselves is why the dissenters get so much attention.”
November 16th, 2009 | 2:47 pm | #7
Jake,
You make a fair point. But there are two different problems depending on the dividing line. Spencer represents people who are already evangelicals and simply dissatisfied with their options. That is not likely to appeal to the unchurched anymore than normal evangelical approaches.
But I would say that Spencer is still committed to evangelism. And while I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, I think part of the problem with many young evangelicals is that they have become so wrapped up in other issues that they have forgotten about evangelism.
I don’t think post-evangelicalism solves that problem of the unchurched at all. For example, Patrol (which admittedly has moved beyond post-evangelicalism) will post arguments for Christianity and agnosticism side-by-side and take a “pick which one best fits you” approach. That is something a self-proclaimed post-evangelical like Spencer would likely find abhorrent. Yet that is the direction that the movement is heading in.
November 16th, 2009 | 2:53 pm | #8
Daryl said — “What might happen if it was churches reaching out on campus, and not a para-church thingy?”
Probably a good chance that you’d see an explosion of Balkanized micro-fellowships all focused on their own denominational/ congregational distinctives.
November 16th, 2009 | 2:57 pm | #9
Joe Carter: “But I would say that Spencer is still committed to evangelism.”
I hope so! After all, it’s the Great Commission!
“I don’t think post-evangelicalism solves that problem of the unchurched at all.”
I think I understand what you’re saying here. But it probably requires more explanation and clarification and nuance on your part to satisfy those who would object to your sweeping statement.
November 16th, 2009 | 3:00 pm | #10
“…he includes Patrol but they are not really even Christian anymore, much less post-evangelical*”
Of all the things I might respond to here, dismissive personal attacks as well as pointed arguments, I only want to address one issue:
It is a tremendous leap to call us not Christian anymore because we have said that we openly invite people of different Christian denominations and (even!) religions into our conversation.
I understand you don’t agree with us, but I would ask that when you refer to us, please recognize us as equals, peers and brothers and sisters in Christ rather than disparaging us as non-Christian, trend-obsessed kids.
November 16th, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #11
“Probably a good chance that you’d see an explosion of Balkanized micro-fellowships all focused on their own denominational/ congregational distinctives.”
I disagree. I think you’d find very little in the way of on-campus fellowships at all. I think you’d find Christian students plugged into local churches where they on’t have to water down important points of doctrine in order to be inclusive enough.
At least Lutherans, Baptists and Presby’s (to name a few) have good, Biblical reasons for what they teach, even when they disagree, rather than an approach that says “don’t preach that, so and so won’t come next week”.
Any group that replaces the church with a crowd of people from the same age bracket is a problem I think.
November 16th, 2009 | 3:08 pm | #12
Jonathan,
You are right that I was careless in my language. When I used the pronoun “they” in reference to Patrol it implies that the people—rather than the magazine—are no longer Christian. I apologize for the mistake and will add a note in my post.
As for whether the magazine itself is no longer Christian, though, I think we all can agree, can’t we?
November 16th, 2009 | 3:16 pm | #13
As for whether the magazine itself is no longer Christian, though, I think we all can agree, can’t we?
No, I don’t think so. As I said and as our statement that you quoted implies, we welcome people of different Christian denominations and religions to share their thoughts in our magazine. Being ecumenical hardly makes us non-Christian.
As a sidenote: This is at least the second time you’ve apologized to us for publicly writing disparaging remarks. I gratefully accept your apology, but as a person with such great influence I hope that in the future you preempt the apology and choose to think of us in a better light, despite our disagreements.
November 16th, 2009 | 3:48 pm | #14
Being ecumenical hardly makes us non-Christian.
Perhaps we have differing understandings about what the term “ecumenical” means. The term has generally meant “pertaining to the whole Christian church” which is why First Things bills itself as “interreligious.”
And while its true that being ecumenical (or interreligious) does not make you “non-Christian” I would say that posting an article that denies the divinity of Christ is certainly enough to raise suspicions. There was no disclaimer or follow-up article that explained the Christian view. Instead, it was presented as if it was a point of view that was as valid as the orthodox Christian perspective. To me that is an odd position for a “Christian” site to take.
I hope that in the future you preempt the apology and choose to think of us in a better light, despite our disagreements.
