The New Old-Time Religion (Evangelicals)

U.S. News ^ | 12/08/03 | Jay Tolson

[anncoulteriscool]

thanks for the post.

[freedom44]

Very interesting post thanks.

Do they speak in tongues?

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

Edwards modified his own highly orthodox Puritan-Calvinist heritage and unintentionally launched a new and distinctively American strain of Protestantism. ...

I don't think I can agree with that, what the Revd. Mr. Edwards did was take the communion meal with the Lord out of the realm of a means of converting to it's more accurate 'only for those who are already converted and are truly saved.' I don't see where using Scripture to correct an error, even when that error had been around for 100 years, is and unintentionally launched a new and distinctively American strain of Protestantism. .

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

And particularly since 9/11, evangelical notions about God's special covenant with the American people have contributed to a quasi-religious nationalism that casts America as the chosen nation engaged in a righteous struggle with evil.

I would think that many would disagree with the as the chosen nation. Most of the evangelicals that I know that follow in the footsteps of Revd. Edwards and the Puritan traditions, would say that America is the nation that God has chosen to use to strike back at the religiously evil nations of the world, those who would be described in Revelation three as "them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie;" keep in mind that the muslims think of themselves as the chosen of God, therefore the truer jews in a sense.

But few that I know think of this nation as one dedicated to the Lord and therefore one that “casts America as the chosen nation engaged in a righteous struggle with evil.”

Those most like the Puritans would be those of the Ana Baptist denominations such as the Mennonites and Amish.

My opinion

[highlander_UW]

Interesting article, thanks for the post.

Evangelical scholars and intellectuals especially lament the decline of the evangelical mind since the generation of Edwards. During the last century in particular, says Wheaton College's Noll, "Christian reasoning as a whole, through use of the Bible, theology, and doctrine, simply hasn't measured up. The scandal of the evangelical thinking is that there is not enough of it, and that which exists is not up to the standards that Edwards established."

Well, Edwards set the bar pretty high. He had quite an impressive mind. I would point to John Piper as a great example of an excellent contemporary scholar in the mold of Edwards (in fact he's a big fan of Edwards).

One more comment, for anyone interesting in reading some of Jonathan Edward's writings, I do suggest reading more than just the Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God sermon. Edwards' mind is better displayed in some of his other writings, in my opinion. If interested, here's a link: http://www.jonathanedwards.com/

[ppaul]

Here's why.....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2003/1130/cover.html

[Clemenza]

The only place here in metro NYC you see Evangelicals is in the Latino communities. Most white Tri-Staters are CINOs (Catholics in Name Only) or Jews.

[RaceBannon]

Starting in the late 19th century, however, waves of new immigrants and an assortment of intellectual challenges from Darwinism to "modernist" theology began edging evangelicals from their place at the center of American life. In reaction, a core of the faithful adopted a hypermoralistic, biblically literalist, and anti-intellectual stance that came to be known as fundamentalism.

We can all stop. This quote proves this is not written by a Christian

The Fundamentals: A testimony to the Truth

[highlander_UW]

Thanks for the story link. I used to live in Ballard, where the Mars Hill Church is located. It's a suburb just to the North of Seattle. The only thing that gave me pause in the story was that he was planning on speaking at Robert Schuller's crystal cathedral. Ever checked out his theology?

[highlander_UW]

We can all stop. This quote proves this is not written by a Christian

I wasn't under the impression it was written by a Christian. It did seem the author went to more than the usual effort to research, however, even if not all his understandings are completely accurate. Still, there appeared to be effort and not just a hack job.

[mombonn]

read this later bump

[ppaul]

Robert Schuller's crystal cathedral. Ever checked out his theology?

No really.
But I'll bet that for that when that Ballard pastor preaches there, it will be like St. Paul addressing the Greek philosophers at the Areopagus.

[highlander_UW]

But I'll bet that for that when that Ballard pastor preaches there, it will be like St. Paul addressing the Greek philosophers at the Areopagus.

I pray that you're right!

[Wallace T.]

The "fundamentals" movement of the early 20th Century was a reaction to liberalism and modernism from across the Protestant spectrum. The authors of the book, The Fundamentals, included Episcopalians, Baptists, Presbyterians, dispensationalists, Reformed believers, and others. These authors held to the historical Christian and Reformation doctrines. Where it did not deal with Protestant distinctives, such as the "solas," traditional Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers would have no problem with the positions stated.

By the 1920s, the term "fundamentalism" became identified with a certain element within conservative Protestantism that emphasized personal holiness and the premillenial dispensational view of end times Bilical prophecy. The personal holiness area included areas on which the Bible is silent: smoking tobacco, moderate use of alcohol, social dancing, card playing, movie, stage, and (after 1950) television attendance, etc. While Christian liberty certainly permits people to avoid all these items, and health and morals can undoubtedly be improved by avoiding tobacco and indecent shows, certain traditions, notably the independent Baptist movement, the Churches of Christ, the Plymouth Brethren movement, and the Holiness churches, became almost Pharisaical in their condemnation of these matters. While the preachers promoted grace alone as the means of salvation, in practice, there developed a massive number of rules representing a sort of legalism.

The effect of the premillenial dispensational viewpoint, at least prior to the late 1970s, was to prevent many conservative Christians from getting involved in secular politics. Avoidance of politics was in effect a reaction against the outspoken liberalism of the modernist clergy, such as Walter Rauschenbusch and Bromley Oxnam, who held to a secularized version of postmillenialism. Although the liberals denied the Bible's historicity, accuracy, and even its authority, they believed that the promised Kingdom of God would arrive in part through the church's promotion of socialistic and centralizing legislation.

It is quite understandable that conservatives would oppose such un-Biblical doctrines. But the reaction of many, if not most, fundamentalists, was to develop an almost Manichean view of a world to be shunned in hope of a pre-Tribulation rapture to occur "any day now." From about the time of the Scopes trial to the founding of the Moral Majority, the fundamentalist churches were mostly quiescent on political matters. During this half-century, the Federal government assumed massive authority, the Supreme Court rejected "original intent" of the Founders for the "living document" theory of interpretation, cultural and legal barriers against sex outside of traditional marriage, divorce, and pornography were destroyed, and secular humanists took entire possession of the state education apparatus. Fighting a rear guard against these destructive trends were the Catholic Church (until the effects of Vatican II caused their withdrawal from these arenas) and a minority of conservative, non-dispensational Protestants, like Gresham Machen.

Emphasis on the fundamentals is crucial to the maintenance of orthodox belief. The movement termed fundamentalism among holders of these fundamental beliefs was disastrous for our country and Christian influence in American society.

[highlander_UW]

Thanks for the article. I've never been very big in labels, but we sure do have a ton of them within Christianity! Have you read some of the Barna surveys regarding beliefs within the professing Christian community? It's quite tragic. I don't know how many professing Christians I've spoken with that have said that they didn't think evangelism was a good thing to be doing because it's forcing one's beliefs on another. That old lie sure has taken hold. No one can force anyone to believe anything, all we can do is present the gospel and share our lives.

[Wallace T.]

The rationale that some church leaders give in not promoting evangelism is that the postmodern mindset is one that rejects the concept of absolute truth (except that this concept is an absoute truth!). In other words, exposition of the Gospel is inadequate for those people born after, say, 1964: the Generation Xers and the Millenials. Their argument is that you have to deal with people and the mindset.

I must wonder if evangelical Christianity is dividing between accomodationalist and non-accomodationalist wings. Many of the large independent churches, whether charismatic or not, seem to fall in the former category. Charismatic churches have not, as a rule, been ones to emphasize theology, emphasizing sentiment over learning. As a result, such churches are especially prone to accomodation. The latter group centers around denominations where conservatives either defeated the liberals (like the Southern Baptist Convention) or accomplished a successful secession from a liberal denomination (like the Presbyterian Church in America). Also included in the latter group are independent churches with ties to strongly conservative seminaries, like Dallas Theological Seminary.

[highlander_UW]

I know what you mean, although I don't think it's always so cut and dried. As an example, locally, I'm involved in a missions education program that is multidenominational, and one of the primary leaders is a member of the Presbyterian church. So I think the picture is, although something along the lines you've mentioned in general, that there are pockets or factions within the larger groups that see evangelism as a top priority without being compromising in regards to objective truth.

[RaceBannon]

What offended me was his calling of the origin of Fundamentalism an attack on intellectualism, that shows he has no idea what Fundamentalism is from it's origin.

I stopped reading from there, too many people just throw out the word, without even knowing they hold Fundamentalist beliefs themselves in many cases.

[highlander_UW]

What offended me was his calling of the origin of Fundamentalism an attack on intellectualism, that shows he has no idea what Fundamentalism is from it's origin. I stopped reading from there, too many people just throw out the word, without even knowing they hold Fundamentalist beliefs themselves in many cases.

Excellent point. My comment regarding the author apparently taking time to do research doesn't mean I agree with what he'd written, just that it contained more information that most non-Christians are aware of.