Posted on 08/17/2006 5:31:35 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
University of Akron (Ohio) polling finds evangelical Protestants are the largest segment of actively religious Americans, outnumbering Roman Catholics. But the definition of "evangelical" is open to dispute.
That issue arises with "Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical's Lament" (Basic Books), a caustic tract by historian Randall Balmer of Barnard College in New York. He says the evangelical activists' agenda "is misguided, even ruinous" to "the nation I love and, ultimately, to the faith I love even more."
Unlike many recent books that attack the "religious right," Balmer grabs attention by claiming to defend God and country from within evangelicalism, though he acknowledges that many would deny him that label.
The loosely knit evangelicalism includes millions like lay Episcopalian Balmer in pluralistic "mainline" denominations, as well as members of conservative denominations and congregations.
By Balmer's definition, an evangelical "takes the Bible seriously" and often literally, emphasizes personal conversion to Jesus, and sees a necessity to evangelize.
Similarly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) theologian Jack Rogers says evangelicals believe that people need a personal relationship with God through Christ, the Bible is the final authority for salvation and life, and everyone should hear about Jesus.
Like Balmer, Rogers has had his evangelical credentials questioned because he advocates full acceptance of same-sex couples and gay clergy, as in "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality" (Westminster John Knox). Years ago, he taught at evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary and opposed gay behavior.
Balmer complains that evangelicals refuse to read Paul's "apparent condemnations of homosexuality" as rooted in, and "arguably" limited to, "the historical and social circumstances of the first century."
Conservative scholars have published thorough rebuttals of the Balmer-Rogers stance.
Balmer is equally agitated about abortion, which set the pattern for later evangelical activism on gay issues. A libertarian, he believes abortion is "properly left to a woman and her conscience."
He charges that conservatives grabbed abortion "as the issue that would propel them to prominence," indicating that moral principle wasn't involved, only "shameless pursuit of affluence and power" through politics. He likewise says conservatives within mainline denominations exploit the gay issue to build their power base.
Defending that harsh judgment, he says evangelicals "take pride in a kind of slavish literalism" on the Bible, which never forbids abortion as such. Conservatives say biblical teaching requires opposition.
Balmer believes the activists "would love nothing more than to dismantle the First Amendment and enshrine evangelical values and mores as the law of the land," impose "intelligent design" upon biology classes, and end separation of church and state. Of course, liberal agitators continually enshrine the opposite values.
Balmer says, "I'll put up my credentials as an evangelical against anyone," and expects to be cast out because of this book, including possible ouster from the masthead of Christianity Today, the movement's flagship magazine.
Asked whether Balmer and Rogers are evangelicals, that magazine's editor David Neff (another lay Episcopalian) says they're "in a very small minority" on issues like gays and abortion. He'd consider them still within the fold "if they employ evangelical discourse and display evangelical piety," basing conclusions on the Bible rather than on current social science.
Neff considers Balmer and Rogers part of the evangelical family the way Woody Allen is Jewish — not representative of the group but shaped by it.
The question remains: Does Christianity have social ramifications? So preach the non-evangelical Protestants who enjoyed political influence through much of the 20th century. Balmer appears to believe the less activism the better and that faith is purer and more effective when it's unsoiled by politics.
He pronounces both the mainline denominations and the Democratic Party "virtually moribund."
This guy is not an evangelical. He's a theological liberal modernist who is gonna have a lot to answer for.
There are way too many theological liberal modernists in the world today. They are causing major problems in the church of Christ.
Alex, probably the biggest reason I have difficulty accepting postmillennialism is reflected in the past 250 years of Christianity in America. It's not that I do not believe God will bless those who faithfully keep His covenant, it's that throughout church history (and particularly in this time period) we have shown repeatedly that institutionally we fail to do so.
Sounds to me like we are ready for the next question: "Is the Pope an Evangelical, or What?"
Ask, and ye shall receive...
The evangelical pope?
How the Pope Turned Me Into An Evangelical
"Does Christianity have social ramifications?"
______________________________
It better or the world is lost.
The forces of darkness are overwhelming the institutions of faith with this attitude of no accountability.
250 years?? What portion of Christ's kingdom, chronologically speaking, does that represent? America?? Geographically limited.
Postmils get their worldview from the Bible, not from observing historically limited circumstances.
It doesn't, according to mainstream dispensationalism. And yes, they believe the world is irretrievably lost.
'Ultimate failure' is the generally held expectation for the gospel, at least by American dispensational evangelicals. Dispensational author J. Dwight Pentecost, in his 1958 book Things To Come, puts forth the popular view of dispensationalism, asserting that the church indeed progresses towards statistical impotence, i.e. is prophetically doomed to both a declining influence and a growing inward corruptness as the "church age" progresses in history....
During the course of the age there will be a decreasing response to the sowing of the seed, from a 'hundredfold' to 'sixty' to 'thirty'. Such is the course of the age....[the parable of the mustard seed] teaches that the enlarged sphere of profession has become inwardly corrupt. That is the characterization of this age....The mustard seed refers to the perversion of God's purpose in this age, while the leaven refers to a corruption of the divine agency, the Word....Modern evangelicalism's problems are only compounded by it's holding to eschatological dispensationalism. How can it expect to transform society with the Gospel, if it believes that the church will increasingly "lose it's savor" in history (allowing the world to get "worse and worse")? Do evangelicals really believe that the Blood of Christ can produce life-altering changes in converts' lives over time, capable of altering (in a statistically measurable way) the moral, political, and social landscape of this county?
[pages 146, 148, emphasis mine]
"Why polish the brass on a sinking ship?"
- Dwight L. Moody.
I said it is reflected in the past 250 years, which serve as a relatively recent example of the consistent pattern throughout history of believers repeatedly failing at an institutional level to remain faithful covenant keepers.
Postmils get their worldview from the Bible, not from observing historically limited circumstances.
Please don't mistake my reference to the relatively recent past as the same type of isolated focus that fuels the fever of our misguided dispensational premillennial bretheren :)
As an amillennialism, I share your worldview insofar as seeking to faithfully keep the covenant and believing that doing so will result blessings. I share your joy at the advancement of the Kingdom of Christ throughout this world, even when from a worldly perspective it seems in retreat. I simply disagree with the notion that Scripture promises that from an institutional and/or collective standpoint His covenant people will receive blessings to the extent of an observable and obvious precursor to His return.
But that may merely reflect a lack of adequate perspective, rather than an explicit confirmation of Scriptural teaching on the subject. Where would one go in Scripture to confirm the idea that institutional failure is a reasonable assumption from kingdom principles?
"Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. " (1 Tim. 2:1-4)
Notice how Paul tied praying for rulers, the desire for a peaceful life, with the spread of the gospel, that God desires all men to be saved.
I simply disagree with the notion that Scripture promises that from an institutional and/or collective standpoint His covenant people will receive blessings to the extent of an observable and obvious precursor to His return.
"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea." (Isa. 11:9)
Since biblical knowledge is inseparably tied to right action, it seems difficult to take this and other passages to mean something other than the fact that the knowledge of God overspeading the earth will result is something other than cultural or institutional conforming to the Word of God.
Certainly you don't believe that Christ is incapable of conquering the institutions of this age, so you must have explicit mandate from Scripture for that view that lack of progess in this age is part and parcel with His revealed will.
I'm up to my eyeballs right now studying all the millennialstic views. Actually I think the biggest problem with postmillennialism is that it requires all the people of earth to be christianized before the second coming. I don't see anything scripturally or apostolically that supports that.
Of course I think I have bigger problems with being dispensational. Christ's church IS the new Israel. The support for two different outcomes at the end times (one for the people of Isreal and one for the Gentile church) is weak. I am now reading where the move is from this view to 'progressive dispensationalism". That makes me wonder if even its own proponents see issues with it.
I defnitely lean toward amillennialism. Probably because of my Catholic viewpoint, but I did try to remain very open minded, as does the Catholic Church in this area, they seem to support amillennialism. However, no formal doctrinal decrees have been made.
Psalm 110, among other things.
Depends on what you mean by "christianized".
"Evangelical Postmillennialists do not hold that each and every individual on earth will someday be saved, but that at some future time the vast majority will; in Christ's wheat field there will always be found some tares, up until the final harvest in judgement. Charles Hodge taught that 'it is not to be inferred from this [Biblical promise of Gentile and Jewish conversion] that either all the heathen or all the Jews are to become true Christians. In many cases the conversion may be merely nominal. There will probably enough remain unchanged in heart to be the germ of that persecuting power which shall bring about those days of tribulation which the Bible seems to teach are to immediately precede the coming of the Lord.' " (Greg Bahnsen)
"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.' Amen." (Matt. 28:18-20)
Postmillennial success is bound up entirely in Christ's authority over the nations. Certainly there is more reason to expectantly look for gospel success and the "christianizing" influence of the Holy Spirit than not.
I always thought people refered to themselves as "Evangelical Christians" so they would not have to use the term "Fundamentalist".
You're misunderstanding my position. I don't assume ultimate failure, I simply equally don't assume ultimate success (both being defined in terms of institutional or organizational influence or power).
As far as adequate historical perspective, one need only look at the Roman Empire. The rapid expansion of Christian influence under Constantine did not prevent the eventual destruction of that empire.
The fundamental difference I see between your view and mine is that you view the temporal expansion of Christian influence in history as the the necessary result of the spiritual expansion of the Kingdom, whereas I view that expansion as an instrumental means of the spiritual expansion.
Notice how Paul tied praying for rulers, the desire for a peaceful life, with the spread of the gospel, that God desires all men to be saved.
Which ties right in with what I just said...
Since biblical knowledge is inseparably tied to right action, it seems difficult to take this and other passages to mean something other than the fact that the knowledge of God overspeading the earth will result is something other than cultural or institutional conforming to the Word of God.
Biblical knowledge is necessary for "right action" but it is not sufficient in and of itself for "right action." To be sure, the expansion of Christian influence would likely have a coincident restraining effect a la Calvin's "Second office of the Law", but when applied organizationally and institutionally such restraint is commonly relative and rarely long-lasting.
Certainly you don't believe that Christ is incapable of conquering the institutions of this age, so you must have explicit mandate from Scripture for that view that lack of progess in this age is part and parcel with His revealed will.
Of course I don't believe He is incapable, just as I doubt you believe He is incapable of expanding His covenant people despite (and often in the face of) a world hostile to it. However, to demand an "explicit mandate from Scripture" that it is God's revealed will that His covenant people have a "lack of progress" institutionally is hardly fair when there is no explicit mandate in Scripture that we will ultimately be institutionally successful prior to His return.
So what you are saying is that there is a lack of explicit or "good and necessary" information in Scripture to decide one way or another.
As far as adequate historical perspective, one need only look at the Roman Empire. The rapid expansion of Christian influence under Constantine did not prevent the eventual destruction of that empire.
True, but isn't Rome a "special case" (cf. Dan. 2:44)? The prophets foretold the demise of the fourth kingdom as it gave way to the final kingdom of Christ.
One thing is certainly true, that in the wake of the fall of Rome no nation has since emerged in the likeness of Rome, a ruthless tyrant bent on conquering the whole world. I think as time goes one we are less likely to see this type of political force. I believe these brutish tendencies have been mitigated by the power of the gospel.
The fundamental difference I see between your view and mine is that you view the temporal expansion of Christian influence in history as the the necessary result of the spiritual expansion of the Kingdom, whereas I view that expansion as an instrumental means of the spiritual expansion.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. When you speak of instrumental, are you saying that the temporal expansion leads to spiritual expansion? Are we talking cause and effect?
Jack Rogers is as much a "theologian" as Balmer is an "evangelical."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.