# Time Magazine's Top 25 Most-Influential Evangelicals



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 31, 2005)

Has anyone read Time magazine's picks for the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America today? What say ye, Puritan Board?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/index.html?cnn=yes


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 31, 2005)

To the first one!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 31, 2005)

Man, Chuch COlson looks like Joe Paterno in that pic!


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 31, 2005)

T.D. Jakes
The Pentecostal Media Mogul: Even in a profession peopled with multi-taskers, Bishop Thomas Dexter (T.D.) Jakes stands out. Last year the African-American preacher's R-rated religious movie about sexual abuse, Woman, Thou Art Loosed, cracked the box-office top 10. His self-empowerment book He-Motions: Even Strong Men Struggle was a best seller. And his record label Dexterity Sounds/EMI Gospel won its first Grammy. Jakes' teachings of faith, family and financial prosperity reach far beyond the Potter's House, his 35,000-member suburban Dallas church.  This year he has two more movies in the works and plans a business-networking cruise to Alaska, a leadership conference in London and the second annual Mega Fest, a gathering for families that is expected to draw 200,000 people to Atlanta in August. A master of pop psychology,  Jakes, 47, represents a new wrinkle for Evangelicals, the neo-Pentecostals, who combine intense spirituality with a therapeutic approach.  with critics of his popular style has taught Jakes a few lessons of his own: his latest book is titled Ten Commandments of Working in a Hostile Environment.

[Edited on 31-1-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 31, 2005)

Oy Vey!To most of those on the list.

Mat 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.


----------



## sastark (Jan 31, 2005)

Interesting comment about Chalcedon (though, of course totally biased), on the second page (Howard & Roberta Ahmanson):



> The couple have been accused over the years of having an extremist agenda, mostly because a onetime pet charity, the Chalcedon Foundation, advocates the Christian reconstructionist branch of theology that says gays and other biblical lawbreakers should be stoned. Howard distanced himself from those views and resigned from the foundation board years ago.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 31, 2005)

Better to have Warren at the front of the list than Jakes.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jan 31, 2005)

hehehehe man the reformists are really insignificant.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 31, 2005)

Kudos to Mark Noll, Packer, and a few others. The rest show why Evangelicals are not changing america.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 31, 2005)

After glancing through the article this is the only thing that would come to my mind:

Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

-- Monty Python, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 31, 2005)

Oh man! Yea, baby!


----------



## Richard King (Jan 31, 2005)

*Note this one:*

This one creeps me out, the Lutheran turned Catholic who does not regard chapter and verse of scripture as the last word:

Richard John Neuhaus
Bushism Made Catholic: When Bush met with journalists from religious publications last year, the living authority he cited most often was not a fellow Evangelical but a man he calls Father Richard, who, he explained, "helps me articulate these [religious] things." A senior Administration official confirms that Neuhaus "does have a fair amount of under-the-radar influence" on such policies as abortion, stem-cell research, cloning and the defense-of-marriage amendment. 
Neuhaus, 68, is well-prepared for that role. As founder of the religion-and-policy journal First Things, he has for years articulated toughly conservative yet nuanced positions on a wide range of civic issues. A Lutheran turned Catholic priest, he can translate conservative Protestant arguments couched tightly in Scripture into Catholicism's broader language of moral reasoning, more accessible to a general public that does not regard chapter and verse as final proof. And there is one last reason for Bush to cherish Neuhaus, who has worked tirelessly to persuade conservative Catholics and Evangelicals to make common cause. It's called the conservative Catholic vote, and it played a key role last November.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 31, 2005)

My hero. I know that some of you will hate me now that you know the truth. Just consider that he has gotten old. He brought me to the Puritans. 

[Edited on 1-31-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## govols (Jan 31, 2005)

You have to hand it to the LeHayes. They don't throw away their clothes. Still wearing what they wore from the 70's.

He didn't want to leave them behind, I guess.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 31, 2005)

I'm a bit shocked that Packer didn't write the forward for that particular issue of Time!