Fair enough. I wish I could be cool, reasonable, and detached like Matt Anderson. His posts about Patrol have been a model that I should emulate. Unfortunately, I’ve taken a much too personal interest in Patrol and have let that passion fuel my responses.
I teach at the same college where David S. went to school and have talked about Patrol with the students and professors there. I used to work for World magazine, where Alisa H. works. And when I was at Culture11 I published articles by David, Alisa, and others. I was rooting for Patrol to be the type of magazine for young Christians that the world needs. Instead, I feel like you guys have sold out (and other people I’ve talked to have felt the same way). The magazine seems to spend more time publishing articles defending Christian’s use of the “F-word” and the idea that there is no afterlife than on anything that resembles orthodox Christianity.
Indeed, I know it’s insulting to say so but it seems less like a magazine than a blog run by a handful of young evangelicals who really want the cool secular kids to like them. I certainly haven’t seen anything that is worth promoting on there in a long, long time. Maybe it’s simply a phase and all of this will change. But I’m skeptical it will. Instead, I see Patrol’s long-time readers losing faith in the magazine just as the magazine has lost faith in evangelicalism.
I do hope I’m wrong, though.
November 16th, 2009 | 3:56 pm | #15
The first and most basic law of logic is “A is A”. If I don’t know what A is, it it’s hard to say it’s dying. People rarely agree on what is meant by the term “evangelical”. Therefore, it could be dying and not dying because in this I don’t know what A is because A has yet to be universally defined.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:14 pm | #16
Joe –
You cave too easily.
Jonathan –
I am pretty sure that Joe’s statement, in context, points out not your inter-denominationalism but your lack of discretion. How does “agnostic” qualify as “Christian”, pray tell? And how would a group which includes agnostics and other religions which reject the exclusive claims of Jesus qualify as “Christian”?
I can demand to be called the Prince of Persia, but given that I am not a prince, nor am I from Persia, nor am I Maggie’s brother Jake, my demands are just talk. It’s interesting to hear you want a place at this table — tell us why you think the table is worth sitting at all of a sudden.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:18 pm | #17
Hi Joe,
Read the article, two comments on this section:
The idea that collapse of evangelicalism is currently underway is more wishful thinking on the part of “post-evangelicals” than anything that can be backed up with evidence
1. I doubt you’ll find anywhere a post-evangelical who wants robust, historic, evangelicalism to fail. Generally, they want the same things you do…to preach to gospel and make disciples of all men (and women).
2. I think any ‘evidence’ was thouroughly poured over in the original evangelical collapse and then followed up by a series of posts by a person who did an indepth analysis of the raw statistical data.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:21 pm | #18
Frank,
I don’t need a seat at the table. I need to not be disparaged, written-off and referred to as not Christian by an individual I have never met.
I am disheartened by the notion that giving space to a differing perspective from a non-Christian on a magazine run by Christians is here deemed un-Christian.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:23 pm | #19
Couple of clarifications:
Here’s the link to the stats analysis:
Micheal Bell did it. I thought that it was our BHT fellow Jared, but it wasn’t (Jared is the Stats professor, sorry for the mistake). God Bless you Joe!
November 16th, 2009 | 4:23 pm | #20
Any movement that consciously wants to be on the outskirts of the larger body is a group that has no direction and no hope. It’s easy to give up, run, redefine, and try to start all over. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. People need the Gospel, and Gospel people need the Church. It’s not rocket science.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #21
Just to chime in, the BHT fellow who is/was a Stats instructor is “Jaredd” on the site. I am a BHT fellow as well, but stats make my head hurt.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:45 pm | #22
I’m more concerned, Jonathan, that you want Joe to call a group which does not limit itself to actual Christians by the name “Christians”. I work at a place with a lot of different kinds of people — and I don’t get very concerned, and troubled, and deeply, deeply hurt when nobody will call the lot of us “Christians”.
Joe’s original statement was:he includes Patrol but they are not really even Christian anymore, much less post-evangelical. “They” being the staff of “Patrol” as a whole, was my first guess; the magazine as an organ was my second. How is that a surprising revelation? It’s like saying Newsweek isn’t Christian.
