Last October I invited two dozens evangelical pastors, philosophers, theologians, and bloggers to join together for an on-going conversation. The intention was to create a place where we could discuss the issues that are important to our community and to explain ourselves to non-believers, Christians from other traditions, and anyone else who was interested in listening in. The result was more than I could have ever hoped for.
However, as this blog matured, we experienced the inevitable growing pains. Personality clashes drove some people away while others were confused about the blog’s purpose. Some critics complained that we were too Reformed, too conservative, too focused on politics. We listened to the criticisms and attempted to make a course correction by bringing in new blood and setting new internal standards. Unfortunately, the changes were insufficient. A few weeks ago I realized it was time for a radical alteration.
Today we’re rebooting Evangel. We removed everyone from the masthead and started from scratch, asking the group to decide who among them would be willing to commit to this project and who would fit in with the new, refined mission. Unfortunately, not everyone will be returning. As anyone who has participated in a group blog can tell you (I’ve been a part of nine different group blogs), it is difficult to be fully engaged when you have your own blog and writing projects that require your time and attention. For some of our contributors it was simply time to move on. It wasn’t fair to impose on their friendship by asking them to continue to write here for free. I’m grateful for all they’ve done and will miss their contributions.
As we go forward we want to reiterate where we stand. Although we hail from various evangelical traditions, we all share certain core agreements, such as the Nicene Creed, the five solas, and the inerrancy of the Bible. Most of all we are committed to the evangel—the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We have also agreed that certain topics that are appropriate for discussion are not necessarily appropriate to discuss here. For instance, we’ve erred at times by focusing on American politics. While we are unapologetic about being a prophetic witness on issues such as human dignity and the defense of the family, we will refrain from engaging in partisan political discussions. While we may discuss how Christians should engage in the political process, we will not be weighing in on the merits of Sarah Palin or Barack Obama.
Similarly, while we welcome intramural discussions about doctrine, we intend to focus more on informing and analyzing rather than debating the superiority of our particular tradition. We want to stimulate a greater awareness and understanding of the depths of evangelicalism and how it enriches the broader Christian community. We want to engage with charity rather than attack with impunity.
One thing that will not change, though, is the value we place on our readers and commenters. We need you to help shape the direction of this blog as we move into our second year. Let us know what topics you’d like to discuss and what we can do to improve this blog. Please leave your thoughts in the comments below or send them to me at jcarter@firstthings.com.
August 17th, 2010 | 12:39 am | #1
Hi Joe,
I look forward to the rebooted Evangel!
“Although we hail from various evangelical traditions, we all share certain core agreements, such as the Nicene Creed, the five solas, and the inerrancy of the Bible.”
As a minimum, that’s not a bad place to start!
August 17th, 2010 | 7:09 am | #2
This is what I’ve been hoping for every time I think about no longer reading Evangel.
August 17th, 2010 | 8:06 am | #3
This was probably long overdue. I originally read Evangel every day but gradually stopped reading very often at all after the comments turned nasty and the posts became more about pushing a personal agenda, whether Reformed theology or Lutheran ecclesiology or what have you. I suspect many others have had a similar experience. I am interested to see what comes of this, I am hoping to see more voices from around the evangelical world that haven’t been respresented and more talk about what unites us rather than finding new and improved ways to divide us while still holding fast to the Gospel.
August 17th, 2010 | 8:44 am | #4
Well said Joe. I look forward to seeing the reboot.
August 17th, 2010 | 9:54 am | #5
Joe I look forward to the change and pray that the tenor will be less divisive.
At some point could you point us to all the blog of bloggers who have participated on Evangel. There some I would like to continue reading.
August 17th, 2010 | 10:09 am | #6
A blog like this always has an inherent risk. On one hand, a free flow of opinions and contributors will lead to some regrettable posts and threads. On the other hand, if one regulates things sufficiently to remove such risks then one also removes the expressiveness that provides the blog with salt and light. Perhaps if all of us behave like ladies and gentlemen, we the clientele, can make sure that this remains a edifying place to spend time.
