Recently in Evangelicals Category

Yesterday a document was released at the National Press Club entitled An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment, spearheaded by Os Guinness and signed by over 80 evangelical leaders. I would encourage anyone interested in evangelicalism to give it a careful reading, or at the very least, to read Justin Taylor's excellent summation.

Other than the Bible, there are few documents that I agree with word-for-word (and that includes most things that I have written). Still, I found enough to agree with in the manifesto to add my name as one of the additional signatories.

I hope to have more to say about it in the future but for now here are three initial thoughts:

Yesterday Phil Johnson, of the aptly named Pyromanics blog, threw gasoline on the flames of the debate about Christian involvement in politics with his provocatively titled post, "How Evangelicals Traded Their Spiritual Authority for a Mess of Political Pottage." Near the conclusion Phil writes:

How did the evangelical movement get so far off track? I wouldn't suggest that evangelicalism's recent obsession with political activism is the only factor, but I do think it's a major one. If the same energies and resources that were poured into failed political efforts had been channeled into evangelism instead, I'm convinced that would have been instrumental in producing more spiritual good and hindering more of society's evils than all our lobbying, demonstrating, and voting combined.

I'm a fan of Phil's work so it's with some reticence that I criticize his argument. But it's worth debating because it contains a commonly held erroneous view. Aside from the false dilemma and the assumption that energy and resources that produced a failure would have been successful had they only been applied elsewhere, Phil's contention fails for the simple reason that his premise is based on a myth.

Contrary to what many secularists claim--and many Christians believe--we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities--lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.--would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

I say this not only as a self-professed (and self-critical) member of the "religious right" but as one who has direct observation post on the political battlefield. From my vantage point it is easy to see that the commitment--much less the influence--of Christians in politics is wildly overstated.

For example, Family Research Council (FRC)--the premier lobbying organization of the Christian right in Washington, D.C.--has been attempting to collect signatures on an online petition asking President Bush to approve new Title X regulations ensuring that no taxpayer money goes to subsidize the abortion facilities of groups like Planned Parenthood.

To date, almost one million emails have been sent to Christians asking them to do nothing more than add their name. This is about as minor a level of commitment or involvement as it gets yet only about 3% have done so. More Christians voted for the 5th place contestant on last week's American Idol than have petitioned to defund abortion mills.

This is the typical reaction at the grassroots level to almost every political initiative in the "religious right." Lot's of talk; little to no action.

FRC is considered one of the major players in the world of conservative evangelical politics. And yet the organization's ability to have any influence or impact in the political realm is limited by the lack of grassroots commitment. Though FRC and similar groups attempt to rally the troops, they are unable to lead the army of politically engaged evangelicals because such a group is all but nonexistent. 

"Today the [conservative Christian political] movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders," says David Kirkpatrick in his New York Times' Magazine article "The Evangelical Crackup." The NYT's website lists the story as one of the most frequently emailed of the week. No doubt it will also be one of the most vehemently debated within the blogosphere.

The article itself is mostly a rehash of the dominant media perspective on evangelicals and politics, though it is noteworthy for Kirkpatrick's style of "journalism by name-dropping." The 7900 word article manages to cram in the names of 23 evangelicals leaders: Terry Fox, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich, D. James Kennedy, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Marvin Olasky, David Welsh, Ralph Reed, Frank Page, Rick Scarborough, David Wells, Scott McKnight, Jim Wallis, Tony Perkins, Gene Carlson, Todd Carter, Joe Wright, Paul Hill, Harry Jackson, and Donald Wildmon.

But while Kirkpatrick focuses on the cult of personality, the true crux of the conservative Christian political movement is based on a culture of principles. Rather than focusing on a "Who's Who" of Christian leaders, an adequate understanding of the "evangelical Right" requires the recognition and prioritization of six core principles. (Note: Many of these themes were outlined in the National Association of Evangelical's paper on civic engagement):

Principle 1: Protecting the sanctity of human life
Because all humans are created in God's image, evangelicals believe that all people have an inherent and inalienable dignity. We believe that it is at the times when life is most vulnerable, particularly in the early stages of development and at the period near death, that life is most in need of protection. Evangelicals believe in promoting policies that recognize the dignity of all humans without regard to such relativistic criteria as mental capacities or "quality of life."
Issues: Abortion, euthanasia, embryo destruction, capital punishment, cloning, and unethical human experimentation.

Principle 2: The nurturing of family life and the protection of children
While the institutions of marriage and church bear the primary responsibility for fulfilling this duty, evangelicals believe that the government should promote laws and policies that strengthen the well being of families.
Issues: Promotion of policies on marriage and divorce law, education, tuition vouchers, drug policies, abstinence promotion, fair labor practices, anti-discrimination legislation, protections against spouse and child abuse, affordable health care, reducing crime

Principle 3: Seeking justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable
Evangelicals believe in the promotion of both a fair legal system that does not favor either the rich or poor and in a fair economic system that does not tolerate perpetual poverty. This principle also includes the protection of the vulnerable members of society, including the poor, children, the elderly, the disabled, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, and the imprisoned.
Issues: Poverty reduction both in America and abroad, torture, anti-pornography legislation, immigration reform, stemming the AIDS pandemic, ending slavery and sexual trafficking, stopping prison rape.

Principle 4: The protection of religious freedom
Evangelicals believe that the joint freedoms of religion and conscience constitute the First Liberty and are deserving of protection both in our own country and abroad.
Related Issues: Defense of First Amendment protections, expansion of religious freedoms abroad

Principle 5: Seeking peace and restraining violence
Although evangelicals prefer that governments pursue nonviolent paths to restoring peace, most of us recognize that military force can be a legitimate means of restraining evil. While there is no consensus on how this principle should be implemented, we are in general agreement that the principles of just war must guide our government's policies.
Issues: Defending against terrorism, ending genocide, weapons proliferation, defending human rights against tyrannical regimes

Principle 6: The protection of God's creation
Evangelicals believe that stewardship of the earth is a responsibility delegated to us by our Creator. Because the earth is a shared resource, the government has a particularly important role in implementing policies that protect the environment.
Issues: Promoting recycling, reduction of pollution, protecting animals from cruelty, conservation of resources, proper care for wildlife and their habitats

These six principles are not exhaustive but they do provide the primary base of evangelical political concern. Almost every issue that is discussed by evangelicals--on both sides of the political spectrum--is framed in a way that appeals to one of these six principles.