The really funny stuff, however, comes as we let you go on. “I need to not be disparaged, written-off and referred to as not Christian by an individual I have never met,” saith you, in Cat-5 emotive force. It seems to me that your periodical’s editorial stance is, in fact, to do exactly this to and for evangelicals (maybe — just maybe — you allow they as a set are “Christians” in some sense as your periodical’s recent editorial says it over and over, in spite of the fact that the inference that “evangelicals” are really “idolaters” is always just around the next clause). But if not, then get over it. Accept who you are and don’t worry about the labels Joe or I would tag you with — that’s all just cartesian antics anyway.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:50 pm | #23
Jonathan I am disheartened by the notion that giving space to a differing perspective from a non-Christian on a magazine run by Christians is here deemed un-Christian.
I think you misunderstand the complaint. It’s not just that you offered a “differing perspective” (though some people may take issue with that). It’s that the view that Jesus is not God is the only view that was presented. If someone were to come to your site right now, where would they find a robust defense of the orthodox Christian view? There is an article that says Jesus is not divine, there is no afterlife, the Bible is not the word of God, etc. Yet nothing that would counter that in any way.
Imagine, if I were to allow someone to write a post trashing my wife and yet put up no rebuttal or anything that implied that I disagreed with the view presented. How do you think people would interpret that?
Mark N. I think any ‘evidence’ was thouroughly poured over in the original evangelical collapse and then followed up by a series of posts by a person who did an indepth analysis of the raw statistical data.
That provides an interesting argument but I think it fails to be persuasive. The post relies on a demographic argument that implies that the only way that evangelicals can replace the people we lose is with our children. But we can replace a recently deceased adult Baptist with another adult Baptist through the process of conversion. We don’t have to “grow our own” to meet an acceptable replacement rate. ; )
This argument also relies on a numbers based measurement of the health of the evangelical church (which seems to be a very Southern Baptist way to look at it). But I’d rather have 30 committed evangelicals in a congregation than 3000 who are merely pew-sitters.
Also, I was thinking that Michael was claiming that the theological appeal of evangelicalism was the reason of the demise. That was were my disagreement was. If its merely about the demographics and our failure to maintain the same numbers of evangelicals because of demographic criteria then I really don’t have an issue with that. I’d still disagree, but it would be for less contentious reasons.
November 16th, 2009 | 4:54 pm | #24
Actually, I love evangelicalism …. and I am afraid it is dying.
As far as I can tell, the big movers in the ev. world now are the Word of Faithers, the Left Behinders, and the more extreme Culture Warriors. (Caveat: I am largely a CW myself. And I get really frustrated with people who tell me we should give up that ship. But I recognize that alot of us have gone off the deep end with the culture war and made it our raison d’etre.)
This just isn’t the evangelicalism I grew up with — Focus on the Family, Inter-Varsity Press, Billy Graham. I don’t think the new mix can hold together for much longer, and I don’t think it can do much good even if it can.
I am really hoping for someone to prove me dead wrong on what I have said here! Thanks.
November 16th, 2009 | 5:02 pm | #25
Bob,
I could be wrong, but I suspect what is going on is that we are simply more aware of the bad parts of evangelicalism. With the internet we hear of every scandal and ever stumble that is made by anyone who associates with evangelicalism. A decade ago it took a big crisis—like the televangelists scandals of the ’80s—before we even were aware of the signifcant problems that were going on.
In a way I think this is a good thing. We’re becoming more self-aware and more likely to correct situations before them become malignant tumors that infect the entire body of evangelical believers.
November 16th, 2009 | 5:05 pm | #26
Joe,
The trouble is, too often the tumors are seen as the bright spots, and the slipperly slope gets slipperier.
November 16th, 2009 | 5:18 pm | #27
“They” being the staff of “Patrol” as a whole, was my first guess; the magazine as an organ was my second. How is that a surprising revelation? It’s like saying Newsweek isn’t Christian.
This is very much a surprising revelation. I’m the managing editor at Patrol, as well as a life long believer, so being called non-Christian was very surprising.
But I will relent a bit. Now that I have clarified that I am a Christian, and, if they’ll allow me to speak for them, made clear that the other editors are too, I will not take offense if you want to categorize the magazine as not Christian. Perhaps that will work to our benefit and we will continue to gain more non-believing readers. That, after all, would be a great thing.
It’s that the view that Jesus is not God is the only view that was presented
I guess I’m not sure when this was the case. We have published in the past, and will continue to publish, articles by people who do not profess to be Christians, particularly as it pertains to their faith journey. But to say that was the only view presented negates the rest of the content on the site that is written by Christians and espouses a Christian perspective. Though you are right, we are clearly not a devotional disguised as a magazine, we choose rather to deal with politics, art and culture from a particular Christian perspective.
