The status of the evangelical church

[Me Died Blue]

I read an article by Colson on ChristianityToday.com at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/004/27.112.html. He says that American cultural observers have said that the mainstream evangelical church had "embraced a national creed that values personal growth over doctrinal orthodoxy." His thesis statement and the goal of the article is to prove that claim wrong! If it wasn't so sad, it would be humorous--it seems to me that no statement could better summarize the state of the evangelical church! (Not like I expected Colson or the like to actually recognize that.) What do you all think about the article, and about similar people like Alister McGrath, who associate themselves with the Reformed community yet assert that they see the contemporary evangelical church as a whole as healthy and moving forward?

In Christ,

Chris

 

[Bladestunner316]

How can you have true personal growth without doctrinal orthodoxy??

blade

 

[exscentric]

Off the top, I don't know that being over involved in personal growth is automatically limiting to moving forward and healthy. Not that movement/health won't ultimately suffer if it isn't changed, but if they started doctrinally strong, there will be a slow progress downward rather than a sudden end.

Not sure why Colson would be concerned as his end of evangelicalism brought about the fluffy, touchy craze.

:wr50:

 

[JonathonHunt]

Who is Alister McGrath? I know of someone by that name in the UK who is a university professor and author of a book on the King James Version (its history, culture, legacy, etc - its not a KJ only book!)

 

[Me Died Blue]

[quote:d596114d5e][i:d596114d5e]Originally posted by JonathanHunt[/i:d596114d5e]
Who is Alister McGrath? I know of someone by that name in the UK who is a university professor and author of a book on the King James Version (its history, culture, legacy, etc - its not a KJ only book!) [/quote:d596114d5e]

Same person - he's a Reformed professor at Oxford. He wrote the first biography of J. I. Packer. He "sees the evangelical church as healthy and moving forward, rather than in decline." You can see a photo of him and see a list of some of his works at http://faith.propadeutic.com/authors/refschol.html#mcgrath. I can understand how Colson woulddn't see the grave problems with the modern evangelical church as a whole--but someone like McGrath saying this is surprising.

Chris

 

[Me Died Blue]

[quote:c9d83f1c39][i:c9d83f1c39]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:c9d83f1c39]
How can you have true personal growth without doctrinal orthodoxy??

blade [/quote:c9d83f1c39]

Exactly - but of course most of the modern broad evangelical community doesn't recognize this, which is easily seen in the fact that seeker-sensitive churches, Left Behind fiction, prayer of Jabez types of books, and emotional, psychological fulfillment are consistently the most popular "Christian" materials today. And this is just what a non-Christian cultural observer pointed out - that the broad evangelical church is largely conforming to its worldly culture.

[quote:c9d83f1c39][i:c9d83f1c39]Originally posted by exscentric[/i:c9d83f1c39]
Off the top, I don't know that being over involved in personal growth is automatically limiting to moving forward and healthy. Not that movement/health won't ultimately suffer if it isn't changed, but if they started doctrinally strong, there will be a slow progress downward rather than a sudden end.[/quote:c9d83f1c39]

Yeah, it's just that most of what is hailed as "personal growth" in modern evangelicalism is anything but such. This is obvious just by walking into a Christian bookstore. I just don't see how a Reformed scholar like McGrath can nonetheless see evangelicalism as moving forward healthily--whether or not that's a word :wr51:.

Chris

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[SolaScriptura]

Guys, please remember that Colson sold his soul to the Republican party long ago. All prison did for him was expose him to evangelicals and show him the potential voting block he could have before him if he worked it right. He's MUCH more interested in political activism- and so he works the evangelical voting block to keep them feeling good about themselves and about the Republicans- than about anything to do with matters of truth.