August 17th, 2010 | 10:45 am | #7
Farewell, Frank Turk (it looks like, from the masthead). Although we disagreed vehemently on some things, you have my respect, and may God bless you.
August 17th, 2010 | 1:28 pm | #8
Congratulations on this necessary reboot. It is bold to admit error, and I respect you for doing it here. I look forward to a more balanced, and tempered discussion.
August 17th, 2010 | 1:32 pm | #9
..and farewell to Mark Olsen, Christopher Benson, Adam Omalschenk?, Francis Beckwith, and who else? Godspeed to all
August 17th, 2010 | 1:41 pm | #10
Argh, make that “temperate” not “tempered.” I always do that.
August 17th, 2010 | 2:07 pm | #11
I’ve always enjoyed Jesus’ temperate and reasoned discussions with the folks who objected to what he was teaching.
He’s the model to follow.
August 17th, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #12
The irony is that this post will probably result in a heated and nasty argument.
August 17th, 2010 | 3:24 pm | #13
a heated and nasty argument.
This must be avoided at all costs.
Therefore, everybody must agree with everybody else’s beliefs, opinions, and convictions.
This will avoid the uber-terrible thing called “a heated and nasty argument.”
August 17th, 2010 | 3:32 pm | #14
I, for one, will miss ___ and ___. But I’m glad to see ___, ___, and ___ go. *harumph*
August 17th, 2010 | 3:43 pm | #15
I didn’t realize there were so many contributors named Underscore.
August 17th, 2010 | 3:49 pm | #16
They tend to go unnoticed and… undervalued.
(rimshot?)
August 17th, 2010 | 3:50 pm | #17
Who are the contributors to the “rebooted” blog Evangel?
August 17th, 2010 | 5:39 pm | #18
Hey Joe,
I suppose this was a necessary adjustment, but it’s a disappointment nonetheless.
Based on the events of the last few weeks, it feels a little like a witch hunt even though I’m sure it wasn’t. But in our postmodern epoch, it does matter how one “feels” when they react to things- take that tongue-in-cheek.
Two conclusions I would hate to see of Evangel:
1) If the complaints revolved around how Evangel wasn’t diverse enough in appropriate Evangelical views, I don’t see how Evangel wins by limiting the masthead. I would hate to see this become a giant agree-fest. Though I am thoroughly Reformed and Presbyterian, there’s a reason I liked this blog more than the Gospel Coalition. Disagreement challenges and heartens. Agreement gives me very little intellectual stimulation and challenge from the outside world. I get little sharpening elsewhere in the blogosphere.
2) I’d hate to see fringe positions not discussed. If it isn’t just the masthead that’s limited but the amount of appropriate subject matter that is, I will probably stop reading this blog. I’m too much of a Chesterton fan to enjoy any moderation. Moderation and indecisiveness aren’t virtues, but I think loving and intelligent disagreement are. They are also virtues that weren’t exercised by some of the previous writers, no matter how much I agreed with them.
These are two temptations I hope you avoid. This blog had been one of those rare diamonds in the internet rough. The article that lead me here in the first place was a Wall St. Journal article that talked about how we know Anglicans and Catholics can be smart and cited this blog as an example of rigorous evangelical intellectualism too. I fear we may have lost something with the house-clearing.
I will still read, but I’m waiting to see if I will stick around. I hope I’m wrong.
August 17th, 2010 | 6:15 pm | #19
David Strunk: “Disagreement challenges and heartens.”
I agree.
Wait, wait, wait. I disagree!
Oh no, wait… I agree with you!
Oh dear, what to do? If I agree with you, then disagreement is good for it “challenges and heartens.” But if I disagree with you, then I’m practicing disagreement and every precursor to “a heated and nasty argument” has come from having a disagreement. And so if we could just eliminate disagreement altogether between folks, why then we would never have that uber-terrible thing called a “heated and nasty argument.”
Oh dear, who knew that deciding whether to agree or disagree could pose such existential challenges?
