Sermon Illustrations on Evangelicalism — page 2

No Time To Check Out: Evangelicals and Politics

Cal Thomas, a conservative evangelical columnist, is someone I really admire. But shortly after Barack Obama’s historic election victory, he wrote a column called “Religious Right, R.I.P.,” which I strongly disagree with. In it, Thomas asserts that evangelicals should abandon their efforts to impact culture through political involvement.

He says, “Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow.”

By following the example of Christ, Thomas continues, “they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.”

Well, Thomas, in my opinion, is both dead right and dead wrong. He is right in the sense that all of the followers of Jesus should indeed emulate Christ’s life. Thomas is also right that some of those who have led the evangelical movement in the political culture have been strident in tone and hungry for power.

But Thomas is wrong in setting up an either-or proposition. Either you are involved in politics seeking change — or you live like Jesus and effect change merely by your exemplary life. Unfortunately, neither Jesus nor the whole of Scripture gives us that choice. Instead, we are called to work and live in all areas of life, living like Jesus in the process. We cannot withdraw from any area — especially not politics.

Thomas’s conclusion seems to be based on a sense of failure. Looking back on the last 30 years of evangelical political involvement, he observes that evangelicals have little to show for their efforts. Abortion remains the law of the land, society grows coarser, and the homosexual culture is widely entrenched.

I wonder, however, what our country would look like today if believers had been absent from the public square for the last 30 years. I understand his frustration, but to despair after 30 years is shortsighted.

Os Guinness gives us a reminder of how dangerous withdrawing can be. Such an imbalanced emphasis on the “sphere of inwardness, personal bliss, and private salvation” characterized the church in Germany in the first half of the last century. In such a fog, Guinness says, they “could raise no altar strong enough to resist the challenge of Adolf Hitler.”

Likewise, Carl Henry, one of the great theologians of the 20th century, writes, “The Christian populace fails its contemporaries if it postpones all protest until a state becomes so corrupt that revolution seems the only course of action.”

We Christians simply cannot afford to fail our contemporaries by withdrawing. Especially now, when so many have an agenda that devalues life and weakens families.

The tension to retreat into religious isolation is not new. After Jesus’ ascension, some in the early church were ready to withdraw from the affairs of men and simply wait for Jesus to return. Paul repeatedly and sternly had to remind them to go back to work, to do good to their fellow man, and to regularly meet together. They could not check out early, and neither can we.

________

An Evangelical Manifesto On Political Involvement

Citing widespread confusion about what it means to be an “evangelical,” a group of Christian leaders issued a manifesto proposing to define the identity and commitments of evangelical Christians.

Appearing at a Washington, D.C., news conference May 7, the group unveiled “An Evangelical Manifesto” and invited other Christians and people of other faiths to engage in dialogue about what it means to follow Christ.

Evangelicals’ primary identity “by definition is theological, not political, social or cultural,” said John Huffman Jr., pastor of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Newport News, Calif. “Yet we are quite concerned that, because some of the more strident voices in our midst, we are increasingly perceived as people whose primary agenda is political. That simply is not the case.”

In its broadest sense, evangelicals are “men and women who endeavor to live our lives under the lordship of Jesus Christ, our Savior, a Christ who is above culture, is not subservient to any culture, and who desires to transform and serve in positive ways those cultures in which His people live,” Huffman said.

While some voices in society and the media identify evangelical Christianity with a specific moral or political agenda, evangelicals are at heart “Christians who define themselves, their faith and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus Christ,” the statement declares. “To be evangelical is to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace and well-being that are at the heart of the Good News of Jesus.”

The declaration asserts the group’s desire to distance themselves from two sets of extreme attitudes toward Christian faith:

• “Privatized faith,” which “falsely divorces the spiritual from the secular and causes faith to lose its integrity,” and “politicized faith,” which makes Christian beliefs “the weapons of political factions,” whether conservative, liberal, moderate or progressive.

• The “sacred public square,” which would give one religion a preferred place in public life, and the “naked public square,” which would ban religious expression from pubic life.

“We are committed to a civil public square -- a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths as well,” the statement says. “Every right we assert for ourselves as Christians is a right we defend for all others.”

Rejecting both “liberal revisionism” and “conservative fundamentalism,” the document calls for evangelical Christians to “part company with reactionaries by being both reforming and innovative” but also “part company with modern progressives by challenging the ideal of the-newer-the-truer and the-latest-is-greatest and by conserving what is true and good.”

The manifesto also calls for a reformation of behavior among evangelical Christians:

“We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our

behavior. All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus,

but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques,

worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human

potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism,

concern for the church and for the local congregation with

expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better

than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to

felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. ...

“All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of

others, such as the killing of the unborn, as well as the

heresies and apostasies of theological liberals whose views have

developed into another gospel, while we have condoned our own

sins, turned a blind eye to our own vices, and lived captive to

forces such as materialism and consumerism in ways that

contradict our faith.”

Evangelical Christianity should be automatically identified in people’s minds with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ out of which flows a life of service to His claims over all of life, not with a specific ideological agenda, Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, said during the news conference.

“Evangelical Christians have had this pattern of either giving up on the culture or we try to take it over,” Mouw said. “It is not up to us to win all the victories. It is not given unto us to try and impose our will on a whole society, but rather to witness to the kind of justice, peace and righteousness that is part of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, working alongside people of other faiths and of no faith for the common good.”