I wrote recently to a reader that we pride ourselves on publishing material that no other Christian publication would. I now know that this means we run the risk of being seen as non-Christian. It is true I took offense to the assumption that we at Patrol are not Christians on the grounds that someone who I have never met made a judgment of my faith, but perhaps I should get used to Patrol being called non-Christian, and just accept it as our calling and our place.
I do thank both of you, and the larger community here, for interacting with Patrol and wrestling with the ideas we put out there.
November 16th, 2009 | 5:20 pm | #28
Daryl said — “The trouble is, too often the tumors are seen as the bright spots, and the slipperly slope gets slipperier.”
To clarify, are we too assume that you’re specifically calling Patrol Magazine a tumor on Christ’s body? Or is this a general comment about Patrol, post-evangelicals or inter/multi-denominational, non church-based college fellowships, or all three? Way over the top, my brother.
November 16th, 2009 | 5:21 pm | #29
Correction — that would be “to assume” versus “too” — need to watch typos before I hit “Post”
November 16th, 2009 | 5:52 pm | #30
Joe,
I sure hopre you’re right. But I think Daryl echoes what I am getting at when he says, “the tumors are seen as bright spots.” My worry is that the groups I mentioned are having a big influence and the evangelicals who see these “sub-movements” as a problem are (please convince me I’m wrong) now in a minority. I don’t have hard and fast numbers to back that up, just way too much personal experience with these movements. (Don’t ask how. Too painful to go into.) For example, as far as I can tell, TBN now has way more influence than Focus on the Family, maybe more influence than FotF ever had.
Anyway, thanks for responding. Always enjoy a good internet conversation.
November 16th, 2009 | 5:56 pm | #31
Joe,
I understand why some people at PHC or elsewhere would “lose faith” in Patrol, but I don’t think you can “sell out” when you didn’t play for the team in the first place. Patrol has, from its very first day as a lowly blog, been outside the Christian circle. Up until less than a year ago, we resisted putting any sort of faith affiliation in our About statement because we knew doing so would lead to exactly this sort of label war. I continue to find it amazing that anyone would suggest we have an obligation to present Orthodox Christian material, when we have never claimed to be attempting such a thing.
Second, here we go with the tired “hip” stuff again. Is that really the best you can do? Like I’ve said countless times before, there is nothing hip about being Christian or religious at all. Having any sort of allegiance to Christianity, however unorthodox, is still not very cool to “cool secular kids.” If I cared what people at n+1 think of me, my first move would be to stop running a magazine by people who are all religious in some way or another (mostly Christians).
As an aside: I am not above being criticized, and do in fact listen to the wisdom of my “elders” wherever it may be found. But you have repeatedly given us all reason to discount you as a credible source on this topic. Matthew Anderson’s critique is level and weighty, while yours is petty and theatrical. No one who was really interested in being open-minded here would be so emotional and personally vindictive about a group of “kids” (your term) you haven’t even met. If we are so inconsequential, then why waste so much of your energy demonizing us?
November 16th, 2009 | 6:10 pm | #32
I love Michael Spencer and find a lot of commonality with his thinking and appreciate what he represents, but that article on Patrol was not, in my opinion, representative of anything I know of. I think when you want something to be dead and you cannot kill it, you just announce its demise and hope people believe it?
Evangelicalism is always in need of reforming by its very nature. Is the term “Evangelical” dead? In some contexts it has a meaning that is far from representing what it truly is, but it is far from dead and can and is rightly used. If it were to die, Evangelicalism would still not be dead as it is representative of the “mood” of the true Gospel proclaimed.
The Evangelical Theological Society, meeting this week in NO is stronger now than it has ever been.
I don’t know why they don’t just call themselves progressive evangelicals or something like that. Or they can just be another movement. We are not going to anathematize them for getting on a lifeboat and heading somewhere else! I am sure that it could be a strong movement elsewhere that contributes their voice meaningfully. But for some reason, they want everyone to “say” the ship has sunk when most don’t believe it has. Many of us believe we are now letting out more water than we are letting in.
Anyway, thanks, as always, Joe for the post.