We all agree on what the Evangel is? Right?
;-)
August 17th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #20
Sorry to see some of my favorites go: Christopher Benson was one. Adam O another.
Ultimately it will be the commenters not the authors that will kill Evangel.
August 18th, 2010 | 12:45 am | #21
Ouch! My WSJ piece directed David Strunk to Evangel and not Patrol? Doh!
All in good fun. Here’s to future intellectual conversation, and happy disagreements.
August 18th, 2010 | 1:45 am | #22
I’d welcome a treatment of “human dignity and the defense of family” that isn’t merely part the usual “partisan political discussion.” But can anyone on the Masthead achieve fair-mindedness on these topics? What would an attempt at fair-mindedness on such topics even look like? I’d welcome an example.
August 18th, 2010 | 2:03 am | #23
“I’d welcome a treatment of “human dignity and the defense of family” that isn’t merely part the usual “partisan political discussion.” But can anyone on the Masthead achieve fair-mindedness on these topics? What would an attempt at fair-mindedness on such topics even look like? I’d welcome an example.”
Would you accept the following as an example?
The Manhattan Declaration
August 18th, 2010 | 2:26 am | #24
C. Ehrlich But can anyone on the Masthead achieve fair-mindedness on these topics?
I guess it depends on what you mean by fair-mindedness. For example, abortion is a grave moral evil and those who support it are wrong. That’s not a matter of partisanship, but of morality.
In my opinion, it would be less than fair-minded to tell a lie about that fact in an attempt at faux impartiality.
August 18th, 2010 | 4:13 am | #25
Joe Carter #24,
It would be refreshing to hear, among evangelicals, a fair-minded discussion of the morality of abortion. Where are the impartial assessments of the arguments and assumptions? In the evangelical circles, there seems to be a lack of critical reflection on the usual pro-life views. And while this may be a sign that sound reasoning from biblical premises makes the pro-life positions obvious for any thoughtful evangelical, the unchallenged pro-life consensus is more plausibly a bit of cultural dogma that only has the appearance of obviousness because of the partisan pressures from within the evangelical community–pressures that tend to silence dissident views and questioning. All this at odds with the fair-mindedness which, at least in other contexts, most evangelicals wish to embrace.
August 18th, 2010 | 8:25 am | #26
I would like to see a discussion of a consistant hermanutic of life. Evangelicals are all over certain aspects of abortion, but what about…
- Death Penalty
- Govt Health Care for the Poor
- Food programs for low income women, infants and children
- etc…
If your going to argue for govt intervention in availablity of abortion (as many Christians do) then what about govt intervention in any other aspect of the sanctity of life?
It’s definately an area the Catholics have a much more consistant world view
August 18th, 2010 | 9:20 am | #27
Hi Joe –
I think the decision is a good one. I have a suspicion that to do what you say you want to do will require further fine-tuning.
Happy Birthday, and God bless you as you seek to serve the Lord through this outlet.
August 18th, 2010 | 9:21 am | #28
Thanks also for not removing my posts here and maintaining their archive, for whatever that is worth.
:-)
August 18th, 2010 | 10:50 am | #29
C. Ehrlich And while this may be a sign that sound reasoning from biblical premises makes the pro-life positions obvious for any thoughtful evangelical, the unchallenged pro-life consensus is more plausibly a bit of cultural dogma that only has the appearance of obviousness because of the partisan pressures from within the evangelical community–pressures that tend to silence dissident views and questioning.
That could certainly be the case, though I think the questions about the issue have been resolved for at least two decades. In fact, I think it is indeed a matter of sound reasoning from biblical premises as most evangelicals—both liberal and conservative—would normally concede.
A fair-minded discussion of the morality of abortion would probably begin with the question: Where in the bible does it give us warrant to kill a human being at the earliest stages of development?
I think the impetus is for those who think abortion can be squared with biblically-based morality to make their case so that we can address their position fairly.
david carlson - Death Penalty
The Bible not only endorses the death penalty, but requires is for the crime of murder.
