Believers: A Journey into Evangelical America, by Jeffrey Sheler – Sept 26
This is a wonderful tour of evangelicalism through the lenses of various key points of evangelical life. So Sheler, a contributing editor fro Religion for US News and World Report, visits and reviews evangelical history, Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Saddleback, Wheaton, a short term missions trip to Guatemala, a Christian rock concert known as creation, political activity by the NAE in Washington DC, and conflicting visions of two Seminary Presidents — Al Mohler of Southern and Richard Mouw of Fuller.
This is a wonderful tour of evangelicalism through the lenses of various key points of evangelical life. So Sheler, a contributing editor fro Religion for US News and World Report, visits and reviews evangelical history, Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Saddleback, Wheaton, a short term missions trip to Guatemala, a Christian rock concert known as creation, political activity by the NAE in Washington DC, and conflicting visions of two Seminary Presidents — Al Mohler of Southern and Richard Mouw of Fuller. The book ranges into so many distinct layers of evangelicalism that it is a solid survey and proof of the fact that evangelicalism is diverse, hardly the monolith it is often portrayed to be (see my previous blog). There is little new here for one who has ranged through evangelicalism, but the beauty of the book is its breadth and sensitivity. It is full of carefully made observations about the movement. I lead a class every other year with Dr. M. Daniel Carroll-Rodas of Denver Seminary in Guatemala whose goal almost mimics the chapter on Guatemala. Sheler’s descriptions of the experience for those who go for the first time was on the mark. The chapter that causes the most to ponder is the final full chapter on what evangelicalism will be after Billy Graham. Will it be the confrontational cultural engager as Al Mohler says is inevitable given the hard choices about what is right we have in the world? Or will it be the more irenic style of engagement that Richard Mouw advocates and models? Sheler is right to suggest that the key question for evangelicalism is not only what positions it takes but what tone is brought to those positions. The answer to this question may well tell us what evangelicalism will be. Where it is heading only God knows. Hopefully evangelicals can figure out how to makes its case, reflect Scripture, and incarnate it in a way that reaffirms the call and tone of the gospel that God has taken the initiative to fix that which we have broken as humans in our relationship to Him, if we will just stop and take that opportunity in.
12 Comments
bock
dlb – Comments please – Which strategy for evangelicals?
I am interested in response here. Which strategy in the above summary from Jeff Sheler’s books (Mohler’s or Mouw’s) do you think evangelicals should adopt and (briefly) why? Tell me in a few sentences. Is a mixed appraoch also an option depending on the issue? In other words, how important is tone to what evangelicals do? Let me know in this comment window.
lmathew2
Personally, I would choose
Personally, I would choose the irenic style Dr. Mouw proposes. Christians have tried the in your face cultural engager harcore Ray Comfort style for too long and I believe it has brought us more enemies than friends. I think we should look at how Jesus treated issues such as these (political and relational, not religious). He always promoted peace in this sense and never had a “hear we stand” mentality like American Christians do. We should win the people and thus our culture over by having a “power under” style of evangelism than a “power over” like many people try to do by voting the right candidate in office or fighting lawsuits about petty things such as prayer in school or having “One nation under God” in the pledge. Maybe I’m way off track here, I just don’t think Mohler has a clue and fights fights the wrong way.
Steve Bedard
Strategy
I have not read Sheler’s book so I am commenting on your summary. It is funny that you ask this as just this morning I preached on 2 Timothy 2:14-26 where I believe Paul gives a clear pattern of our response. We are to be active in proclaiming the truth, but focusing on the essentials and not the side issues. We are not to argue and quarrel but to simply present the truth in love, gently teaching those we disagree with. This is the tone that Stan Porter and I sought in our book “Unmasking the Pagan Christ.” Ironically, one of our criticisms was that we were too irenic. I know that your focus is on how evangelicals speak on social issues but I believe the principles are the same. As soon as we get confrontational we appear to be attempting a rebuilding of Christendom and the message is lost. I think evangelicals should totally rethink their pro-life strategy, mving from legal battles to providing support for struggling moms, while maintaining a strong pro-life message. Present the truth in love and let God do the rest.
Allen Fischer
Sept 26 – Evangelical Strategy
I would respectfully disagree with Mohler – confrontational cultural engager – primarily because there is no such thing. All attempts at this are so morally selective and sadly inconsistent that all credibility is lost.
I would respectfully disagree with Mouw because an irenic style of engagement cannot compete in our noisy, marketing mad society.
I would also mildly disagree with Sheler’s emphasis on tone. In practice, “tone” will be as diverse as evangelicalism. There won’t be one right tone.
The thing that does matter is enthusiasm for a relevant position. A position that generates enthusiastic action.
The passing of Billy Graham ended the era of frontier evangelism. Frontier evangelism emphasized personal salvation. What is relevant post Billy G? The salvation of the creation. Until evangelical theology takes seriously that God is bringing BOTH individuals and the creation to himself, and BOTH are equally important to the Creator, evangelicals will remain way behind the relevance curve.
For God so loved the “cosmos” . . .
Allen
gsheryl
Jeffrey Sheler’s Book and Engaging Style
Although I haven’t read Sheler’s book, I enjoyed the book review, and it sounds like an interesting read.