November 16th, 2009 | 6:16 pm | #33
Jarced C Wilson: Sorry for impugning you with a love of statistics ;) I can personally testify that the only stats I’ve ever heard you quote were those of your fantasy football team.
Joe C: But I’d rather have 30 committed evangelicals in a congregation than 3000 who are merely pew-sitters.
In this regard I think we can all agree. A strong church/ a faithful community, whatever you call it, is a blessing. I think you and the iMonk are ‘sitting on the same pew’ as far as this goes. I interpreted the ‘Coming Evangelical Collapse’ as a call to be “ever reforming”, as a necessary trimming of dead branches. The tree will have a different shape, but will be healthier and have a stronger core in the end. The principles of Evangelicalism are solid and even admirable, its the sideshow that has become the show that is getting the harsh critique.
November 16th, 2009 | 6:28 pm | #34
It’s not just Spencer and the “post-evangelicals” saying this is happening. Everyone from Ed Stetzer (Southern Baptist statistician with wide ecumenical cred) to Sally Morgenthaler (former seeker-church guru turned missional guru) to Tim Keller says it’s happening. Anyone who thinks that the “collapse,” or whatever you want to call it, is the wishful thinking of a few disgruntled critics is being silly.
November 16th, 2009 | 6:32 pm | #35
David,
I appreciate the truth of what you say.
Sometimes when I write on pop culture people say that “you just want the cool kids to like you.”
That is irritating and feels dismissive, but that is a good moment to consider: are they right? And most often, if it deals with pride, they are a bit right. Even so absurd a notion as a middle aged man such as I believing he could be cool or at least the coolest middle age young earth Orthodox conservative Republican on the planet.
I at least am sinner enough to enjoy (God how I hate to admit it!) being the coolest guy in a club that is so small it contains only one member.
This means for me at least it is an inadequate response to say :
I know I don’t want the cool kids to like me, because I would become a Democrat or stop being a Christian.
In fact, sometimes it is cool niche to be considered (by our own Inner Ring temptation) as the “good Republican” or the “reasonable Christian” or to be not like those folk over there.
We get attention our actual merit would not grant us if our views fit majority niches.
It is almost “heroic” to be the One True Believer Who Can Still Relate At Great Cost to the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. I may be sitting in the back of secularism’s bus, but I am actually more interesting (and get more attention) in the culture than if I were “just like all those other Christians.”
You may not have that problem. Who knows? I do know that even as I write this I am not trying to curry some kind of favor. I question my motives.
Every once in a great while therefore I try to speak a truth in a public way that will irritate people whose good opinion I secretly and deeply want. It is far, far easier for me to admit I have learned from an evolutionist than to hang out with those who love John Tesh music.
As a result, I think, I have been led to a job where I have learned to not be such a freaking snob and am frequently thought (by people I admire) to be just the sort of person who loves John Tesh.
So there you have it . . .
November 16th, 2009 | 6:59 pm | #36
JMR: I think we can all admit that the fact we’re extensively debating these things means we are, to some degree, snobs who want to be seen as smart, hip, and groundbreaking. I certainly do, and would not deny that wanting people to have a good opinion of me (though not necessarily “cool secular kids”) probably plays some role in everything I write.
But there’s a funny thing about the way our sense of “cool,” at least in the evangelical community, is still firmly lodged on the political and religious left. One might be seen as making an intellectual sacrifice if, like you, they decide young-earth creationists and Republicans have the best answers. But if they, say, have serious issues with capitalism, evangelicals are much more likely to label them a turncoat pursuer of establishment favor. They’re after that “cool” one can only find by being a liberal.
This is very frustrating to people who want to be a liberal and still not care whether or not it makes them cool. In the American Christian climate, it’s almost impossible to honestly, humbly move from right to left without appearing to be, well, doing everything Joe Carter accuses me of. (And full disclosure, I’ve accused other people of it, too.) I can watch my attitude and tone, which I should absolutely do anyway. But is there anything else to be done about that apparent double standard?
November 16th, 2009 | 7:09 pm | #37
David,
I don’t think there is a way to avoid this, because it is not a double standard. If you think Nero sings well, a problem is that people will always think you think it because he is Emperor and you are making a living off your opinion. You may be so sincere you make Snow White look like a hard boiled cynic, but it is the burden of speaking truth to power and the truth turning out to be just what power wants to hear.