Govt Health Care for the Poor
I suspect most evangelicals—like most other Christians—would argue that caring for the poor is the job of the church. The government only has to intervene when we have failed to do our duty.
Food programs for low income women, infants and children
See above.
If your going to argue for govt intervention in availablity of abortion (as many Christians do) then what about govt intervention in any other aspect of the sanctity of life?
That’s an odd question. We are asking the government to intervene to protect a human being from being directly killed by another human being. That is one of the primary functions of government. None of the other things you mentioned are necessarily roles that the government should take on.
It’s definately an area the Catholics have a much more consistant world view
I think you may be misunderstanding the Catholic position.
August 18th, 2010 | 12:53 pm | #30
Q: Does the following constitute temperate disagreement which challenges and heartens?
“It is simply irrefutable that the BioLogos project is deeply entrenched in obliterating what’s described in my fifth point, and in engaging in activities covered by my fourth point. This is their chief aim — as it is the aim of every cult, post-orthodoxy, which finds itself wanting to appease some other authority apart from or above Scripture. This assertion requires more than just saying it is so. Look for my exposition of this in the near future.
…
I used strong words last week to underscore my exit from Evangel over this issue, and I stand by all of it. I will in fact be spending most of the rest of this year spelling out what I mean by it all by demonstrating it from the BioLogos site — an activity which will not convert one soul to the Gospel and in that respect be an almost-useless activity from an evangelistic standpoint. But while the saving of the lost is a critical issue, protecting the saved is another, and that’s the goal here.”
From Frank Turk’s post today titled: Doxology of the Scientific Method.
August 18th, 2010 | 12:54 pm | #31
re: Death Penalty. Blacks are more likely to receive the death penalty for crimes than whites, for the same crimes. There is a significant amount of research on this.
Is the death penalty applied in a just and fair manner? Should this be an issue that Christians do something about? Should it be a “life” issue that so many people are on death row DNA testing would exonerate? Yet there are some who argue against doing so?
re health care: Well, we (Christians) have failed. Now what?
re catholic church: Perhaps I don’t have a complete understanding. On the other hand, with my wife teaching at a catholic high school for 5 years, you might be surprised what I have learned.
August 18th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #32
Hmmm… well, I’ve occasionally noticed – and appreciated – the “heated” discussions on Evangel.
I read Evangel & First Thoughts every 2 or 3 days; like David (comment 18) I have appreciated the diversity of evangelical viewpoints represented here as well as each one’s staunch defense of their own traditions. For me, I enjoy this blog far more than single tradition blogs because it expose me to different streams of evangelical ideas – ones I rarely encounter in my own church community. I rarely visit “echo chamber” sites.
With regard to politics, I think that this blog should touch on political topics that are of interest to evangelicals – even if they overlap “partisan” discussions. I don’t think there are any issues with it doing so from the individual perspectives of its contributors, even if they disagree with each other.
Both political and religious disagreements could allow this blog to model the respectful discussion that is so needed in the evangelical world. I’ve always admired First Things for being a leader in Christian intellectual scholarship and occasionally noted that evangelical Christendom would do well to have a simlar quality (& similarly accessible) outlet for thought. For this reason, I welcomed the Evangel blog and hope it can continue to address the most relevant issues of our day.
August 18th, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #33
Joe Carter,
Your desire is for this blog to move beyond the “partisan political discussions” and to replace those attitudes which simply seek to prove “the superiority of our particular tradition” with attitudes of charitable engagement. This is a worthy aspiration, but I don’t see how it can be achieved if those on the Masthead should refuse to actively welcome and promote critical reflection on the usual conservative evangelical positions regarding any of the hotly contested issues–issues for which you seek to be a “prophetic witness” (which, apparently, include such as abortion, the death penalty, conservative views of distributive justice, etc.).
