A Challenge We Need to Take:

I became acquainted with Roger Olson--in an online way--through two avenues.  A good friend of mine spoke of his writing as being helpful, and I read Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, a book to which Olson was a contributor.  He and I disagree on some matters, but as I read his blog, I find that he often helps me to think more clearly.  Even when I disagree with him, I find what he says to be fair and clear.
In his 9/11/2015 post, "Is the “Prosperity Gospel” a Variety of Evangelicalism?" Olson asks an important question.
Some of you know from other posts on this blog, and other comments that I have made, that I have an ongoing struggle concerning what to call myself (here, here, here, here, and here).  I think the old title of "Fundamentalism," has for all practical purposes been abused to the point that it no longer serves any useful purpose.  Though on some days I would say, "Not quite."  Olson is trying to preserve some worthwhile meaning for another abused title, "Evangelical."
Referring to Olson's post, linked above, I posted on my Facebook page today:

Especially when you consider Olson's background (he refers to it in the piece) this is powerful. In the post he urges "all evangelical leaders, influencers, to take a strong public stand against this alternative gospel and reject it as non-evangelical. It is, in my opinion, cultic in the theological sense. That the media are beginning to treat Word-Faith promoters of the “gospel” of health and wealth through magic as evangelicals is scandalous. The movers and shakers of evangelical Christianity in America and everywhere need to band together in spite of our differences and say to the media “They are not us; stop calling them ‘evangelicals’.”My moving and shaking is pretty limited, but I raise my hand to join Roger's club.   

I hope that some true "movers and shakers" will rise to Olson's challenge.
In particular I hope that some of my Charismatic brethren will respond.

Whether you are a Christian leader of large influence who happened upon this blog, or just another small fish, like me, in the big pond of Evangelicalism, I invite you to help keep our pond clean.  Let's make known that these name-it-and-claim-it folk are not evangelicals.  They are part of the Jannes and Jambres magician guild.

I have observed the shift these two writers talk about--Evangelicals, and others who share their conservative ethical views,  are increasingly looked upon as the enemy.  How could you miss a societal change that obvious?  The phenomena Colin Hansen and Steve Cornell talk about is growing all around us.  The recent flap of Lou Giglio is one example.  These articles ask what we should we do about it?  Hunker down or go on the offense?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/30/dare-to-be-immoral/

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/dare-to-challenge-the-intolerance/

Except for my gray hair I look like a paleo-evangelical, but I'm not quite ready to adopt the label as mine.

A young friend of mine, Bart Gingrich, recently introduced me to a new label, here.  I'm pretty tired of labeling, and particularly relabeling--as if calling something by a new name somehow made it different.  This label, though, caught my attention.  Bart, in his article, responded to an article by Thomas Kidd.  A colleague of Bart's also contributed a piece--sort of an across-the-table-with-coffee, friendly debate.  This morning again through Bart--he expands the view from my keyhole--I found that the new moniker, and Bart's article had been passed up the food-chain to First Things, here.

I've had three primary reactions to the discussion about "paleo-evangelicals":

1. I regard it as a very good thing.  I have for sometime thought that the dual sleeping arrangement between a large section of Evangelicalism and what I would call conservative politics has been unhelpful, and, more importantly, unhealthy.  It appears to me that those who are saying, "I guess I am a paleo-evangelical."  Share that discomfort with their political bedfellow's snoring.  My thinking on this was advanced and clarified by some of Chuck Colson's writings, and a very practical straight forward little book, Blinded By Might, written by two former associates of Jerry Fallwell,  Cal Thomas, and Ed Dobson.  To a lesser extent my thinking was tweaked by David Kinnaman & Gabe Lyons' book, Un-Christian.
2. I was actually surprised--pleasantly so, mostly.  As the name of my blog would imply, I don't get out much.  Even as I type this, I have other, much more local things to do.  So it isn't hard to bring up things in the bigger world that surprise me.  I think, though, that I'm more thoughtfully surprised on this one.  I know that the first half of the hyphenated term was transplanted from a well established--though not popularly recognized--label, Paleo-conservative."  Applying "paleo" to evangelical would indicate that this is what evangelicalism was, before it became what it is today.  If I'm wrong about that, I hope my better informed friends will correct me.  But what I find somewhat shocking is that Evangelicalism has morphed into a movement--at least this is how it appears to a significant body of thinking observers--that is identified more by its politics than it's Theology.  At this point I go back to reaction #1.  I'm glad for the recognition.
   I also offer an apology.  I get the idea that I'm much older than most of the voices in this conversation. I'm about forty years older than Bart.  I don't regard myself as directly responsible, but on the part of my generation, I just want to say that I'm sorry.  I'm sorry that we made, or allowed "Evangelical" to become a political term rather than a word that calls to mind what it originally meant--Good News, John 3:16, and Amazing Grace.
3. This is really #2 from the other side, and a return to #1, sort of:
   I am an Evangelical.  As you can tell from some of my previous postings on this blog, I have been somewhat conflicted over that title, but I wear the title with much more comfort than I ever have before.  I grew up in the result of, and the core of my education came from, the Fundamentalist movement that took place in the first half  of the Twentieth Century.  I was taught that "Evangelicalism" was a bad word.  I still have friends that regard it as such.  As I observed what happened to Fundamentalism in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, and as I grew (I hope).  I came to mostly reject the label Fundamentalist.  I hadn't really changed what I believed, but I saw that in the eyes of many--in particular young people--Fundamentalism was seen as something that I wanted no part of.  So, with apologies to some of my forebears, I, mostly, quit using the title.*
   At the same time, though, Evangelicalism took on overtones with which I was not comfortable.  Unlike many of you in this conversation, I was alive before the Moral Majority.  A large part of my thinking here was shaped, not by broad reading and careful reasoning, but by association with some very Godly people who were absolutely Evangelical in the Biblical sense, but thoroughly un-evangelical as defined as a political movement.  If you search this blog for "political" and/or "politics" you'll find that on my side of the keyhole I've been campaigning for some time, that evangelicalism is not a political movement.  I'm sorry we have allowed it to become seen as such.  I would challenge others in the conversation--unless they are political operatives of the ilk who can tell you which way Toyota driving accountants are going to vote (I guess you are paid to that)--to stop looking at Evangelicalism through a political lens.  Yes, because Evangelicals tend to take seriously what the Bible actually says, we are likely to be pro-life, for instance, but to say Evangelicalism is pro-life, as if that defined us, is to distort us.  

