Pragmatism has overtaken principle in defining the positions evangelicals will take on the important political/moral issues this election cycle. Last week, writing in an op/ed for USA Today, Mark Pinsky, the religion writer for the Orlando Sentinel, observed:
The emerging face and voice of American evangelicalism is that of a pragmatic, politically sophisticated, pastor of a middle class megachurch. A younger generation of ministers such as Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life; Bill Hybels, of the pioneering Willow Creek Community Church outside Chicago; T.D. Jakes, the African-American pastor of The Potter’s House in Dallas, as well as a music and movie producer; and Frank Page, the re-elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Mark Pinsky is a reform Jew who has spent time examining evangelicalism and breaking down some of the stereotypes. He writes extensively about this subject in his recent book, A Jew Among the Evangelicals. Given his research there is certainly reason to take his perspective seriously. While I hope he is wrong there is every reason to believe he may be right.
While the old guard evangelicals (the late Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, et al) have their blemishes, they are men of principle, unwilling to compromise truth to facilitate a conversation with those committed to error.
Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, T. D. Jakes, Frank Page, and Joel Hunter have taken positions on social issues which are light on theology, more interested in achieving pragmatic outcomes by compromising on issues important to conservative followers of Jesus Christ than they are in standing on theologically informed principle. Pinsky observes,
Pastors like Hunter, Warren, Hybels, Jakes and Page have a shared vision. They want to change the tone of the national political debate, making it less confrontational, and to open the movement to tactical coalitions with mainline Christian denominations, other faiths and even liberal secularists on a broad spectrum of issues…the younger pastors want to broaden the evangelical agenda beyond what Hunter calls “below the belt” issues linked to sexuality. For them, people of faith should engage issues such as AIDS, Darfur, economic justice, war and peace, prison reform and human trafficking. For Dobson and Robertson, this represents an unacceptable dilution of focus and a squandering of political capital.
If Pinksy is correct in his assessment of this new, progressive breed of evangelical leaders, their agenda eerily resembles the social gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which killed the mainline denominations, a death from which those denominations still have not resurrected. Warren, Hybels and company are poised to lead evangelicals down the same path, trading the authority of the word of God for the tenets of modern psychology and self-help. This new generation of evangelical leaders see the source of human misery (poverty, AIDS/HIV, etc) as partially attributable to evangelical indifference to the plight of the suffering, which could, in their view, be cured with substantial (monetary) involvement in political organizations like the One Campaign.
This is not to say that Christians should not be involved in practical ways to relieve suffering. There is no question that conservative evangelicals must do more in practical ways to touch the poor and suffering as Jesus did. But this new generation of evangelicals is shifting our priorities, ranking social programs ahead of gospel preaching and evangelism.
Relieving suffering is a vital part of the gospel, but it is not the priority of the gospel. Relief from suffering follows from repentance from sin. Jesus connected physical suffering with sin (Matthew 9:1-8). So did James (James 5:15,16), as did the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).
The first priority of evangelicals is to be evangelists, boldly proclaiming an unpopular gospel that calls men to account for their sin and to repent. Clean water wells in Africa will do nothing to stop the spread of AIDS/HIV so long as the behavior associated with the disease continues. The gospel addresses the behavior with a real cure: making men and women new creations in Christ.
Yet these more hip, relevant, and progressive leaders-in-waiting characterize as “fundamentalists” those who want to put the gospel and evangelism ahead of socialism. Pinsky again
This is how rough and tumble the public conversation has become: Hunter and others have even revived the term “fundamentalist” — a word more often used by liberals — as an epithet for their more conservative adversaries. He refers to Dobson as “the 800-pound gorilla” among evangelical leaders…
Only a reformation can save us from ourselves, and our leaders. God give us an evangelical Martin Luther to stand against those within the evangelical church who would water down its message in order to make bed-fellows with the world, committed more to pragmatic outcomes than theologically informed spiritual principles. Such is this new generation of evangelical leaders.
I agree whole-heartedly! As an independent, fundamental Baptist after the mold of the likes of J. Frank Norris (and Paul of Tarsus), I have less and less in common with today’s “evangelical leaders.”
Michael,
I am not aware of many who even know the name, J. Frank Norris let alone are willing to affiliate with it. Like it or not, he stood up for his positions. You must also recall when todays “evangelicals” were referred to as “new evangelicals”, and we were warned about them from the pulpits across America, that they would usher in a cold, dead, weak, Gospel message. Although, many of the Christian leaders of this era had plenty of their own issues to debate, they are a testimony to the greatness of the God we serve. The flame that once was bright is all but gone out, in my humble opinion. As has been true through out time, the answers comes from on high, rather than men.
I agree with Paul when he asks God to give us someone to stand against this trend, however I believe we are past any great men coming on the scene. The next great “reformation” in my book is called the “second coming of Christ”. This reformation will not be sprinkled with Romanism, Paganism, or any other isms, “for we shall see him as he is”.
II Timothy 3
About the only thing more pathetic than having outsiders define us would be to define ourselves by following the likes of these ersatz leaders. Paul is right – we need a Holy Spirit-led modern reformation.
BTW, T. D. Jakes doesn’t even qualify as a Christian, let alone an evangelical. He denies the Trinity. He couches his language carefully but it is clear that he holds to a modern form of Arianism (modalistic monarchianism): something which was long ago settled at Nicea.
This a link to a published booklet from Frank Page called the Trouble With The TULIP:
Frank has disassociated himself from Calvinism or, what I prefer to call doctrines of Grace. Notice he comes up with his own acronysm called G R A C E which is not grace at all but is a works “descision” doctrine.
http://www.jpbc.org/writings/br-trouble_with_tulip.html
Pardon me. I rather meant to say it is a link to a critique of Frank Page’s booklet, The Trouble With The Tulip.
Great link, Mike! Thanks.
Paul
You asked on your program who should be the voice of evangelicalism today, who best represents what I believe? A lot of people called in and named giants such as Piper, Keller, Begg, Carson, etc. A younger evangelical I personally look up to is Pastor Mark Driscoll out at Mars Hill. All of these representatives seem to be of a Reformed theological bent, and Driscoll is admittedly influenced by the aforementioned Christian theologians, but Driscoll is more of a face for the generation that is marching forward.
May I suggest the same “Still Small Voice” (I Kings 19:12) that has always lead us. He is, I assume, still able to raise up a man, or group of men, should he choose. Do we need any one else other than the Captain of our salvation? May I also submit to us that this Captain has never lead a battle in the wrong direction.
My hope is built on nothing less,
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ name.
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”.