Can we be more ethical than Jesus?

Most evangelicals would consider such a question to be the height of absurdity. Since we consider Jesus to be the very standard for moral conduct, it would be impossible to be more ethical than our own Redeemer. What we claim to believe, though, is often often betrayed by our actions.

For example, while we Southern Baptists consider Christ to be the Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, we do not consider him fit to serve as a trustee for the Southern Baptist Convention. Not only was Jesus a "user of alcoholic beverages" (Luke 7:33-34) but he turned water into wine for a wedding (John 2), a miracle that must be frowned upon by a group that is in "total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages."

Although Jesus' cousin was a Baptist (and from the description, John appears to be a forefather to the Texas Baptists), I don’t think he'd choose our denomination for himself. Unfortunately, SBC committee rooms are not the only place where his behavior would be considered inappropriate. In fact, there are few places within evangelical circles where such behavior would be considered acceptable. A prime example is the realm of higher education: Jesus' consumption of wine would put him in violation of the code of conduct on every evangelical college campus in America.

While a handful of colleges (e.g., Calvin, Dordt, Wheaton) would have no problem with his drinking alcohol (provided he drank off campus), the vast majority would consider such behavior inappropriate if he were enrolled as an undergrad, seminarian, or faculty member. Bethel, Biola, Covenant, Eastern Nazarene, Messiah, Liberty, Oral Roberts University, are just some of the colleges and universities where Jesus' wine-bibbing would get him in trouble.

Although most schools do not give an explanation for their policy, it is likely that they take a view similar to that of Regent University:

"Virtually all the people on Time magazine's list of 'The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals' share at least one glaringly significant trait," says Phillip Johnson, "For the most part, these are the fadmakers." Phil goes on to list a number of "cheerleaders for whatever is fashionable", including the usual suspects such as Rick Warren and Tim LaHaye, and explains why their programs are fads:

On the Acton Institute's blog, John H. Armstrong, founder and director of ACT 3, takes his fellow evangelicals to task for our silence on Zimbabwe:

Every single day courageous and faithful Christians in Zimbabwe are suffering and dying through their resistance of the brutal reign of president Robert Mugabe. You would never know this is true from the lack of interest or response of conservative Christians in America. Of all the causes that are taken up by the Christian Right I have not heard a single voice lifted on behalf of the church in Zimbabwe and their struggle to resist the reign of terror led by President Mugabe.

[...]

While the Christian Right struggles to "rescue" America it almost universally ignores the plight of the poor and oppressed around the world, as well as in our own country. Evangelicals are rarely heard from when issues like Mugabe and Zimbabwe rise to international attention. Why? Could it be that what I have called our "America-centric" mindset is in fact a form of worldliness? Could it be that we simply don't care about profoundly Christian concerns beyond our own land unless they represent efforts to win individual souls to Christ through our flawed approaches to mission?

While I am sympathetic to John's complaint, I think my friend has been rather ungenerous in his criticism. His complaint is unduly harsh and not entirely fair. He is not alone, though, in questioning the priorities of evangelicals. Although I don't have any answers, I do have a few thoughts on the subject:

Last weekend I attended the Washington Briefing: Values Voter Summit where I had the pleasure of hearing numerous engaging, civil, thought-provoking speeches by various pastors, pundits, and politicians.

Unfortunately, the only thing that made the news was the things that I didn't hear when I was there: Bishop Wellington Boone using the word "faggot"; Jerry Falwell implying that Hillary Clinton was more polarizing that Satan; Connie Marshner recommending using an unethical political tactic; and Ann Coulter sounding like...well, Ann Coulter.

Naturally, because I attended the event and because these are "my people" some folks consider me guilty by association. I wish I could say that they are wrong, that I can't be held accountable. But I can't. And I can. I'm just not sure what to do about it.

I can't apologize for another person's actions. I don't personally know any of these people and it would be the height of presumption for me to offer a mea culpa on their behalf. I could lodge my complaint to them in private, but that doesnt address the concerns of the public. I could openly denounce and censure them (and admittedly have in the case of Coulter) but they are still my fellow Christians. As much as I condemn their remarks, they are, like me, members of the body of Christ.

I could simple remain silent, ignore the issue and wait till the controversy passes. I must confess that this was my original plan. Even now I'm tempted to hit the delete button before this entry is posted. But that would be cowardly. For better or worse, this is a matter that I must address.

This is the point in the post where I should offer an explanation of how I plan to resolve the conflict. I should present a clever resolution, possibly one that can"t even be explained in English but must rely on a foreign term, like schadenfreude or katahara itai. It would get me off the hook and leave everyone admiring my wit and insight.

But to be honest...I got nothing.

Over the years people have asked me why, since this is an evangelical blog, I don't mention Jesus more often. My usual glib answer is that I prefer not to name-drop just because I'm on a first name basis with the Creator of the Universe. I also take offense at the implication my sole mission as an evangelical blogger is to end every post with an altar call.

While it's true that I don't casually use the name of Jesus, I believe that, like Flannery O'Connor's South, this blog is "Christ-haunted." Still, there is a time to talk about Jesus more directly. Since I think about him constantly, I often have questions, concerns, surprises, opinions, and--on rarer occasions--insights, about Christ. Here, for instance, are a few thoughts I've had:

Christians believe, as the Nicene Creed states, that Jesus was both "true God" and "truly human." We consider it axiomatic that Jesus is the only human that can claim to be the true God. But I think it could also be argued that Jesus is the only human that can claim to know what it is to be truly human.

It has been said that theology became anthropology when God became man. But I think we fail to appreciate what a significant insight into anthropology was given to us by the incarnation. Not only did Jesus provide us an image of God, he provided us with an image of the pre-Fall man (and, amazingly, did so in a post-Fall context). While it may be difficult to determine what aspects are attributable to his humanity or to his divinity, he gives us a clear vision of what being a human should look like. He gives us a view of what was meant to be and what those who put their trust in him will become in the future.

"Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat," said John Mark Reynolds, "He's probably a monarchist." When I first heard that at GodBlogCon several years ago I thought it was clever; now I find it to be a profound insight. Jesus constantly talked about the Kingdom of Heaven. So why do so few Christians talk about it? One reason, I believe, is that we are now all republicans and democrats (small-R, small-D) and simply don't understand what Jesus is talking about. We may use the term "Lord" and "King of Kings" but--unlike the vast majority of people throughout history--we do not comprehend what it means to live under the reign of a king. We need some remedial training on how to live as subjects in a kingdom. We may be justified in rejecting the divine right of kings to rule but we cannot be justified if we reject the rule of our divine king.

Whenever I hear non-Christians say that they don't like the "Old Testament God" but that they admire Jesus I always wonder, "Have they ever read the Gospels?" Even if you set aside the "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" trilemma you're still left with the fact that Jesus considered everything he did to be consonant with his "Father" (i.e., OTG). His every action, as he claims, was done in submission to God's will.

Sure, he healed people and hung out with sinners. But he also called them to repentance. As the old cliche goes, Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin. In fact, Jesus hates sin more than [Fill in the name of an intolerant Fundamentalist preacher]. And you think OTG was a blood-thirsty war-monger? Jesus goes even further promising not only to pit nations but families against each other. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth," says Jesus. "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." In other words, he ain't no Jewish Ghandi. If you don't like Yahweh, then you shouldn't be too fond of Yeshua either.

First, my bona fides.

I�m a former Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps. I�ve spent fifteen years in the Corps and fifteen seconds (cumulatively) riding bulls. I�ve spent my summers in 100 degree weather baling hay, shoeing horses, castrating hogs, and running laps for sadistic football coaches. I�ve fixed pump jacks in Texas oil fields and made auto parts in a Missouri factory. I�ve changed engines on F-18s, tires on Humvees, and a carburetor on a '76 Gremlin.

I�ve hunted snipe and fished for shark. I�ve eaten rattlesnake, alligator, and the pork pattie from an MRE. I�ve lived through tornados, typhoons, and a divorce.

I own a .40 caliber Glock. My hero is John Wayne.

In other words, there is some evidence that I am�or at least once was�a fairly �manly man.� I�m also a devout Bible-believing Christian. But for the life of me, I can�t discern how the two are connected, much less why one is necessary for the other. Yet that is the impression I often get when I read about the �feminization of the church� and the move to provide young Christian men with �masculine� role models.

At the risk of taking his light-hearted remarks too seriously, I have to say that I find pastor Mark Driscoll, founder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, to be particularly caught up in this type of thinking. For example, in a recent post he gave a �Manly Missionary Award (MMA)� to Dog the Bounty Hunter:

[Note: Sorry for the blogging delay but I'm still in the process of getting unpacked. This post originally appeared in April 2005. New posts will resume on Wednesday.]

In his essay on �The Pleasures of Eating�, the philosopher and farmer Wendell Berry says that after delivering a lecture on the decline of American farming and rural life, someone in the audience would invariably ask what city people can do. �Eat responsibly," Berry would reply.

�by restoring one's consciousness of what is involved in eating; by reclaiming responsibility for one's own part in the food economy. One might begin with the illuminating principle of Sir Albert Howard's The Soil and Health, that we should understand "the whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal, and man as one great subject." Eaters, that is, must understand that eating takes place inescapably in the world, that it is inescapably an agricultural act, and that how we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used. This is a simple way of describing a relationship that is inexpressibly complex. To eat responsibly is to understand and enact, so far as one can, this complex relationship.

Berry argues that eating is an agrarian act and that something valuable is lost when we subscribe to the industrialized, consumerist view of sustenance. Although his essay is about food, his words could be applied to another method of fulfilling a physical need -- sex. In fact, he draws a similar parallel in his discussion of �industrial sex�:

On the list of claims that are bound to get you into trouble, "Don't marry a woman with a career" ranks near the top. Yet Forbes.com editor Michael Noer recently offered just such a warning to men:

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it.

[...]

If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).

Noer points out that this findings are based on studies from the social sciences and even adds qualifying clauses ("if many social scientists are to be believed..."; "If a host of studies are to be believed..."; "...it's important not to confuse correlation with causation...") to distance himself from the conclusions. Such hedging wasn't enough, though, for he has been savaged in the blogosphere for making the politically incorrect claim that there might be reasons a man would not want to choose a career woman for a potential wife. But if statistics show that you are more likely to be divorced if you marry a career woman then a man who avoids marrying a career woman is less likely--statistically speaking and all other things being equal--to get divorced.

Such a cold statistical inference, though, cannot determine whether the connection is a matter of correlation or causation. Personally, I think it has less to do with a woman having a professional career than with either (a) the type of women who choose such career paths and/or (b) the experiences that are obtained while seeking such paths.

Consider, for example, a woman who has completed a BA and an MBA from Ivy League schools and has taken a job at a Fortune 500 company. Statistically speaking, such a woman will be less likely to have a traditional view of religion or sexual mores; will have had several sexual partners; and will seek marriage primarily for emotional fulfillment. These factors, not the fact that she is an executive, will detrimentally affect her chances of being "happily and fruitfully married."

This is not to say that marital bliss requires women to become June Cleaver-style stay-at-home moms. In fact, the biblical ideal for a wife, which is clearly presented in Proverbs 31:10-31, shares much in common with what we would nowadays consider a "career woman." The primary difference is that becoming a "professional woman" entails acquiring qualities to build an impressive resume, while becoming a "Proverbs 31 woman" requires obtaining qualities to build an impressive character. But just as Noer warns against marrying a career woman, many Christians would advise (in reality if not in theory) that you avoid marrying a "Proverbs 31 woman."

In a famous review in a 1950 issue of the journal Mind, Sir Peter Medawar said of a book by Teilhard de Chardin, �its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.� Something similar could be said of Randall Balmer�s recent essay, �Jesus Is Not a Republican.� If Palmer is not being intentionally misleading and dishonest, it is only because he has first misled and deceived himself.