----------



## Augusta (Jan 31, 2005)

2 out of 25. That is really depressing.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 31, 2005)

You have to take the source into consideration. I would not look for the spiritual well-being of my future library based on what Time said about "Christians."

Once in a while they do "get it right" - like when they picked Martin Luther as the most influential man in the last 1000 years. I'd say that was a good pick.

Packer - that's tragic. A theologian who compromised on the truth.

Colson - equally tragic - he is not a theologian by any means.

The others don't even belong in the list.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 31, 2005)

Even Noll has unfortunately compromised as well, as his response to the ECT document was, "Evangelicals can no longer consider Catholics as ogres or anti-Christs."


----------



## yeutter (Jan 31, 2005)

Dianne Knippers has impressed me over the years. So has Packer despite his inconsistancy. Noll has written things that have been helpful. Three out of 25 from Time Magazine. Better then I expected.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 31, 2005)

The main reason that I mentioned Noll was that he has written good books in the past. I have beef with him on his:
1.evidentialism in apologetics (minor actually)
2.ECT
3.although Scandal of the Evangelical Mind was great, he tended to whine and complain against YEC.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 31, 2005)

YEC?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 31, 2005)

Young Earth Creationism


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> I'm a bit shocked that Packer didn't write the forward for that particular issue of Time!



Now that is funny!

What is YEC? Add it to the list. Thanks Jacob!

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 31, 2005)

*Asked at a conference last spring what he thought about gay marriage, Brian McLaren replied, "You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 31, 2005)

What ever happened to the truth 'faithful are the wounds of a friend?'


----------



## SmokingFlax (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:
"the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side."

Hey ...I didn't get a chance to read this whole article...did this guy mention something about dressing up in woman's clothes too?


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> After glancing through the article this is the only thing that would come to my mind:
> 
> Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 31, 2005)

Warren=gag
Ahmeson=no clue, could care less, don't have money
Barton=seems I've heard of him, guess okay
Coe=seems like a cheezy universalist
Colson=stay topical and leave out theology and I have him on my shelf
Cortes=don't know his doctrine, but sounds like he's "done good"
Dobson=as a voice for the family, I like him....but I can't stand his pop-psychology!
Epperson=no clue...we have Mr Bott here and I like Mr Bott's radio network
Gerson=like his speeches, but he needs to leave out some of the universalism he adds in (didn't he add things about Muslims, good, and God in the same paragraph?)
Graham=YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDIN' ME...but MOST EXPECTED 
Haggard=again...no clue----I must either be out of the loop or else conservatives don't count to these ppl
Hybels=like his name, a bunch of high bells, but no substance....making Christianity into a market....puke
TDJakes=I've been tempted to read his books...but....I'm probably best of not...is he like one of these "life coaches"? oohhh, I feel the warmfuzzies comin on....
Knippers=Time is trying hard to make the Dems look good
LaHaye=now we all may disagree with certain things with them, but I do believe they are Christians and are putting in an effort...(if ya got a problem with his britches then take pity and buy the man a pair of jeans, okay?)
Land=I have to applaud the man for some of his stands
MacLaren=I take issue with his "deconstructing" the church
Meyer=I KNEW "Joycie" was gonna be in here....that girl needs a momma to put her back in her place! Would her husband take his britches back, please!
Neuhaus=no thank you
Noll=not a clue, but I'll take your word for it
Packer=I heard he used to be pretty sound
Santorum=may disagree with his theology, but sounds like he's on our side boys
Sekulow=YAY!!! for the ACLJ!!!!
Strang=Charisma magazine? UGH!
Winter=I honestly don't know


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> Quote:
> "the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side."
> 
> Hey ...I didn't get a chance to read this whole article...did this guy mention something about dressing up in woman's clothes too?



That is hilarious! Good one!


----------



## hhtuck (Feb 1, 2005)

*Welcome to Polyesterville*



> You have to hand it to the LeHayes. They don't throw away their clothes. Still wearing what they wore from the 70's.



That's what I'm talking about. I think those were the same pants he wore for the cover of Newsweek. Yikes.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 1, 2005)

(if ya got a problem with his britches then take pity and buy the man a pair of jeans, okay?)


