Future of Evangelicalism - Roger Olson

Roger Olson has a lengthy two-part post up about the future of Evangelicalism (see here and here).  The gist is that evangelicalism as an ethos can still carry on according to five basic concepts based on the Noll/Bebbington quadrilateral of biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism and activism, to which Olson adds a respect for historic orthodoxy.  But Olson thinks evangelicalism as a movement is dead.  It has fragmented into three basic groups. 

One he describes as "conservative, neo-fundamentalist" and identifies the Gospel Coalition as an example.  The second group he describes as "conservative, mediating evangelicals" and lists Christianity Today as one example.  Finally he identifies the "postconservative evangelicals" and includes Scot McKnight and Sojourners magazine as examples. 

I have to say I generally agree with him on this one.  As a movement, evangelicalism is at war with itself, particularly in relation to biblicism and activism, for conservatives and progressives define those terms very differently.  For progressives, the cross is increasingly about Christ identifying with the oppressed and is less an less about atoning for sin.  For progressives activism is increasingly about rejecting conservative concerns about the sanctity of life, individual responsibility and preservation of the nuclear family - activism is increasingly about grievances of oppressed groups, liberal definitions of social justice, radical inclusion and eradication of boundaries including advocacy of same-sex relations in some form.    Even the Noll/Bebbington quadrilateral fails to unite evangelicals these days.  (More)

Atonement and Resurrection

Critics of the Penal Substitution viewpoint generally object to PSA on an emotional level, that is, the image of Christ being punished to satisfy some standard of justice seems unfair (since he was innocent) and makes God look vindictive and violent.  Of course many of those who object are progressives who question pretty much everything and want to reinvent atonement according to some social justice narrative.  So in some of the wild new atonement speculations, Jesus died to identify with the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed.  Depending on how far they have gone in redefining sin and justice, the very notion of needing salvation from moral guilt and judgment seems nonsensical to some.  Others want the cross to be about politics, the Roman empire executed Jesus so real Christianity is about resisting empires (usually Western democracies get classified as empires while Communist regimes and Muslim caliphates get a pass).

But others are still somewhat connected to orthodox faith and even to evangelicalism and merely have been influenced by the emotional response of some to the "cosmic child abuse" charge.   Isn't there a better way to think about this whole sacrifice thing?  (More)

Reverse discrimination

There appears to be growing evidence that the advancement of gay rights, particularly gay marriage, does cause discrimination against people of faith.  So "no bullying" leads to bullying.

In one case a Portland couple is under investigation for declining to fashion a wedding cake for a lesbian couple

There are similar cases in the UK, one involving a marriage counselor who felt giving marriage advice to gay couples violated her faith.

While the secular society claims there can be no absolutes, it is clear full acceptance of gay inclusion is a secular absolute that is increasingly enforced with public accusations of irrational bigotry and now the threat of legal ramifications. So the force of law, the courts and eventually the police will almost certainly be used to make sure everyone complies with the new sexual ethic.

Essentials - A Graphic

On the essentials unity...

So what is essential? What are the vital doctrinal issues that matter, not only for the integrity of the Christian faith, but also for the unity of the whole of Christianity.

I'll need to deal with Roger Olson's distinction between a "centered set" and a "bounded set" in a future post, but for the moment I would offer one way I use to mentally quantify the essential and the non-essential and it is probably something many of us do without realizing it.

I have in the past suggested different levels for what is essential.   

• There are creedal essentials which Christians are almost all unified on.  
• There are confessional essentials that Protestants at least used to be largely agreed upon.  Then there are denominational distinctives that may be important for particular reasons but are not essential.  
• Finally there are lesser matters of conscience that should not be cause for any division.

It seems to me there are two criteria that can be plotted mentally in a way that helps clarify things.  On the one hand there is the matter of "what is important" or at the risk of driving postmoderns crazy, "what is foundational?".   Maybe a better way of stating it is "is this doctrinal idea something that other truths of the faith are built upon?   If we remove this stone from the wall, will the wall crumble?"

Penal Substitution and the Early Fathers

There has been a Lot of talk about the matter of "Penal Substitution" in recent years.   Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is the view that the death of Christ on the cross paid a penalty of guilt on behalf of others – hence “penal” and “substitution”.  The gist of the objection to PSA is that it allegedly makes God look like some sort of monster, since the penalty is paid to God and the “wrath of God” is satisfied, a point sometimes expressed forcefully in revivalist settings and/or among the neo-Calvinists.  Steve Chalke and others have used the term "cosmic child abuse", since God pouring out wrath on his own Son seems offensive to modern sensibilities. 

(More)

Conservative Pundits vs Birthers

I was recently forced to sit through an extended segment at the health club where journalist extraordinaire Al Sharpton mocked Donald Trump's feud with Bill Maher - heavy stuff, I know.  It was all mockery and fluffed up controversy and not much substance.  Woulda preferred to turn it off.

This is way off topic an I'm wading into slimy waters here, post Obama's second election it probably doesn't matter at all.  But this post is not so much about where Barack Obama was born as it is about how the "birther" question has been handled by the conservative media.
More

News Flash: Legalized Gay Marriage Harms Society

One common argument made by proponets of gay marriage is the emotional appeal that no one will be hurt by legalized same-sex marriage and that those heterosexuals who wish to honor their marriages can still do so.  Apparently, in the UK, the argument has even been made that by opening up an official status of "married" to gay couples, marriage as an institution will be strengthened.   

That kind of argument has been forcefully answered by Dr. Patricia Morgan in her testimony before the House of Commons.  She argues, and support her view with statistics, that gay marriage will further erode the cultural commitment to the institution of marriage, and in fact, by decoupling marriage from the procreation and nurture of children, it will in fact harm society.

Her testimony is summarized at the Telegraph.
(More)