Self-deception is no crime, but Balmer a professor of American Religion at Barnard College, Columbia University, has an incredible potential to mislead. Balmer is a respected academic who has taught as a visiting professor at Yale, Princeton, Rutgers, Drew and Northwestern universities, Union Theological Seminar, and the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia. He has also served as an editor-at-large for Christianity Today magazine and is widely sought as a commentator by Time, Newsweek, CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox News, PBS and the BBC. His views on evangelicalism are taken seriously by both the mainstream media and the academic community. He may not have the name recognition of Tony Campolo or Jim Wallis but he is a leading voice for liberal evangelicalism.

The essay, an excerpt from his recent book, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament, attempts to preempt the inevitable criticism�s of his views: �I know, for example, that when my new book on evangelicals appears, the minions of the religious right will seek to discredit me rather than engage the substance of my arguments.� Fortunately, we don�t have to choose for he gives us plenty of reason to criticize both him and his rather substance-free arguments.

Let�s begin first with the personal. Balmer predicates his criticism of evangelicals by purporting to be an evangelical himself. �I'll put up my credentials as an evangelical against anyone's!� he exclaims. The extent of his credentials, though, appears to be his claim to being an evangelical. He attends a decidedly non-evangelical Episcopalian church in one of the most mainline dioceses in America. And ever since his 1989 book, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: Travels Through the Evangelical Subculture, he�s attempted to distance himself both theologically and culturally from anything that could be discerned as being distinctively evangelical.

Growing up in the church�especially a Southern Baptist church�can delude a person into thinking they are biblically literate. I grew up in the church and became convinced that the countless Sunday School lessons had taught me almost everything I needed to know about the Bible. I could recount, as told through the medium of flannelgraph, all the stories of Samson, Noah, David, and the other Great Heroes of the Old Testament. I also knew the story of Jesus and could tell you all about St. Paul, at least up to the part about the shipwreck and snakebite. After that the action slowed down and I lost interest in the narrative. But I figured since most of the stuff in the back of the book was mostly letters it couldn�t be that important anyway.

It wasn�t until I reached adulthood that I realized my knowledge of the Book of Revelation was based more on The Omen (the original, nor the remake) and Hal Lindsey�s books than on the actual text. I was quite surprised to discover that the words �antichrist� and �rapture� are not found in that book and that it was spelled "Revelation" (singular) rather than "Revelations" (plural).

Such misperceptions, however, are not uncommon. Even those who are more biblically literate than I will ever be sometimes make such mistakes. My friend Tim Challies, for instance, provides a regrettable example of such an error. In a recent post, Tim defends a quote by Robert Murray M'Cheyne that claims the Roman Catholic Church is the �Beast of Revelation�:

[Note: Once every few months something gets under my skin and I go off on a (mild) rant. Today is one of those days. It doesn't happen often so I hope that you will simply ignore this while I get a few things off my chest. In fact, I recommend skipping this post entirely and checking back later in the week.]

�Is Jack Bauer a Type of Christ?� asks Pastor Mark Driscoll on his blog, referring to the hero of the hit television show 24. �At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I would like to offer the suggestion that perhaps 24 is incredibly popular because Jack Bauer is a lot like Jesus,��

From what I�ve heard about Driscoll, he sounds like a gifted preacher who has a unique ability to reach the lost. So it is painful to see him make such an idiotic blunder by making a comparison that is indeed not only blasphemous but downright stupid. (It will be equally painful to watch the fanboys come out of the woodwork to defend this nonsense.) The Savior of the World is irreverently compared to the Savior of Los Angeles.

Sadly, this is a common example of the way many Christians speak of Jesus when we are trying to be culturally �relevant� rather than being reverent. Our lack of reverence leads us to create God in our own image. Evangelicalism is particularly guilty of ignoring the holiness and transcendence of our Lord and Savior in favor of a God who is our �best friend�, exactly like us � only better. I remember as a young Baptist how we would gloss over the commands to �fear God� in favor of singing hymns about �What a Friend We Have in Jesus.�

Even the self-confessed Gnostic Harold Bloom is able to see where we err, as he wrote in his book "The American Religion":

Name: Charles �Chuck� Colson

Why you�ve heard of him: Colson was Richard Nixon�s �hatchet man� and spent seven months in prison for Watergate-related charges. Entered Alabama's Maxwell Prison in 1974 as a new Christian and became a staunch advocate for prisoners. After telling his story in the bestselling �Born Again�, Colson used the royalties to found Prison Fellowship, the world's largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, crime victims, and their families.

Position: Founder and Chairman of the Board for Prison Fellowship and Prison Fellowship International (1976 to present); Commentator for Breakpoint

Previous career:
Captain, U.S. Marine Corps (1953�55)
Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1955�56)
Admin. Asst. to U.S. Sen. Leverett Saltonstall (R-Mass.) (1956�61)
Partner, Gadsby and Hannah Law Firm (1961�69)
Special Counsel to President Richard M. Nixon (1969�73)
Partner, Colson and Shapiro Law Firm (1973�74)

Education:
B.A., Brown University (1953)
J.D. with honors, George Washington University (1959)

Name: Jim Wallis

Why you�ve heard of him: Wallis is the leading voice of �progressive evangelicals.� He speaks at more than 200 events a year and his columns appear in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and other major newspapers.

Position: Activist, speaker, and editor of Sojourners magazine; founder of Call to Renewal, a faith-based anti-poverty program.

Previous: Founder of Sojourners; Taught at Harvard University�s Kennedy School of Government.

Having completed scholarly works on such diverse subjects as the calendar and Christian creeds, the Anglican Archbishop James Ussher combined his interest and in 1650 published a work in which he determined the exact date of Creation: 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other scholars, most notably the Cambridge academic John Lightfoot, had completed similar calculations, but Ussher�s work captured the popular imagination. The date was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701 and, until the 1970s, could be found in the Bibles placed in hotel rooms by the Gideon�s Society.

Over the centuries the Ussher�s date of the creation became, for many Christians, an obvious deduction from Scripture itself. Even today many biblical Christians who believe in young earth creationism hold to a date very similar to the one calculated by the Irish bishop. But does the Bible provide clues that can help us determine the age of the earth? Can the genealogies found in Genesis and used by Ussher and others help us establish such a date?

