As a member of an ecumenical religious community and an evangelical, I find that the first response of too many evangelicals when I talk about my Roman Catholic friends is concern for the influence they might have upon me. We do not do well at ecumenism for several reasons: because we can’t put down the gloves and listen for a minute, because we are habitually oriented towards the conversion of our discussion partners (for good and bad), and because many elements of our fundamentalist roots remain that should be more closely examined.

With respect to passion about theology, I am mainly around Piper influenced Evangelicals, but what you write frightens me.

With respect to new birth, you hit the nail on the head. What evangelicals are passionate about is not so much a robust understanding of new birth (one that accords with new creation, new adam, new heaven and new earth, etc.) as it is the ‘classic’ experience of personal conversion. We get conversion – at least in a narrow sense. We don’t get the wider reaching, all encompassing re-generation as well.

And finally, on a VERY related note, transformation … it would be interesting to ask 1000 evangelicals this question: “What are the top 10 ways in which you hope to be a better Christian 10 years from now than you are now?” It would be interesting.

In my recent comment on Sole Fide.. I said that Grace requires a response from the individual..an action. Your description of Grace at work is awesome. Satan knows and understands Grace more than most. But he is not a participant in its covering. Yielding one’s soul to the transforming and redemptive power of Grace is a necessary response.

IMONK: I am likely one of the dumb referred to in scripture, “I called the dumb to confound the wise.” I am ‘dumb’ enough to believe that the Word is the perfect Word of God. I am ‘dumb’ enough to believe that its message is taught by way of the Holy Spirit. I am ‘dumb’ enough to believe that God is perfect, that His creative plan is perfect, that His redemptive plan is perfect, and that His victory in all things is perfect….now and forever. I am completely ‘dumb’ enough to understand that “religion,” in these last days, becomes blended with worldly theology…and that true belief in the one true God is almost extinct. But the state of religion in the world has nothing to do with me. Only the state of MY religion has to do with me. I don’t waste my time concerned with the deceptions of others…unless God sets them in my path. [Mod edited]

I think lumping evangelicalism with the antics on TBN is simplistic and disingenuous, and it should be admitted that the “bare minimum of theology” threatens the entire spectrum of American Christianity, including the emerging, the emergent, the postmodern and yes even the “post-evangelical.”

Brad

So, I’m glad you mentioned “born again” in this post. Salvation by faith alone is a great comfort, but a life of faith that is doomed to a life of bondage to sin is not a message of hope. The message of new life in the spirit announces that not only have I been and am being forgiven, but that every day the Holy Spirit is sanctifying me, conquering sin and manifesting the holiness of Christ in me and my works. I think Luther preached this; I also see it in the Articles of Concord. That is why I get very irate over Lutherans calling themselves “weak on sanctification”. BULL COOKIES!

But it is also why I will always be a fan of John Wesley, and why true-blooded Nazarenes get me excited. They seriously preach the hope of sanctification as a work of God’s grace. With so many voices preaching various forms of deterministic fatalism, I think people want to hear not only a message of forgiveness but also a message of the hope of change – not change through ten step self-help principles or political revolution but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I agree: I could have better expressed myself had I said “cooperation” instead of ecumenical. That latter word has some connotations I didn’t intend to enter into the conversation.

• Questions remain about the foundation of evangelism itself too. Question remain about the foundation of the Reformation also.

“Does the success of the parachurch demonstrate the health of evangelicalism or the weakness of its ecclesiology?”

• Both. I would rather have a bunch of passionate evangelicals spreading the gospel and advancing the kingdom of God without careful organization than careful organization without passionate advancement of the kingdom (so long as your distinction holds).

“Does the positive development of the parachurch have anything to do with George Barna’s contention that the age of the meaningful local church is over, replaced by the internet and the house church?”

• House church IS local church when they have elders, preaching, coummunity, discipline, etc.

“From the outset, however, this emphasis in evangelicalism has depended on a theological basis that’s been less than secure and rather elusive.”

• Those with theological education (including myself) all too easily slip into a sort of theological snobbery just because evangelicals aren’t all that articulate. If someone says as much as, “God has changed my heart” or “Jesus has changed my heart,” they’ve pretty much said it biblically (Jer 31:33, Ezek 36:26). Nicodemus had no idea (at first at least) what Jesus meant by it either. It’s not an easy concept, and I’m not sure if one can really appreciate the notion anyway until they’ve experienced it. Joel Olsteen does not represent evangelicalism in general (if at all).

“Dallas Willard and Don Whitney are talking coherently about spiritual transformation, but I’m still working on a Jesus shaped spirituality because evangelicals really scrambled my brains on this topic. … soul winner … 40 days of purpose …”

• Well … there are different ways of addressing the topic of spiritual transformation. One need not get caught up in semantic variations or despise diverse approaches to sanctification. After all, different people are at different points in their walk and may benefit from a variety of discipleship focus.

“Personal transformation has become so wrapped up with some evangelical’s theology of salvation that they aren’t sure you are a Christian if you recently had a beer or voted for a Democrat.”

• Uhh … you gatta point here. This is Legalism with a captial “L” (i.e. false standards for gauging spirituality). But you and I both are guilty of the same thing, but it shows up in different ways.

“I should give up the internet and find some reasons to be cheerful.”

• No need to give up the internet! Too many people benefit from your perspectives. Just try to look at evangelicalism as God’s imperfect church much like you look at yourself as God’s imperfect saint and extend the highest possible charity that sober realism will allow.

Those are my thoughts anyway …

Bradley

Well said. I attended an evangelical church for over a year and couldn’t figure out their theology (maybe it changed from week to week). The trend in some churches is to never carry a Bible, you know you will never need it. Theology is stifling and stops you from discovering the “real Jesus” or whatever. It’s more about asking questions than giving answers. Mr. McLaren, step right up.

Yeah, I’d like to see us Evangelicals get back some of what we’ve lost without throwing out the good stuff that’s still here. I hope Scot does respond