----------



## Ivan (Feb 1, 2005)

Joyce Meyers?!?! Someone at Time is obviously smoking something other than cigars!!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 1, 2005)

they're not smokin anything....they're on HAPPY PILLS!!!!


----------



## Ivan (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> they're not smokin anything....they're on HAPPY PILLS!!!!



Well, whatever it is, it has altered their mind! 

My first time to use the dancing banana...and now, dear friends, it's time for me to sleep...overnighter that I am!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 1, 2005)

What seems obvious to me is that these so called 'influentials' are, more than anything, politically influential, and that is what gets them into the 25. There are no more than 7 in that list who have any large impact on evanjellycalism today.

JH


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> What seems obvious to me is that these so called 'influentials' are, more than anything, politically influential, and that is what gets them into the 25. There are no more than 7 in that list who have any large impact on evanjellycalism today.
> 
> JH



While I agree with you I do think they are representative of Evanjelly Land. I think their politicalviews are not that much different frommainstream evangelicals


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> You have to take the source into consideration. I would not look for the spiritual well-being of my future library based on what Time said about "Christians."
> 
> Once in a while they do "get it right" - like when they picked Martin Luther as the most influential man in the last 1000 years. I'd say that was a good pick.
> ...



Matt, the fact that Ted Haggard is on the list is frightening, and that's speaking from personal experience. I went to his church in my spiritual infancy, and it nearly cost me my sanity. This is a congregation that plays headgames with people within its camp, whether that person is a member or not.

Dr. Dobson is one of the reasons why we have a "Culture War" here in America. He is more concerned in combatting (sp?) the anti-Christian liberals than with advocating the Truth of Scripture. Also, some of his radio show guests have not been friendly toward Puritan Theology -- let alone the original meaning of Scripture (for example, on 10.11.2004, two of his guests, Kim Wier and Pam McCune had the gall to advertise making Halloween a "Christian holiday" and gave their nefarious reasons why). [On a sidenote, I forwarded your article "The Way of the Heathen" to Pam McCune via her website. It came as no surprise that she never responded to me. Error doesn't take to kindly to Truth, and that example proved it.]

As for Billy Graham, enough said. There is no need to further elaborate on that man.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Haggard=again...no clue----I must either be out of the loop or else conservatives don't count to these ppl



Colleen, you might want to read what I told Matt about Ted Haggard. Very dangerous man.

BTW, you should also read Matt's article on his main site, "Please Don't Call Me an Evangelical". Last I knew, Ted Haggard was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Their slogan is Cooperation without Compromise. Call it what you will, but I find that to be such a blanket statement. Truthfully, there is compromise in more ways than one.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by JasonGoodwin]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 19, 2005)

Darn... 

C. Matthew McMahon
and 
Fred Greco

came in at #26 and #27, and didn't make the cut.

Oh well, you guys probably don't want Time magazine recognition--- they made Hitler and Stalin man of the year back in 30s and 40s.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Colson - equally tragic - he is not a theologian by any means.



His book on _Restoring Justice_ and his ideas on criminal justice reform, restorative justice and Biblical reconciliation are very good in my humble opinion... I was skeptical that Colson was doing much of anything good until I read that book... 

But no he is NOT really a theologian anymore than I am. He did endorse a Sproul book I believe and a book by Jonathan Edwards. So, his theological bearings couldn't be totally off.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Darn...
> 
> C. Matthew McMahon
> ...



Ryan, I think it goes without saying that there isn't much we can expect out of a magazine which openly displays its godlessness. All of us can count on them to espouse error and do so in proud fashion. Even what counts as truth to them is extremely superficial, because they do not understand what's really going on.  They just report, and much of it is left to be desired.


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Jul 19, 2005)

i agree w snyder....packer introduced me to the puritans which will be a well to draw from for the rest of my life......douglas coe praying w buddhists??? the list is pathetic (in the truest since of the word) and we MUST not forget to pray for these folks.....i'm so stunned by this list that i hardly know what to say.....10% angry....90%sad


----------