The answer can be found in a dusty old theological journal from the late 1800s. Dr. William Henry Green, a Professor of Old Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, published in Bibliotheca Sacra what should have become the definitive answer on the subject:

What is the gospel? What is the most serious threat to the gospel in the evangelical church today?

C.J. Mahaney, president of Sovereign Grace Ministries, posed those questions on his group blog, Together for the Gospel. Mahaney believes that because of doctrinal deficiencies expressed in American evangelicalism, we can't assume that the gospel is clearly understood: "Confusion about the content of the gospel is evident across the evangelical landscape."

At the risk of exposing my own confusion and showing that I too am deficient in understanding the gospel, I'd like to share my perspective on these questions.

What is the gospel? The gospel--the "good news"--is news about Jesus Christ.

What is the most serious threat to the gospel in the evangelical church today? The church's simplism of the gospel; narrowing the aboutness of Christ in order to make it presentable in a way that is formulaic and manageable.

For example, biblical passages such as John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:4-6 are often referred to as "the gospel in a nutshell." By referring to these verses we can provide a simple summation of the "gospel", allowing us to "witness" to those with short-attention spans. But as life-altering, world-shatteringly important as those verses are--and I cannot overemphasize just how good that news is for us---the gospel cannot be squeezed into a "nutshell."

Indeed, the entire universe is not large enough to contain the good news about Jesus! The gospel is more than just news for fallen man. Even if there were no anthropos or no cosmos the seraphim would still proclaim the good news about Christ. The gospel is greater than just the redemption of fallen human nature, greater than the redemption of all creation. The gospel is not about me and it is not about you. The gospel is the news in toto about the Savior, Redeemer, and Sustainer of creation: Jesus Christ.

The most serious threat to the gospel is, therefore, the attempts to limit the gospel about Jesus to a propositional truth, to a narrative, to a story, to a verse, a book, to a Bible, or to a million other "nutshells." True, the gospel is contained in all of those forms. But any attempt to share the gospel that does not proceed from "the gospel is" to "but the gospel is also" is simply inadequate. Even if we were able to proclaim all the news that is contained in those nutshells, though, it would not exhaust the good news about Christ.

The good news about Jesus is not limited to what he did in the land of Israel. The good news about Jesus is not limited to what has done throughout the history of the church. The good news about Jesus is not limited to what he is now doing in our own lives. The good news about Jesus has no limits; it is what he did yesterday, what he is doing today, and what he will do forever. The news about Jesus Christ is a song that preceded the foundation of the earth and will be joyfully and everlastingly sung in the new creation.

This is the reason I call myself an evangelical Christian. I want to be counted as one of the chorus who will sing about the good news of Christ with my lips, my soul, my very being. I want to share the gospel, the good news, the euangelion, now and forever.

"Salt is good; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is fit neither for the land nor for the dunghill; men throw it away. He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 14:34-45 (RSV)

Throughout history salt has been one of the basic compounds necessary for life. Yet in our modern age it is difficult to imagine just how important the simple mineral was for preserving food. In ancient Israel salt was obtained by evaporating water from the Dead Sea. The process produces not only pure salt (sodium chloride), but other chlorides such as potassium and magnesium. If the evaporated salt crystals are not separated from the other chlorides they attract moisture and dissolve, causing the compound to lose its saltiness and become useless.

What remains is a compound that is completely useless, even harmful. The chemicals poison the soil and even throwing them on the manure pile risk future contamination when the material is used for fertilizer. Saltless salt is worth less even than manure.

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus referred to the crowd as the �salt of the earth.� His point was that just as salt prevents the deterioration of meat, his followers should serve as a preserving influence, impeding the deterioration of their society. But what happens when the salt refuses to be separate and distinct? What happens when the salt loses it saltiness?

I was reminded of that question after reading a blog post by Brian McLaren. As the most influential leader of the controversial emergent church movement, he has received more than his share of criticism. Because of this I�ve been hesitatant to pile on, even though I�ve often had concerns about his work. But a recent blog post on the �homosexual question� forces me to ask: Has McLaren become a saltless servant?

Name: Dallas Willard

Why you�ve heard of him: While Dr. Willard isn�t widely known outside of his academic field, his books and articles have had a profound impact within evangelical circles.

Position: Professor in the School of Philosophy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Previous: He has taught at USC since 1965, where he was Director of the School of Philosophy from 1982-1985. He has also taught at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, 1960-1965), and has held visiting appointments at UCLA (1969) and the University of Colorado (1984).

Education:
Tennessee Temple College (B.A., 1956, Psychology)
Baylor University (B.A., 1957, Philosophy and Religion)
Baylor University and the University of Wisconsin (Ph. D., 1964: Major in Philosophy, Minor in the History of Science)

Area of interest/expertise: Spiritual disciplines, Christian discipleship, epistemology, the philosophy of mind and of logic, the philosophy of Edmund Husserl

Perhaps it is due to my own observer bias, but it appears that over the past several months there has been a marked increase in the level of bickering and dissension among Christian bloggers. Arguments over doctrine, of course, have been around as long as believers have been blogging. And with over 10,000 Protestant denominations it's not surprising that such differences find their way online.

What I believe is unique and disconcerting is the way such trivial disputes have come to dominate general discourse. We've always had the frothing malcontents who spend all their time debating such issues as whether Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron or whether John Calvin can really be considered a Calvinist. Historically, these people have been treated as harmless comic relief or cautionary examples of what happens when you put denominational allegiance ahead of the Gospel. But lately it appears that even generally irenic bloggers have entered the fray to bash their fellow Christians.

Since I wrote on this topic in a related context several months ago I've decided to repost that entry in order to open it up for further discussion. I believe that we must find a way to address this behavior which has inexplicably become commonplace yet is explicitly condemned by Scripture. How do we hold our fellow Christian bloggers accountable? How do we respond to this talk-radio-style of debate in which no disagreement on even inessential matters (i.e., should churches be open on Christmas?) can be tolerated?