 

[raderag]

[quote:42ec8f73f8][i:42ec8f73f8]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:42ec8f73f8]
Guys, please remember that Colson sold his soul to the Republican party long ago. All prison did for him was expose him to evangelicals and show him the potential voting block he could have before him if he worked it right. He's MUCH more interested in political activism- and so he works the evangelical voting block to keep them feeling good about themselves and about the Republicans- than about anything to do with matters of truth. [/quote:42ec8f73f8]

I find this statement quite detestable in that it seeks to implicitly impugn a brother's character and faith. By saying that all prison did for him... is to imply that he is not a Christian at all. While I ceratinly disagree with his work on ECT, I have no evidence to believe he is not a believers. As far as your last statement, have you ever listened to him? He is far more critical of the evangelical Church than you may think.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I was exaggerating for effect.

But nonetheless, yes, I have heard him. I've heard him all too often. I won't deny the posiblity that he is saved. But I don't have much respect for the guy.

 

[raderag]

D James Kenedy says the same things.

With Kenedy, I think his post-milleneal view necessitates that we are in growth in the Kingdom. Also, there is some sense that we don't want to deny that God is expanding His kingdom.

I think we should Praise God when someone comes to believe in Jesus (even through the evanglical church), while at the same time calling into question the methods, theology, and even orthodoxy of the evangelical church. While I do believe that many of these "conversions" are false, and that many other true believers go undiscipled, the fact that the evangelical Church has the correct Christology (to the extent they do), and a strong emphasis on justification by faith, leads me to believe that God still uses evangelicals to save people.

Regardless, I believe that much of the evangelical church is falling into apostasy.

 

[raderag]

[quote:1767cd08de][i:1767cd08de]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:1767cd08de]
I was exaggerating for effect.

But nonetheless, yes, I have heard him. I've heard him all too often. I won't deny the posiblity that he is saved. But I don't have much respect for the guy. [/quote:1767cd08de]

Ok, I understand hyperbole, but I am not sure if it is a good idea when in relation to a man's character and faith.

Most of what I have heard from Colson has not bothered me too much, but I haven't read that much of his ECT ideas. He does seem to oppose most the evangelical movements of the day though.

 

[turmeric]

There's a book called, I believe, [i:f72f05e91d]The American Religion[/i:f72f05e91d] by Harold Bloom. He says that American evangelicalism is really a kind of Orphism, it has very little to do with credal Christian doctrine, and a lot to do with mysticism. Let's see...

Nestorian view of Christ
Two natures - divine & old
Rapture
Carnal vs. Spiritual Christians...

Hmmmm

 

[py3ak]

McGrath

"...someone like McGrath saying this is surprising. "

I actually don't think it's at all surprising that McGrath has gone this route. It's the logical outcome of what Packer and Stott did in the '60s when Lloyd-Jones made the issues clear and they turned away (McGrath seems to be a fan of Packer since he wrote Packer's biography).

Here's an example of the much-less-than-ideal that people can come to be willing to accept.

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?390

and here

http://www.mlj.org.uk/FreeThings/foundations/AllArticles.pdf

This one is kind of a pain to read as they say "theft" everytime they mean "their".

Incidentally, I realized tonight through some googling that I never gave you an url you requested back in October. Here is the link, but I couldn't get it to work tonight. bsrich.tripod.com/calvinistic/mljartcl.html

I don't want to beat a dead horse but we (the church) are in the pathetic condition we're in today because of what's been done in the past. We have to understand what's going on and where it started or our actions will probably not be intelligent. Again, Iain Murray's historical books, such as the biography of Lloyd-Jones and [i:cf7065ddd8]Evangelicalism Divided[/i:cf7065ddd8] are indispensable guides to the recent past in the English-speaking church.

 

[Dlouis20]

The problem is ultimately religion. It is true that the Church is moe concerned with spiritual growth than sound doctrine. Why is this? The reason is that sound doctrine must include such teachings as total depravity, the utter sinfulness of man even after they are Born Again and the wrath of God. These doctrines are not popular in Mainstream denominations and even the conservative Churches such as Assemblies of God for example. These doctrines are definately not popular to the culture. They have never been popular for 5000 years. So in order to fill up the churches, these Pastor's choose to preach a god who wants to heal all your pshychological hurts or a god who is only concerned with moralism.

DLouis20,
Please update signature w/ affiliation, name and area of residence please.
board rules sir!
Scott

[Edited on 4-8-2004 by Scott Bushey]