You teach at David Session’s former college? Is that a recent move? I was also a student there (in a different major).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Carry on.

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.

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)?

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.

In that case, I misunderstood your point and I was rash in my statement. I apologize.

Best,

Brian