During the summer of 2001, I spent hundreds of hours debating the doctrine of inerrancy in an online forum. Because I was almost always the only Christian taking part in the discussions I became the object of ridicule, invective, scorn. About the only thing I had in common with the other denizens of the forum was a rudimentary knowledge of Biblical scholarship. The most knowledgeable member of the group was a retired English teacher and evangelical atheist named Farrell Till. Till claimed to have studied �Biblical errancy� for over thirty years yet knew less Greek and Hebrew than a first-year seminarian.

The debates were heated, intricate, lengthy, and almost always completely irrelevant. It took the tragedy of 9/11 to fully wake me from my dogmatic slumbers and recognize that such flame wars masquerading as debate are a complete waste of time. I realized that inerrancy is rooted in other doctrines such as Biblical authority, inspiration, and pneumatology and that without these foundations any discussion on the topic would be futile. Never again will I waste time attempting to convince a non-believer that the Bible is without error.

Convincing my fellow believers, however, is another matter altogether. I remain firmly of the opinion that inerrancy, properly understood, is the most humble position a believer can take in regards to the Bible. Rather than attempt to defend the doctrine directly, though, I want to recommend a particular epistemic stance toward Scripture. (David Wayne, who has an uncanny ability to explain theological concepts with astounding depth and simplicity, has written a post on the doctrine that mirrors my own position. I highly recommend that post as a corrective to the many misunderstandings that people seem to have about what the technical term inerrancy really means.)

For five days in 1979 I was considered an expert on the Bible.

Although I was humble about my status, my fellow pre-seminarians at East Cisco Baptist Church Vacation Bible School were awed by the agility with which I wielded my knowledge. We would sit restlessly through the flannelgraph stories of Noah and David, waiting for the event that would put my considerable skills to the test: Bible speed drills.

Because besting an opponent often requires beating them to the Scriptural punch, we young Baptists were quizzed on our ability to quickly find any passage in the Bible. Our instructor would call out an obscure book such as Habakkuk or Colossians or Nezeriah (that one was to keep us on our toes) and we would furiously race to be the first to find the chapter and verse. The winner of each round earned a gold star.

To say I was good at Bible Speed Drill would be an understatement. I was the best, the undisputed champ, not only of VBS but of the entire city of Cisco. I was confident that I could handily beat any of the other 4,516 residents in town, especially the Methodists and Catholics who, my Pentecostal neighbor assured me, never opened a Bible at all. My record spoke for itself; I had more stars than the Andromeda galaxy. I was clearly an expert on Scripture.

My claim to being a theological prodigy, however, was short-lived. The deeper I delved into the Bible � which required reading past the index page -- the more I realized I was utterly clueless.

Initially, I believed I could regain my esteemed status by years of study and accumulation of Biblical knowledge. As Jacob had wrestled with the angel, I continued to grapple with Scripture. But unlike the patriarch I quickly lost the fight, pinned in the first round by the sheer weight of the Bible�s magisterial beauty and truth. I quickly realized that I had the wrong footing. I recognized that I must submit to Jesus Christ, the lord and king of the entire cosmos. Similarly, I realized I wasn�t called to be an authority on Scripture but rather to recognize that the Bible itself was an authority unto which I must yield.

According to a profile in Christianity Today entitled "The Positive Prophet," the liberal evangelical Tony Campolo would often begin a speech by saying:

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh*t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said sh*t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

Although Campolo is overstating the point, he is right that evangelicals often take great offense to the use of such language and are surprised when it is used by Christians. I was reminded of this fact while reading a review of the film "To End All Wars" by my friend Tim Challies. Before delving into his critique, Tim offers a warning:

I was quite surprised at the volume of swearing in this film. Usually I would not be surprised to find bad language in a war movie, but was surprised at this one primarily because the people who recommended it to me made no mention of it. Thankfully, because of the subject matter, it was not a film we decided to watch with the children present.

In expressing his views on swearing in an earlier post, Tim wrote, "I believe the answer is quite clear that cussing, swearing, using vulgar speech does NOT please God in any way. It's the way of the world, it's the language of the former man, the spiritually dead man." Later in the post he adds, "The only 'proper context' for using such language, is from the lips of a man at enmity with God, walking according to the lusts of the flesh, according to the ways of this world, defending his pride. It has no place coming from the mouth of a man or woman, professing to love Christ."

Michael Spencer also noticed Tim's review and in response highlights a "really cool article" by Eric Rigney on the ethics of "cussin." Rigney says that "cussing is not necessarily a bad thing" and lists a number of "poor reasons" and “good reasons” not to use such language. Some of the “poor reasons” for refraining from swearing according to Rigney are because the Bible says it’s wrong (he doesn’t believe the Bible makes such a claim), because the words are inherently wrong, or because it is offensive to those around you.

While I am sympathetic to both points of view, I think they each go too far. Tim’s view tends toward excessive legalism while Rigney’s errs by invoking a naive view of “Christian freedom.” I think there is another way in which Christians can approach the issue of swearing.*

As an evangelical Christian I have a profound respect for freedom of religious belief. While it might be necessary to limit certain actions that would be committed in the name of religious freedom, I don�t believe we are justified in shackling freedom of thought, especially when it comes to the ability to accept or reject Jesus Christ. Since God himself permits humans to reject him we can do no less that respect that same right. Because of this belief I argue that Christians do not worship the �same God� as Jews and Muslims.

One of the basic axiomatic truths of Christianity is that God is Triune. While this can be a difficult doctrine to understand, almost all Christians would agree that Jesus is not a �part� or �attribute� of God but is one of the three persons in the unified Godhead. A Christian cannot speak of �God� without including Christ.

To defend this point I offer the following argument based on premises that would be acceptable to an evangelical Christian:

1. P -- The Gospels of Matthews and John make accurate claims about what Jesus said.
2. Q -- Everything Jesus said was true.
3. R -- Jesus said that he is the begotten son of God. {John 3:16, 1, 2}
4. S -- Jesus said that you can know the Father, if and only if you know him first. {John 8:19, Matt. 11:27 1, 2}*
5. T --> U -- If you deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God then you do not know Jesus. {Modus Ponens, 1, 2, 3}
6. U --> V -- If you do not know Jesus then you do not know the Father. {Modus Ponens, 4}
7. T --> V If you deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God then you do not know the Father. {Hypothetical syllogism, 5, 6}
8. W -- Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God. (For the Muslim side: Qu�ran (Sura 112) -- �Say: He is God, The One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, Nor is He begotten; And there is none Like unto Him.�)
9. T & W -- You deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God and Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God. {Conjunction, 5, 8}
10. W --> V -- If Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God then Muslims and Jews do not know the Father. {Simplification, Modus Ponens, 7, 9}

Because both Muslims and Jews deny that Jesus is the begotten son of God I believe it is a fallacious claim to say that these three monotheistic faiths worship the �same� God. When making this claim we are essentially saying that Jews and Muslims worship Christ�they just don�t know it.