To give you an example:
If I greatly admired and coveted the favor of Pat Robertson, then it would be a major problem to actually agree with Pat. Whatever else, my motives to me and to everyone else would be suspect.
If on the other hand I greatly admired and coveted the favor of Pat Robertson, then it would be morally safer to speak against him. What a relief!
Now I am confident (having met them) that some people move right to get on the (smaller) right-wing academic gravy train or to curry favor in the little world of right-wing academia. (And it is very little . . . ) so I try to check myself even there, but it must be admitted that the temptations are far smaller!
I think you are going to have to accept the fact that saying to the Mainstream Culture: “Hey! I am a Christian and it turns out that my parents were wrong to resist you on the following grounds . . . ” will always sound more like selling out than saying something good about the religious right.
The rewards (for such men as we are) are just greater in one direction than the other. That does not make you wrong, of course, but it is always a pity to have to speak comfort to power.
November 16th, 2009 | 7:11 pm | #38
If I don’t post again on this topic, it is not out of (I hope) a lack of charity, but out of my rule to keep moving in the blogosphere.
So much Plato to understand . . . so little time . . .
November 16th, 2009 | 7:19 pm | #39
Brian,
Not over the top at all. Context is everything dude.
I was responding to Joe who was responding to Bob who had said that part of the problem today is that the failings of the church are more easily broadcast far and wide, than they were in the pre-internet years.
Nothing about Patron there.
November 16th, 2009 | 7:32 pm | #40
Daryl,
In that case, I misunderstood your point and I was rash in my statement. I apologize.
Best,
Brian
November 16th, 2009 | 8:23 pm | #41
“the fact that post-evangelicals think there is no community or tradition worth preserving says much more about them than it does about evangelicalism.”
i heartily disagree. american evangelicalism in its most public forms is just what the patrol mag article says it is: “hopelessly fractured, diluted, politicized, ideological, nationalistic, and often plain idiotic.” and i do not think this is simply because we are more aware of the “bad parts” of evangelicalism. it is more because there is no “great tradition” or apostolic authority that “hopelessly fractured” evangelicalism can turn to for quality control. “sola scriptura” has gone to seed, and the garden is being overrun by the weeds.
November 16th, 2009 | 9:47 pm | #42
Jonathan I will not take offense if you want to categorize the magazine as not Christian. Perhaps that will work to our benefit and we will continue to gain more non-believing readers. That, after all, would be a great thing.
In light of David’s comments (which I’ll address in a moment) I think there may not be a consensus even among the editors about what Patrol is or will be. I completely understand because I had the same situation at Culture11. I was adamant that we were a “conservative” magazine yet I was undermined by my own editors who had a distinctly different view of what that term meant.
Since your editor says Patrol is under no obligation to present an orthodox Christian perspective, I’ll adjust my expectations accordingly.
It is true I took offense to the assumption that we at Patrol are not Christians on the grounds that someone who I have never met made a judgment of my faith
I definitely should have been clearer about separating the editorial perspective from the editors. I would certainly never want to impugn someone’s faith.
For example, as far as I can tell, TBN now has way more influence than Focus on the Family, maybe more influence than FotF ever had.
Admittedly, the best I have to offer as a counter is my own anecdotal evidence. For example, I recently had a chance to chat (off-the-record) with Jim Daly, President of FotF. He told me that while there is a perception that Focus has lost their political influence, the organization’s core mission—focusing of families—is a solid as ever.
Daly will never be in the media spotlight like Dobson and this will undoubtedly cause many people to assume that FotF is in decline. But the truth is just the opposite. (Daly, by the way, is a great guy. His concern about fatherhood and the fatherless is deeply inspiring.)
I suspect this is true of a lot of organizations. The ones that we notice aren’t necessarily having that big of an impact while the ones we’ll never hear about are making the most difference for the Kingdom.
David I continue to find it amazing that anyone would suggest we have an obligation to present Orthodox Christian material, when we have never claimed to be attempting such a thing.
I guess the background of the editors led me to make that assumption. Also the fact that Patrol was once planning(?) to be associated with King’s College gave me that hope.
If we are so inconsequential, then why waste so much of your energy demonizing us?
That’s a question I’ve pondered a lot today. Honestly, after you clarification I think that I was wrong to ever put so much energy worrying about the future of Patrol.
Michael The Evangelical Theological Society, meeting this week in NO is stronger now than it has ever been.