Bottom line.  I reject the label Paleo-evangelical.  Not because what I've seen so far does not describe me, it does, mostly.  I said as much in my comment, here.  I reject the label, because I'm not prepared to surrender most of the field and claim just a corner.  I maintain that what is described as Paleo-evangelicalism is really Evangelicalism.  Let's describe the other folk as Politically-distorted-evangelicals, and reclaim the word "Evangelical" for what it really means.

*It doesn't quite fit in the flow of this piece, but the book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, helped clarify my thinking.  Chiefly, the editors choice to include Fundamentalism as one of the subsets of Evangelicalism confirmed a view I have had for some time.  Historically, and Theologically they have common roots.  

Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism:

I'm reading the book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism.  It is one of the Zondervan Counterpoint books.
Thus far I have read the first view by Kevin Bauder. Before I even read his chapter, just the inclusion of Fundamentalism as one view of Evangelicalism was informative.  The fact that a serious Fundamentalist (Though in good Fundamental fashion some Fundamentalists will likely criticize Bauder of doing so) leader would be a part of the project provided further insight, light and encouragement.  I also read the first response to Bauder's position, a  CONFESSIONAL EVANGELICAL RESPONSE R. ALBERT MOHLER JR..

I have come to appreciate both of these men in the past couple of years.  Their contribution to this book--what I have thus far read--is encouraging.  I look forward to reading more.  I welcome conversation with others who are reading the book.
 

Paul's word to Timothy is crystal clear. "Preach the Word!"

Schuller['s] enterprise is filing for bankruptcy on more than one front. . . .
Schuller was only leading the parade of those who believe they are responsible for making the gospel relevant. . . . The lesson is that our attempts to find and exploit a point of cultural contact inevitably end in bankruptcy.

I have always had a problem with the attempt to make the Gospel or the Bible relevant. It is like making water wet. God's word, especially the message within it related to forgiveness and eternal life, is supremely relevant. What is important is for us to not muck it up, so we in some way hide the relevance of the message. Our attempts to be trendy often do just that.

The Christianity Today editorial quoted above does a pretty good job of job of pointing out that what has gone wrong at the Crystal Cathedral was not just a matter of a lack of Windex, but of the very foundations of that ministry and many others. "Today both the Crystal Cathedral and the theology that undergird it seem woefully inadequate buildings in which to house the gospel." Several times the editorial refers to Schuller's theology as Evangelical. Perhaps it started there, and maybe in the formal categories of different kinds of belief-systems his "gospel of self-esteem" belongs in the file folder labeled "Evangelical." I'll leave that to the categoriticians. Clearly, though, a message that avoids the "Woe is me of Isaiah, the Damascus Road of Paul, the "Unless you repent, you too will all perish," of Jesus, and cuts out the first two and a hlaf chapters of the Book of Romans, is not based on the Evangel of the New Testament. I am encouraged that there is a growing group of conservative Evangelicals, moderate Fundamentalists, just plain Bible believers and proclaimers--call them what you will--who are rejecting this kind "relevance."
Os Guiness has some good things to say on attempts at relevance-making that end up making our message totally irrelevant--Prophetic Untimeliness. (I'm not trying to sell books for Amazon. I only include the link so you can get a taste of the book.)

It seems to me that Paul's word to Timothy is crystal clear. "Preach the Word!"

Can those who deny the heart of the Evangel be called Evangelicals?

I just read a post on Al Mohler's blog. On it he makes reference to a Pew survey on religion and a subsequent article in US News and World Report. The quote below gives the disturbing gist of the article.

"an overall majority (54%) of people who identified with a religion and who said they attend church weekly also said many religions can lead to eternal life. This majority included 37% of white evangelicals, 75% of mainline Protestants and 85% of non-Hispanic white Catholics.
This survey cannot easily be dismissed. The specificity of the responses and the quality of the research sample indicate that we face a serious decline in confidence in the Gospel. When 34 % of white evangelicals reject the truth that Jesus is the only Savior, we are witnessing a virtual collapse of evangelical theology." http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php (Dec. 18)

Unfortunately, I am not surprised by the conclusion of this article. It has been my observation for some time that the bulk of so called "Bible believers" live lifes that are shaped much more by the views of respectable society than by the clear teachings of the Bible. I fear that this is one reason that Evangelicals have become so politically active. We want to create a society where we can fit in. We don't want to have to stand out. I'm not advocating a move to Evangelical monasiticism, but I am challenging the motives and focus of some of my brethren. Rather than being willing to stand for the scandal of the cross, are we trying to create a world in which the cross is less scandalous?