[Note: This is post #10 in the Blogiversary II series.]

A guy named Saul finds himself in dire straits. His business has gone bust and he's in serious financial trouble. He's so desperate that he decides to ask God for help. He begins to pray: "God, please help me. I've lost my business and if I don't get some money, I'm going to lose my house as well. Please let me win the lottery."

Lottery night comes, and somebody else wins it.

Saul again prays: "God, please let me win the lotto! I've lost my business, my house and I'm going to lose my car as well."

Lotto night comes, and Saul still has no luck.

Once again, he prays: "My God, why have you forsaken me? I've lost my business, my house, and my car. My wife and children are starving. I don't often ask you for help, and I have always been a good servant to you. PLEASE just let me win the lottery this one time so I can get my life back in order."

Suddenly there is a blinding flash of light as the heavens open and Saul is confronted by the voice of God Himself:

"Saul, meet me halfway on this. Buy a ticket."*

When I think about the reasons why evangelical Christians are making so little progress changing our culture, I always think of this story. We want to transform the world but never even take the first step to achieve that end. We never even �buy a ticket.�

[Note: This is post #8 in the Blogiversary II series.]

In his essay on �The Pleasures of Eating�, the philosopher and farmer Wendell Berry says that after delivering a lecture on the decline of American farming and rural life, someone in the audience would invariably ask what city people can do. �Eat responsibly," Berry would reply.

�by restoring one's consciousness of what is involved in eating; by reclaiming responsibility for one's own part in the food economy. One might begin with the illuminating principle of Sir Albert Howard's The Soil and Health, that we should understand "the whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal, and man as one great subject." Eaters, that is, must understand that eating takes place inescapably in the world, that it is inescapably an agricultural act, and that how we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used. This is a simple way of describing a relationship that is inexpressibly complex. To eat responsibly is to understand and enact, so far as one can, this complex relationship.

Berry argues that eating is an agrarian act and that something valuable is lost when we subscribe to the industrialized, consumerist view of sustenance. Although his essay is about food, his words could be applied to another method of fulfilling a physical need -- sex. In fact, he draws a similar parallel in his discussion of �industrial sex�:

[Note: This is post #3 in the Blogiversary II series.]

In the fall of 1987 I began my freshman year of college. I was far from home, overwhelmed and lonely on a campus of 20,000 students. While sitting alone in the cafeteria one afternoon, an older student walked up, smiled and asked if he could join me. I was starved for conversation and thrilled to have the company. He sat his tray down in front of mine and took a seat as I prepared to engage him in a heady discussion of his choosing. Politics, philosophy, science. I was mentally preparing for anything he threw at me.

Glancing up from his plate of spaghetti, he asked, �Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?�

For a few seconds I was stunned, completely at a loss for a response. �Um, yeah, actually I have.� I finally managed in reply.

�Oh,� he said, clearly disappointed. �Okay, that�s good.� He wore a look of minor defeat. He had chosen the wrong table; no soul would be won for Christ over this lunch. We chatted politely while I finished my burger. He ate quickly and excused himself.

After that lunch, I never saw him again.

For many years afterward whenever I would hear the word �evangelism� I would think of that day. It always reminded of the Jewish exorcists who tried to use Jesus name to cast out some demons. Unimpressed by their approach, the evil spirit says in reply: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?"

The young man was earnest and sincerely wanted to do �God�s work.� But evangelism isn�t a form of Multi-Level Marketing and the �Good News� isn�t an Amway product. The least he could have done was ask my name before trying to save my soul. If your going to ask about a �personal savior� then at least get to know the person.

[Note: This is post #2 in the Blogiversary II series.]

H.L. Mencken once defined a Puritan as, �somebody who was desperately afraid that somebody somewhere might be having a good time.� Unfortunately, that is the impression many people have about evangelical Christians, particularly when it comes to our views on sex. David Wayne has a series of posts in which he tries to dispel that false notion. But he does find that the misperception contains a kernel of truth:

Although Christians believe that sex is good the negativity with which we talk about sex really prevents us from gaining a hearing in the world today. I think that, rather than merely telling people that sex outside of marriage is bad, we should be saying something along the lines of "sex is so good within marriage that you are foolish to waste it outside of marriage." I know that sounds like semantics, but it has a more positive spin.

Part of the problem with getting a message like that across is that many Christians probably really don't believe that in their hearts. They may say it, but their actions belie their words. Although my little slogan up there about sex being so good in marriage may sound nice and just like the thing a pastor should say, I realize that many people in the church don't really believe that in their hearts. This is why there is so much use of pornography and so much sexual activity outside of marriage.

David is absolutely right. While most Christians would claim that they believe the Biblical view of sex and that true sexual fulfillment can only be found in marriage, our actions show that we don�t really believe that to be the case at all. Many of us secretly harbor a suspicion that somebody somewhere really is finding both fun and fulfillment while being sexually promiscuous.

The key to understanding the reason for our inability to act as we claim to believe can be found in Jeff Clinton�s post on belief formation:

In Moliere�s The Bourgeois Gentleman, a satirical play about the upper classes in the late 1600s, a socially climber named Monsieur Jourdain is shocked to discover he had "been speaking prose all my life, and didn't even know it!" For forty years he had thought he had merely been talking. In much the same way I was shocked to discover that I had been a Calvinist almost my whole life � and didn�t even know it!

The reason it took me so long to recognize that fact was because I associated being a Calvinist with being Presbyterian, the denomination of �God�s frozen people.� Growing up in rural Texas, I thought the Protestant denominations were divided by social class. Because my family was poor we had a choice of being either Assembly of God or Southern Baptist; we didn�t have the money to be Methodist, much less Presbyterian. Since I couldn�t be a Presbyterian it never dawned on me that I could be a Calvinist.