That’s an excellent point and one of the thing that really bugs me when people say that evangelicalism is on the decline. For ever organization that is dying, there is another that is growing and doing good work. Evangelicalism is too big and diverse a movement to make blanket statements about it.
Mark N The principles of Evangelicalism are solid and even admirable, its the sideshow that has become the show that is getting the harsh critique.
I’m in complete agreement with you here. I guess what surprises me is that some people seem to imply that all of this is new. When has there ever been a time when people did not think that evangelicalism was in decline? I remember when if you said the word “evangelical” people would think you were talking about Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, or Pat Robertson. Now they are more likely to think of Al Mohler, Tim Keller, or N.T. Wright. To me that is a significant improvement! ; )
Jared Everyone from Ed Stetzer (Southern Baptist statistician . . .
When a Southern Baptist says the denomination is in decline my first thought is, “Did we stop using Baptist math?” I would bet that I’m still a “member” of (at least) three different Baptist churches that I haven’t attended in 5-10 years. The membership rolls of the SBC have always been inflated. Yet if we ever make them accurate it will be seen as a sign that the denomination is in steep decline.
is the wishful thinking of a few disgruntled critics is being silly.
Well, call me silly, because that’s what I believe. Wait, let me clarify. I don’t think these critics are disgruntled (and they may not even be few). But what I do believe is that they don’t have an accurate starting point from which to measure the decline.
For example, it is estimated that there are between 25 to 77 million evangelicals in America. Let’s say we can accurately measure a decline of 3 million. Depending on what number we started with, that’s a difference between 4 and 12%. Huge difference.
Mike american evangelicalism in its most public forms is just what the patrol mag article says it is: “hopelessly fractured, diluted, politicized, ideological, nationalistic, and often plain idiotic.”
What if we were to say hospice chaplaincy in America is hopelessly fractured, diluted, politicized, ideological, nationalistic, and often plain idiotic? You’d naturally recognize that it was not only wrong but a scurrilous claim to make against good people. So why is it okay to make the same claim about American evangelicals (some of whom are likely to be hospital chaplains)?
November 16th, 2009 | 10:14 pm | #43
NOTE:
I deleted my own idiotic comment. I made some remarks against a Christian brother out of frustration. I apologize to Michael Spencer and everyone who read it.
November 16th, 2009 | 10:30 pm | #44
Huh. You must only be in it for the hits, Joe — that’s why the rest of us criticize Michael.
Carry on.
November 16th, 2009 | 10:35 pm | #45
Joe said, “By the way, I will say again—as I did on Matt’s post—that I’ve been a fan of Michael “InternetMonk” Spencer for years. I’ve found much of his writing to be edifying and encouraging Yet I am so tired of his martyr complex.”
Ah, Joe. Payback is sweet, isn’t it. Beneath you and un-Christ-like to boot. But it does feel good! I was wondering how long you could resist a cheap shot at Michael in this thread.
November 16th, 2009 | 11:06 pm | #46
I don’t understand the editors of PatrolMag or the use of the term “Christian” to describe it. I mean why get bent out of shape about whether or not PatrolMag is a Christian magazine when they don’t believe there is such a thing as “Christian music.” Couldn’t the same reasons be given for not believing in such a thing as a “Christian magazine?”
But it is clear that they think of themselves as Christians who, incidentally, publish a magazine. Yet, they do so from a “particular Christian perspective.” What could this mean?
It is much like musicians who happen to be Christian, but do not want anything to do with the label of “Christian music.” There may be good reasons for that since most of what is marketed and sold as “Christian music” isn’t artistically good. Yet Christians who happen to make music usually don’t make it their goal to make it according to some “Christian perspective.” They have other ideas in mind that may not have anything to do with Christ at all.
This is where PatrolMag makes no sense and simply adds another incoherent product to the “evangelical wilderness” as Michael likes to call it. It may style itself as “post evangelical” but it is less than that. It is post-Christian, and I mean that in the most serious sense. For any bona fide “Christian perspective” to be both present and authentic there should at least be a concern for nurturing and furthering people’s faith in Christ. When articles are published furthering unbelief then it is entirely fair to say that the publication is “non-Christian” and certainly something that Christians should treat with suspicion.
Nevertheless, the editors are entitled to their opinion and it may be worth hearing. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that they have any kind of workable solution to the problems they highlight.