To achieve fair-mindedness on these issues–and the sort of fair-mindedness that most evangelicals themselves embrace in most other contexts–I think you must do one of two things. You must either provide up front a list of presupposed “truths” regarding these hotly contested issues (that is, give a list of statements such as: “We are committed to view that abortion is immoral,that the Bible requires us to support capital punishment,” etc.), or you must welcome a critical discussion of these things, however obvious they may seem to you. A fair-minded approach towards these issues would involve an attempt to call into question those assumptions, which, while seemingly obvious within “our particular tradition,” look highly dubious from the outside–even by those who grant truth of the Gospel and biblical inerrancy.
August 18th, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #34
david carlson re: Death Penalty. Blacks are more likely to receive the death penalty for crimes than whites, for the same crimes. There is a significant amount of research on this.
This seems to be a justice issue, rather than a pro-life one. There are actually two questions involved here:
Are blacks being condemned to death for murders they did not commit? If so then that is a problem with the governmental implementation of justice and should be rectified.
Are black murders condemned to death more often than white murders? If this is the case, then it would appear that justice is being done more often when blacks commit crimes and less often when whites commit the same crime. That is also a situation that should be rectified.
Should this be an issue that Christians do something about?
Yes, justice should be a concern for all Christians.
Should it be a “life” issue that so many people are on death row DNA testing would exonerate?
I would say it was more of an “implementation of justice” issue.
Yet there are some who argue against doing so?
Really? Who? I don’t think I’ve ever heard an evangelical say that we shouldn’t use DNA evidence that could exonerate those unjustly convicted of a capital offense.
re health care: Well, we (Christians) have failed. Now what?
I’ll agree that Christians have failed. That is why we now have medicare and medicaid. Ideally, though, Christians should be the ones that provide care for the sick who are too indigent to pay.
re catholic church: Perhaps I don’t have a complete understanding. On the other hand, with my wife teaching at a catholic high school for 5 years, you might be surprised what I have learned.
I didn’t mean any offense. But the Catholic Church has made it clear that this other “life” issues are not on the same level as abortion. A Catholic can disagree with the idea that the government should pay for the healthcare of the poor, but they should not disagree about the teachings on abortion.
August 18th, 2010 | 3:06 pm | #35
I agree with EM above!
August 18th, 2010 | 5:57 pm | #36
C. Ehrlich #25
My hate and revulsion of abortion is in no way imposed by “peer pressure.” That is actually one of the most insulting things I have ever read.
August 18th, 2010 | 10:15 pm | #37
Rob Bailey, do you suppose that your “hate and revulsion”–not to mention your evident facility in displaying indignation–might have ever pressured others?
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be emotional about these issues; but such passions do mean that we’ve got to be all the more intentional in aiming for fair-mindedness. Wouldn’t you agree?
August 18th, 2010 | 11:27 pm | #38
God hates sin.
His hatred of sin has probably pressured others, including me.
And I am thankful for His hatred of sin, and I am thankful for His pressure. Both directly and indirectly.
August 18th, 2010 | 11:31 pm | #39
Many of the influential thinkers of our day have confused “fair mindedness” and incredulousness. The tendency to not want to believe has pressured way more people in the last 100 years. Just look at the current and trending systems of belief and lifestyles of our society. In positive and negative ways I do not think it is the pressure that causes people to make moral decisions. I do think people feel more comfortable expressing the values they already posses and maybe have not made known until they meet someone that has similar convictions. The values that an individual has are not generated from the outside. They are, for someone redeemed by Christ, generated by a conscience directed by the Holy Spirit. The bent of the heart and therefore the convictions and actions of someone unregenerate is from an inherent sin nature.
“do you suppose that your “hate and revulsion”–not to mention your evident facility in displaying indignation–might have ever pressured others?” I would like to think it would, but as I stated above, there are only two sources of conviction.
August 19th, 2010 | 4:13 pm | #40
I must ask: What are the fully-elaborated goals, objectives, and policies of this site?
August 20th, 2010 | 11:05 am | #41
It’s praiseworthy that you are making an effort to avoid becoming entangled in unedifying political discussions, in spite of the fact that the blog will thereby more poorly represent evangelicalism. ;-)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact