Oklahombres

ver at Steve Brown etc. Os Guinness and Warren Smith were having a “civil” debate over An Evangelical Manifesto, a document released just this last May, of which Guinness has been the lead architect and main media spokesman. Not much of the actual debate concerned me greatly. It seems to be pretty cut and dry where the two parties were, and the actual debate wasn’t over the value and need for such a document. The debate revolved around why weren’t certain evangelical leaders invited to the drafting process. I was interested in a comment by Os that Al Mohler had been a rather vocal critic of the document, and that “he smelled universalism in it.” I do recall Dr. Mohler commenting on it on his radio show a month or so ago, stating something to the effect that the definition of evangelical used in the document was weak. He did concede that it was at least a starting point for a conversation. I would agree that the definition is a bit weak. I would have liked something just a bit more definitive, but I couldn’t say that it tended toward universalism. Guinness did make the point that it was “An” Evangelical Manifesto, and not “The” Evangelical Manifesto. In other words, If you don’t like it write one yourself. I like Mohler for many reasons, but I thought he was being a bit stodgy on his assessment of the document. I am reminded of the response that Dr. D. L. Moody gave so many years ago when criticized for his evangelistic methods. He said something to the effect “I like the way I’m doing it better than the way you’re not doing it.” It’s easy to make calls from the living-room recliner.

On the show Guinness explained the genesis of the project as the result of conversations a few years ago with dozens of leading evangelicals who were embarassed or ashamed by the term “evangelical”, or had just given up on the term altogether because its original meaning had been lost. Guinness went on to say that the “simple purpose of An Evangelical Manifesto, out of faithfulness to Christ” was 1) to reaffirm what evangelicalism is, 2) sound a call to reform in the evangelical community, and 3) challenge evangelicals to rethink their position in public life. Warren Smith—who is the publisher for the Evangelical Press News Service—has been a major critic of the document, as I have already said, mainly because a good number of leading “evangelicals” he thought should have been asked to contribute at the document’s drafting were not. I put evangelicals in quotes because I wonder if that is not at the center of the rub here. In the discussion it appeared that Smith was trying to get Guinness to admit that he did not view some of these men as evangelicals, mainly because of the political involvement and nature of their ministry; men like James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. Guinness would not be pinned down on that point, and I couldn’t say it sounded like he leans that way, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he and the other drafters of the document didn’t ask such men to participate. The way he delineated American religious culture into three groups would seem to imply that very conclusion:

“Evangelicals are primarily theological and spiritual; we’re followers of Jesus. We’re not first and foremost cultural like fundamentalism. We’re not first and foremost political like, say, the New York Times and many others sees the evangelicals as. We’re followers of Jesus.”

I think Guinness and others sees something that few—and especially few of us in the Southern Baptist Convention—understand. An Evangelical Manifesto may not have “evangelical” defined narrowly enough to suit some, but it is defined narrowly enough that many—and I mean us—do not meet the requirements to define themselves as evangelicals. If you don’t realize it, the word “evangel” and “gospel” are pretty much synonymous, and an evangelical has the gospel—the person and work of Jesus Christ: who he is, and what he has done, and why it matters—as the defining mark of their faith and practice. If you are more worried about changing culture, or getting the right candidate in the White House than you are about telling a lost world about the Lord Jesus Christ, then you are not an evangelical. Guinness is not advocating Christians disengaging from cultural issues and political involvement, he is merely saying that we should not be equated with those things. That is what he means by repeatedly saying “We’re followers of Jesus.” When the media and the candidates equate us with a voting block, or a “moral majority,” then they obviously do not see us as primarily followers of Jesus.

Pastors need to be very careful what they preach from their pulpits. Paul’s warning in Galatians 1:8 is serious business. There are many other passages addressing this issue from several vantage points, but that one is enough to chew on for a good long time.

d Stetzer is a Christian. He’s not a Baptist. Ed Stetzer, I believe, has never been labeled or labeled himself as Arminian or Calvinist. He might not care even to be defined as an evangelical. The most common label I hear is “missional guru,” but I have something altogether different in mind. Ed Stetzer is simply a Christian. I think it would be safe to say Dr. Ed Stetzer is a paradigmatic Christian. That is why he is able to move so freely from one narrowly-defined evangelical group to another antithetical and narrowly-defined evangelical group. Sure, he takes a little heat here and there as he takes speaking engagements just wherever and whenever he feels led, but he never really suffers for it.

Although I live only about thirty-five minutes away from this year’s site of the Founders National Conference, and I just happened to be on vacation that week, I was unable to attend. I have been pouring over the audio for the past couple of weeks, however, and will have to say there wasn’t a bad address in the conference. Dr. Stetzer’s two keynote addresses were probably the best messages of the whole conference, but Voddie Baucham, Andy Davis, and Don Whitney were close behind with a three-way tie. The remainder of the pack came in just a hair’s breadth behind those four. It was all good. A couple of things impress me about Dr. Stetzer, and so I’d like to park on that for a while:

1. Dr. Stetzer is consistent. I have heard him on several occasions and his emphasis is always the same. The first time I heard Dr. Stetzer was a couple of years ago here in Tulsa when he spoke to our local association. For a large man, tall as well as bulky, he sure roams the stage with a vengeance. He’ll make you tired just watching him. And he speaks without ever stopping to breathe. I’m not sure how he does that trick. But back to his emphasis: he doesn’t pick an angle or tack based on the group he is speaking to. Our Tulsa association could hardly be called Calvinistic, yet he delivered the same central theme he delivered in this year’s Founders Conference that he did two years ago, as well as every other time I have heard him speak.
2. Obviously the content of that constant emphasis is the other thing I like about Dr. Stetzer, and that is his unfading passion for the glory of God, and the presenting of the gospel to lost souls as one way to execute that passion for God’s glory. I say that because I hear so many in the SBC these days banging away on evangelisim, usually bearing down heavily on numbers of baptisms, without ever so much as a passing comment on giving glory to God. Check for yourself as you listen to speakers at your average SBC conference and see if it is not so. They will speak of evangelism as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. Sure we want people to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ but it should always be “to the praise of his glorious grace (Ephesians 1:6).” Just listen to Dr. Stetzer’s messages at this years Fonders Conference and you will see what I mean.

I’m not sure what to make of a post I read earlier today from 9 Marks concerning some of Stetzer’s comments at the Founders Conference. In the post by Thabiti Anyabwile there was a play on words using the phrase “functional hyper-Calvinism.” I’m not sure if it might also be characterized by a smidgen of equivocation. I’m also not sure if the post was intended to criticize Dr. Stetzer, or just provoke thought. You can read it for yourself and decide. I was going to write this post anyway, so the 9 Marks post is neither here nor there. It’s just related, and I am adding the link here to augment the post.

“Building Bridges” has been a popular metaphor recently to describe various groups unifying for the purpose of advancing the gospel. For the most part these have been good, godly groups of men desiring to honor God by advancing the gospel in a lost and dying world. [Editor's note; 2008/07/11: I apologize for the following struck-through comments. They were made as a result of personal prejudice, and a too-quick scanning of the article referenced. The statement was totally out of line and I should have never made it. Again, I apologize.] There have been some however who, with their own special flair for equivocation, have attempted to dampen the enthusiasm of these gospel-centered unifiers. I can’t imagine why. The thing that has impressesd me about Dr. Stetzer is that he doesn’t appear to be a slave to anyone, even though he has worked high up in the SBC machine for years. He’ll build bridges to any one who longs to share the gospel to the lost. I guess he’s just a Christian. May his tribe increase in our midst. Would to God that more of us would be content to be called simply “Christian.” I’ll close with a couple of quotes from Dr. Stetzer’s first message at this year’s Nathonal Founders Conference that reflects the heart of a man focused on the glory of God, and the spreading of the gospel as one way to proclaim that glory:

Let me propose a different way. Let’s learn from one another and take the best of one another’s approaches. What we need are theologically deep churches and believers with a passion for those who are far from Christ. I want both. I want it all.

Toward the end of his first message, relating the events surrounding the first worship service in a church plant, Dr. Stetzer said the following:

God reminded me that I did everything the handbook says to do . . . and in the process of doing all that I lost my attention and my focus off the glory of God and put it on the successful planting of a church. That was a turning point for my life. And it led me to be convinced that God wants churches planted throughout the United States and the world, but he wants them planted on his agenda, for his gospel and his glory. And when we try to take his glory he’ll take it back. . . My prayer through this conference . . . is that the end result will be that his name and his fame be more widely known through the planting of biblically faithful churches.

I wanted to make a few comments about the interviews conducted by Timmy Brister, but I have rambled long, so that will have to wait for another time, if I get around to it. If I don’t get around to it, lets just say they were worth the price of admission all by themselves. Go check the messages and the interviews out at Bethel Baptist Church’s website.

listened to Steve Brown’s podcast earlier today, where he was interviewing Daniel Radosh about his new book Rapture Ready! Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture. The book is basically a humorous look at evangelical Christians from an outsider’s vantage point.

I’m not sure if the book would be a good read or not. I’m sure it wouldn’t be humorous to Christians grieved over all of the evangelical nonsense, but one thing in the interview caught my attention. While discussing the variety of silliness in an industry grossing 7 billion dollars annually, Mr Radosh included the purchase of Bibles. I was amazed to discover that non-evangelicals average four Bibles per household, while evangelical Christians average 10.

Americans may be buying 25 million Bibles each year, but you sure can’t tell it by their theological literacy.

After Steve Brown I listened to Dr. Mohler’s radio show from Wednesday, in which the first caller asked for study-Bible recommendations. Dr. Mohler responded with six suggestions: The McArthur Study Bible, Reformation Study Bible, Apologetic Study Bible, Ryken’s Literary Study Bible, an Archaeological Study Bible, and an upcoming ESV Study Bible.

How ironic.

ow here is a much-lacking and much-needed quality in the SBC today (probably in all of evangelicalism: careful, logical thinking. Maybe there wouldn’t be this endless merry-go-round on issues such as alcohol (actually the sufficiency of Scripture), private prayer language, and a clearer understanding of the actual gospel message. Here is brief teaser from a short must-read post by Mark Dever on the use of video technology in corporate worship.

“[A]s a word-centered faith in a video-craving age, we demand the immediate impact of the visual. Is it wise to try to meet those demands in corporate worship?” In the next paragraph he writes “Immediate impact doesn’t always lead to lasting awe. In fact, it can work against it.