November 17th, 2009 | 12:12 am | #47
Joe: “What if we were to say hospice chaplaincy in America is hopelessly fractured…”
First, I’d say you are comparing apples to kumquats, but if you persisted, I’d say show me the evidence.
And when I speak of American Evangelicalism, I would be happy to do the same.
I’d take you any “Christian bookstore” and show you shelf after shelf of pablum, pseudo-spirituality, celebrity-driven hype, and sectarian garbage. I’d sit with you while we turn on most any “Christian media” and see how sold out they are to the prosperity gospel, end-times nonsense, or culture war alarmism. I’d take you to most suburban churches and introduce you to congregations of people who are primarily concerned with having a safe and secure activity center in their community, and having a nice place to raise their families, and who have actually very little grasp on the Gospel and the Missio Dei and on what it means to live in the world for Christ. I’d ask you to step back and survey a scene with me that includes everyone from John MacArthur to Joel Osteen under its banner, with no effective way of exercising any quality control over anything that is being promulgated. I’d ask you to come to my town of less than 20k people, where we have at least a dozen little “sects” meeting, each one hanging a shingle pronouncing that they are the group that has it right, where you can finally feel at home. I’d show you all kinds of examples of “worship” that is self-absorbed, “study” that is shared ignorance, and “fellowship” that is separatistic and programmed. From a pastor’s perspective, I would show you a non-denominational slice of this pie that has virtually no theological underpinnings whatsoever except what the local chapter declares them to be with regard to matters like sound doctrine, the ministry, the organization of the church, worship standards, and mission.
Joe, I speak as an insider, with 30+ years experience, not as someone who is taking potshots from the sidelines. If I am critical, it is because I am in the midst of a “lover’s quarrel” with the church, and I see her going astray, further and further from her calling into more and more cultural bondage and ineffectiveness.
November 17th, 2009 | 10:11 am | #48
Adam O:
I’d be careful how far you go in saying something like, “When articles are published furthering unbelief then it is entirely fair to say that the publication is ‘non-Christian’ and certainly something that Christians should treat with suspicion.”
You never know where something like that will lead you.
November 17th, 2009 | 10:40 am | #49
Frank: I have always been a closet watch-blogger :)
November 17th, 2009 | 12:29 pm | #50
“I’d ask you to step back and survey a scene with me that includes everyone from John MacArthur to Joel Osteen under its banner, with no effective way of exercising any quality control over anything that is being promulgated.”
I don’t know that this proves either way, but when I read this one of the first things that popped into my mind was what a 1C pagan would have thought of “the Way”/the Christian thing if they stepped back and saw it as a whole. Consider all the stuff going on in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, or the various letters to the churches in Revelation.
Again, not sure what that thought means.
November 17th, 2009 | 2:26 pm | #51
Andrew, you make a good observation, and actually strengthen my point.
For while there may have also been a “evangelical circus” of sorts going on in the 1st century, there was also a group of authoritative leaders (the apostles) to straighten out the crazies and give God’s word in the situation. And when they struggled to agree, the church called a council to come to consensus about the disputed matters.
Who is there today that we may turn to? Where is the Protestant magisterium? Where are the “apostolic” leaders? Where is the church council?
Who is there to tell Tim LaHaye that publishing another fictional prophecy series may be out of bounds? Who is there to tell Joel Osteen that motivational speaking is not preaching the Gospel? Who is there to test even the best evangelicalism has to offer against some agreed-upon standard of doctrine and practice?
IMHO, this is the main problem in evangelicalism–the problem of authority.
November 17th, 2009 | 2:45 pm | #52
Well, I suppose you know what the answer will be, and as a Protestant I would support it: we have the same magisterium the 1C church did, the apostles themselves. If the scriptures are not clear enough to condemn Joel Osteen, then we should not be condemning him. If they are, we don’t need an extra super-bishop or super-congregation to do it instead.
Of course, some sort of mutual recognition of ministry and church discipline is absolutely essential, and one of the cardinal sins of the Protestant churches today, in my mind. So in a way your point is important, still.
November 17th, 2009 | 2:47 pm | #53
To clarify: the LACK of mutual recognition is the cardinal sin.
December 3rd, 2009 | 9:42 pm | #54
Joe Carter:
You teach at David Session’s former college? Is that a recent move? I was also a student there (in a different major).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact