Christianity Today

It would be helpful if you offered a definition of "evangelicalism." Otherwise the accuracy of your paens of praise is hard to assess.

Back in the turbulent transformation times of the early 1990s, birthing the New Democratic South Africa, Alan Boesak invited the GenSec of the Evangelical Fellowship of SA to debate the respective Futures of Liberation & Evangelical Theologies. Dr Boesak said the struggle would only be over when the last oppressed person had been liberated. Evangelicals saw Oppression as a major, but not the only, manifestation of Sin in the human heart. So Evangelicals would struggle on till Jesus returned to usher in the new heavens and earth in which righteousness has its home (2 Peter 3:13). Evangelicalism will always be relevant. After 1994, the liberal ecumenical churches were unsure of their calling in a post-apartheid South Africa, and held conferences to find and define a new purpose for their existence. The Evangelicals met to plan how to contextualise their already-defined evangelical purpose in the new post-apartheid environment. This Debate clarified Evangelicalism's permanent relevance.

We do not need a new Christendom, it is counterproductive at best. No political party promotes the whole counsel of God and that means none of them are worthy of being known as the "Party of Evangelicals."

Vic Christian, If you want a government that will turn particular religious views into law, you need to convert to Islam and move to a Islamic Republic, otherwise known as a theocracy.

Loved the column; reminds of David Wells and his multi-volume critiques; fact is, there is the truth of the saying, we are being ever Reformed by God's Word. And don't fall in love with Karl Barth. As Wells once pointed out in a class at GCTS 1981, Barth was trying to help classical Christian liberals bridge back into Evangelicalism but the same bridge was also allowing Evangelicals a bridge out from under the authority of Scripture. And then there's the irony of the Word o F God being so final as compared to Barth's endless words about that Word. :) Barth preaching the Gospel in prison is what I admire most about him, his closet universalism not so.

"fundamentalisms . . .misguided attempts to align the church with the world's agenda"? That wasn't the position of James Orr or any other "Fundamentalist" identifying himself (old masculine/neuter for those of a sexist orientation) as one. That characterization is better suited for Establishmentarianism, which has infiltrated the ranks of Evangelicalism, to the point of overflowing to the spillage of Christ with the social(ist) gospel. And the enemy, who continues to seek greater and greater control, takes glee in the division and discord! Time to reunite under Henry's aspiration without his attempted accommodation. And that may necessitate a political insistence on the separation of church and state - all of them, including cathedral, mosque and synagogue, all preaching the use of the state for their religious ends. "My Kingdom is not of this world", and, until HE molds it to His "will be done", we should keep it that way. Maybe a return to "mere Christianity" without the gloss?

"Christian liberalisms—misguided attempts to align the church with the world's agenda." This is why the progressive movement doesn't transform culture as much as it is transformed by culture. In the past, it bought into secularism, the modernistic worldview, uncritical approaches to higher criticism that do not accept Scripture as revelation, universalism, social inclusivism, and moral relativism. Unfortunately, in a very similar way, American evangelicalism has become partners with an idealized non-Christian conservatism that has led to syncretism and unfortunate entanglements with government. We do not need to be separationists. However, we need to be clear that we are not in the pocket of a political party and are not owned by an external agenda. Finally, I note that some discontent evangelicals want to move us to the left. Often they employ Trojan Horse tactics. I hope that we resist the efforts and remain cemented to our core identity and principles.

Allright - this is starting to get annoying. Most of you claiming that evangelicalism has become too "political" seem to believe that we need to push Jesus, without mentioning sin or the need for repentance. Without us admitting that we were born in sin and have continued in it, there is no need for the Savior Jesus Christ. You are missing the whole purpose of the OT - to show that we are sinners and cannot overcome that on our own. Also - you are letting the world tell you, and more importantly your children, what is sin and what you can say about sin. We may not be democrats or republicans, but we sure had better not promote the party that denies God, promotes the killing of our unborn children, or encourtages the country to rebel against God's idea of sin. If you feel otherwise, and still claim to be a follower of Christ, please contact me at vicndonna@bluemarble.net to enlighten me. Thank you

Please, if you are going to trash Karl Barth, at least get his nationality correct. Barth was Swiss, not German.

The paragraph starting with, "North American evangelicals can be astonishingly innovative and entrepreneurial, but we can also be indifferent to history and unconcerned about the future. We can be remarkably generous and dedicated, and blithely enslaved to consumerism and technology," speaks volumes. So, the solution for evangelicals is the same for every prodigal son -- wake up, repent, and give some value to the great commission. Come back to your first love.

Thank you for your commitment! Please continue calling us to re-focus our efforts on Jesus and not some political fad or movement!

I am deeply stirred by this article and thus prayerfully rooting for the clearly-focused direction of Christianity Today. I would ask, however, if we are still warranted in limiting the word evangelical to the more narrow Protestant use of the term that followed the Reformation? Simply put, when George Weigel writes an amazing new book, with the title Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st Century, should the magazine not also move with the Spirit's work in reforming the global church beyond 16th century divisions we've known into a new and glorious "evangelical ecumenism" of the Gospel and the Spirit? I believe the editors are sympathetic with this "new" 21st century direction. This is why I dare to hope that you will gladly, and courageously, help us pursue a new reformation that includes Catholics like George Weigel along with a growing multitude of others who are differently nuanced from Weigel but still confessing the "good news" as devout Catholics.

So is there nothing to do? Does the good and bad balance? Or, as believers who are dismayed at the selling of the evangelical soul to political interests, should we be speaking up, letting our churches know that we do not want them functioning as political action organizations, letting it be known that we oppose the actions of church organizations and para-church groups when we see their agenda is anti-Biblical? Christianity Today is a significant voice of evangelical Christianity. As such, then, it should be the leading voice in pointing out the waywardness of the current evangelical movement and pointing to the message and mission of the church - evangelical or not. Too often, and even in this article, I feel there is a reluctance to speak clearly enough to identify the "sins" (and the sinners) of the church that are being hinted at. Every Christian has a right to be politically active but should not have to jump everytime some evangelical-political organization demands they do.

If you are so willing to ridicule and dismiss theologians like Karl Barth, why would i want to spend any time at all listening to you?