There is an old saying, “You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.” Hence, an irenic style of engagement would seem to be the most effective for many issues. However, it probably does depend–as you suggested–somewhat on the issue. We should not compromise on essential matters, and we must call sin what God calls sin. So, there are probably issues that call for a dogmatic approach, rather than an irenic one.
henke
Earning the Right
I would like to see a combined approach. Rightly or wrongly evangelicalism has lost the right to be heard. Our rhetoric tends to drown out anything we do of substance to serve society. Wouldn’t it be nice if evangelicalism had a reputation for their selfless commitment to helping the poor, the sick, and the outcast? It seems that working to develop this kind of reputation would give us the right to be heard. There are clearly examples where this occurrs. Fellowship Little Rock seems to have developed a terrific reputation with that city as being a church committed to serving the community. N.T. Wright has mentioned in the past that his congregation developed a similar reputation, and the result of that was twofold: 1) the public press that they received was very positive; 2) it gave them the opportunity to say, “We have answers to some fundamentally difficult problems.” This would seem to open the door for the gospel (and kingdom living) in a place that would have previously been very hostile to this message.
henke
Earning the Right
I would like to see a combined approach. Rightly or wrongly evangelicalism has lost the right to be heard. Our rhetoric tends to drown out anything we do of substance to serve society. Wouldn’t it be nice if evangelicalism had a reputation for their selfless commitment to helping the poor, the sick, and the outcast? It seems that working to develop this kind of reputation would give us the right to be heard. There are clearly examples where this occurrs. Fellowship Little Rock seems to have developed a terrific reputation with that city as being a church committed to serving the community. N.T. Wright has mentioned in the past that his congregation developed a similar reputation, and the result of that was twofold: 1) the public press that they received became very positive; 2) it gave them the opportunity to say, “We have answers to some fundamentally difficult problems.” This would seem to open the door for the gospel (and kingdom living) in a place that would have previously been very hostile to this message.
gsheryl
Earning the Right to Be Heard
While the things that you mentioned are good and positive things; and, for instance, Rick Warren is one of those involved in trying to address some of the social ills in the world through addressing problems associated with AIDS–the church’s primary mission toward the world is to proclaim the gospel to it. Certainly the church should be involved in social acts as well, and I would say that at least parts of the church are indeed doing this. Look, for instance, at the aid given by many churches to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Look also at food pantries, soup kitchens, and other forms of aid given and/or supported by various churches. Other examples could be given.
However, I don’t understand why you would say that “Rightly or wrongly evangelicalism has lost the right to be heard.” Says who?
henke
Rightly or wrongly…
I say rightly or wrongly because there are those that have given evangelicalism a bad name, speaking the truth without love, And when that happens all of evangelicalism pays the penalty, particularly as those voices tend to be the loudest. They tend to define the characterization that the “public” uses for evangelicals. So while it’s not true that all (or possibly even much) of evangelicalism is guilty, that is often the characterization. So I mention ministries like Fellowship Little Rock (or Rick Warren as you have mentioned) because they are allowing the public to see the gospel “lived out.” And proclaiming Jesus as Lord has to be central to that as you appropriately stated. But if Jesus is Lord, he must be Lord today, with our hands and with our feet.
bock
dlb – Rightly or wrongly
One simple response here: Amen.
DLB
Mike Bird
They’ll know we are Christians by our vitriolic rhetoric
Through some missionary connections I heard the story about a woman in Iran who converted to Christianity. A missionary working in Iran met her and asked her why she become a Christian?
She replied, “Because of the Ayotollah Khomeini”.
The missionary was stunned by the answer, “How did the Ayotollah make you become a Christian?”
“Because,” she said “everytime I looked into his eyes, all I ever saw was hatred!”
I think some Christian leaders on the right are Evangelical Ayotollah’s because every time they open their mouths all you ever hear is hatred, fear, and loathing. They define the gospel narrowly and then have the gall to tell others that they alone are the guardians of truth and righteousness. All arguments are pitched in binary fashion, either “A” or “B”. They are more excited about what they are against than what they are for. Their Bible says “blessed are the heresy hunters” while mine says “blessed are the peace makers”. They want to purge from fellowship everyone who does not tow the line, even on matters that are adiaphora. Their gospel is not Jesus Christ crucified and risen, but a doctrinal statement about imputation and inerrancy. They are unable to differentiate between areas of command and areas of conviction, and the idea that many of their proudly held beliefs are products of their own culture and environment does not even register as a possibility.
My statement is hyperbolic I know, but symptomatic of what I call the “angry, angry” side of Evangelicalism. What is more I’m a theological consevative so this is not the rantings of some far-out left-winger. But I really wish evangelicals would adopt a crazy idea that the central tenet or sine qua non of Evangelicalism is the Evangel and not calvinism, not dispensationalism, not inerrancy, and not complementarianism. That’s why the SBCs election of Frank Page is a good thing and everything he says impresses me. He believes the Bible, but he’s not angry about it. He wants to be known for what he’s for (the gospel), rather than what he’s against.
In sum, I’ll learn towards Mouw over Mohler.
jogly
Sheler
I read Sheler’s book and have had the pleasure of corresponding with him, and am looking forward to his appearance on the panel on Christians and the Media at the national ETS meeting in Washington DC Nov 16-18. I was particularly impressed by his characterization of the NAE’s man in Washington, Rich Cizik, who has been pushing hard to broaden evangelical concerns (i.e. global warming) so that evangelicals are not altogether seen as a morality-imposing monolith. I’m also all for broadening the evangelical mandate by becoming more conversant with the world so that we are not perceived as simply slinging arrows from the ivory tower.