It took me even longer, however, to accept that I would want to be one. The Calvinists� doctrines appeared severe and rigid, the people stern and humorless. I wanted no part of such a formal system with all its catechisms and creeds. I was content being a devout Baptist whose doctrine was derived from the Bible rather than from a dour old theologian in Geneva. It was only after being introduced to the works of Francis Schaeffer that I discovered, quite to my surprise, that Calvinism was firmly rooted in Scripture. I was even more shocked to find that the doctrines already meshed with my own beliefs.

I�m still reticent about embracing the Calvinist label (though oddly enough I have no problem referring to myself as a neo-Calvinist). For too many people the term has become synonymous with the distorted views of hyper-Calvinism and carries the stench of sinister dogma. It�s much easier, I�ve found, to simply refer to oneself by the less distinct term �Reformed� than to have to explain why I embrace TULIP.

Last week, though, I inadvertently outed myself. As I began to lay out my most basic beliefs I realized it was impossible not to include on the list at least a few of the central doctrines of Calvinism. In order to make them more palatable, I tried to hide them behind the language of the Canons of Dordt, since it was unlikely that non-Calvinists would recognize the venerable creed. For the most part it was successful, but a few people blanched � and one gentlemen even called the beliefs �heretical�!

The two points that caused the most consternation were numbers 38 and 39:

Over the past thirty-six years I�ve been, at one time or another, a pre-post-a-millennialist, dispensational-covenantal, semi-charismatic, Reformed-Arminian, Wesleyan-Calvinist attending a Southern/Independent/Fundamentalist Baptist, Free-Methodist/Free-Evangelical, Presbyterian (USA/PCA), Pentecostal/Assembly of God, Bible/non-denominational church. I�ve sipped grape juice from glass thimbles and red wine from gold-plated goblets while eating pieces of saltine crackers and chips of unleavened bread, I�ve had �dinner on the ground� with a pew�s worth of believers and shared feasts with a stadium full of megachurch patrons. I�ve listened to seminary-educated pastors parse Greek verbs and heard semi-illiterate Mexican preachers deliver sermons in Spanish.

Over three dozen churches still have me on the roles as a �member.�

With my experience I can talk to any fellow Christian about doctrine and scripture and within ten minutes can tell you a dozen things wrong with their theology. Given another ten minutes I can explain to them in graphic detail where they err. Whether the topic is baptism (��you gotta dunk �em down real good to wash away all this sin��), the emergent church (��let me tell ya what�s wrong with that McLaren guy��), eschatology (�Rapture? The Bible don�t say nothin� about no...�), or any other issues that has ever caused a Protestant to start their own denomination, I can jump in with my well-formed, incontrovertible opinion. I�m always willing to look past the mote in my own eye to help a brother get that speck out of his own. That�s just the kind of guy I am.

At least I used to be. I find that I just don�t have the stomach for those old arguments anymore. I�m still willing to discuss doctrinal differences. But now I�m less sure that I�m standing on the right side of scripture. Is the view heretical or likely to lead someone away from salvation? Then I�ll fight it tooth-and-nail. If not, then I�ll have to sit it out. I no longer have an interest in being what Anthony Bradley calls a �wife beater�:

It took a jazz trio to help me understand Justice Sunday II.

Earlier today as I was driving home from the airport, digesting the events of the night before, when I slipped The Bad Plus� �These Are The Vistas� into my CD player. One of my favorite tracks on the CD is a cover of Nirvana�s �Smell�s Like Teen Spirit�, a remarkable reinterpretation that retains the intensity of the original while adding an underlying tinge of melancholy.

I remembered hearing that what made the trio�s version different from a standard cover by a rock band was not just the instruments they used but that they started with the sheet music rather than a sound recording. Starting with the original text allowed them the freedom to pick and choose which musical themes to highlight and which to mute.

That�s when it hit me that JS2 was doing something very similar. The event was a blend of religion and politics that is both comparable to the model historically found in the �black church�* and yet strikingly different. As the Bishop Harry Jackson told blogger Trey Jackson in a taped interview**, black congregations have always received political views from behind the pulpit. Politics and the black church have become almost inseparable and have been the impetus for many of the most beneficial changes in our country. As Florida state Representative Arthenia Joyner, a Tampa Democrat, claims, "Every historical movement in this country is rooted in black churches."

Why then does it feel so strange when white evangelicals bring politics into the church?

�Virtually all the people on Time magazine's list of 'The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals' share at least one glaringly significant trait,� says Phillip Johnson, �For the most part, these are the fadmakers.� Johnson goes on to list a number of �cheerleaders for whatever is fashionable�, including the usual suspects such as Rick Warren and Tim LaHaye, and explains why their programs are �fads�:

Not one of those movements or programs even existed 35 years ago. Most of them would not have been dreamed of by evangelicals merely a generation ago. And, frankly, most of them will not last another generation. Some will last a few short months (like the Jabez phenomenon did); others may seem to dominate for several years but then die lingering deaths (like Bill Gothard's movement is doing). But they will all eventually fade and fall from significance. And some poor wholesale distributor will be left with warehouses full of Jabez junk, Weigh-Down Workshop paraphernalia, "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets, Purpose-Driven� merchandise, and stacks and stacks of "emerging church" resources.

Like Johnson, I'm concerned about the way in which evangelicals tend to embrace whatever trends and kitsch happen to be hot sellers at �Christian� bookstores. But while Johnson laments that most of the �stuff you are currently being told you must read and implement will soon seem as hopelessly out of date� I take comfort in knowing that most of this stuff is nothing more than a passing trend. It is not the dernier cri that will soon be gone that concerns me but the faddage that becomes a fixture. Fads still receive scrutiny while fixtures remain largely unquestioned.

There are seven �fixtures of evangelism� that I find particularly harmful. None of them are inherently pernicious (well, except for #7) but they have a tendency to be used in ways that are counterproductive to their intended purposes. The seven fixtures are:

The conservative weekly Human Events asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to compile a list of the