The document was released with the endorsements of 75 “charter signatories” that included a wide range of evangelical notables, such as Kay Arthur of Precept Ministries, Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary, Ergun Caner of Liberty Theological Seminary, John Ortberg of Menlo Park (California) Presbyterian Church, Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, Rich Stearns of World Vision and Jim Wallis of Sojourners.

Are You A Saul Or A Paul?

Mark 8:36

Evangelical Christians face a choice on who will we most resemble — Saul or Paul.

Both have a bearing on how effectively we fulfill our Great Commission responsibility. We need to decide quickly because the secular world increasingly perceives us as Saul rather than Paul.

Why should we care what the world thinks? Because it is deeply misguided to expect people we alienate to also be open to the Gospel message we proclaim.

Various studies from Barna Group, Pew Research Center and Public Religion Research Institute find that conservative evangelical Christians are viewed as too stridently political, judgmental on cultural issues, and morally hypocritical. The studies also indicate that the issue is not with our theology as much as with the disconnect the world sees between what we say we believe and how we exercise those beliefs.

Americans have generally lost the capacity to hear, think, process and delineate ideas. Rather than being challenged by perspectives we do not agree with, we bypass thoughtfulness and get defensive when criticized. Discussion — if you can even call it that — on virtually every issue is now divisive rather than unifying.

Research published last year found that only 10 percent of American friendships cross party lines. One political scientist observed, “Part of what is destroying our social fabric is that we have set an expectation that to be a good Democrat or Republican, you have to unconditionally hate the other party.”

We cannot simultaneously hate spiritually lost people with whom we disagree on virtually every issue and love them to Christ. Jesus will not become the object of their affection through the legalistic rantings of a Saul.

From biblical accounts, an unregenerate Saul was a rigidly legalistic religious zealot fueled by a determination to punish and eradicate those who did not conform to Judaism. This is sometimes how conservative Christians are perceived. We expect spiritually lost people to convert to Christianity through our strident efforts to “morally correct” their perspectives on politics, human sexuality, immigration, abortion, gun rights, religious liberty and a host of other issues.

The apostle Paul did not — and would not — do that. Paul did not condone sin, but throughout 1 Corinthians 9:22, Paul set aside his rights, not his theology, to “become all things to all people, so that [he] may by every possible means save some.” He chose the greater purpose.

So where is the balance? Christians must engage the marketplace, political and cultural arenas and be a voice for righteousness. However, we must guard against weaponizing moral truth or exchanging evangelism for activism. Like Paul, we must build bridges and earn the right to be heard. Here are four ways Christians can live with biblical conviction while being effective witnesses in a divided culture:

1. Prioritize relationships over cultural combat. Pew Research shows that personal familiarity reduces stereotypes and builds understanding. Relationships defuse the intensity of disagreements and create space for dialogue. Trust grows when people do not feel like projects.

2. Listen to learn, not to correct. People rarely change their views because of an argument, especially those online through social media. However, psychology research demonstrates there is greater openness when people believe they have been heard and feel respected.

3. Service opens the door to engagement. Actions truly do speak louder than words. We live among broken people who need mercy. People see alignment between our theology and our actions when we go from shouting to serving. Thousands of gospel conversations have happened through the years through volunteer ministries that build relationships and earn trust.

4. Be the church people expect. Sociologists estimate that about 66 million Americans — one-fifth of the population — struggle with feeling isolated and lonely. They long for a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves, connection and shared experience. Healthy churches offer an impactful witness to their communities.

To rephrase Mark 8:36, what does it profit us as Christians if we win all the cultural and political arguments but forfeit our opportunity to “save some”? The most persuasive witness in a divided culture is not louder conviction; it is embodied conviction with relational warmth.

In a world full of Sauls, strive to be a Paul.

Hell Was Her Undoing

Mark 9

Elaine Pagels, professor of Religion at Princeton University, has had a spiritual journey that took her from liberalism to evangelicalism and back to liberalism. Her parents were liberal Protestants. Her father had abandoned the Presbyterian Christianity of his family because he was converted to Darwin’s view that evolution was accurate. He felt that meant the Bible must be a bunch of lies, silly tales for foolish people who don’t understand science. Elaine was taken to church, but was also told that religion was for people who needed it and who obviously weren’t educated. It was a very condescending view of religion.

As a teenager, Elaine was introduced to an evangelical Christian group and found it unlike the church in which she was raised. It was intense and powerful. She was born again and my parents were quite horrified. For Elaine, it was the revelation of a spiritual dimension of life that she needed to explore. For about a year, she found that quite gratifying.

And then she fell out of love with evangelical Christianity. It happened when a friend of hers had been killed in an automobile accident and her evangelical friends asked whether he had been born again and Elaine said, “No, he wasn’t born again,’ and they said, “Well, then, he’s in hell.” Elaine rejected this and the evangelicalism that had prompted it. She turned toward the study of Gnostic Christianity and has not looked back.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #16019]

The Road To Nowhere — Middle Church

1 Thessalonians 4

Bob Edgar wants to rescue America from the religious right. In his new book, “Middle Church: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right,” Edgar intends to reset the nation’s agenda when it comes to matters of Christian concern.

A former six-term Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Edgar now serves as the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. As such, he is one of the primary spokesmen for the religious left in America -- symbolically presiding over the dwindling numbers of mainline Protestants in the nation.

“My purpose in writing this book is to awaken the conscience of average, ordinary common folks within the United States to do above-average, extraordinary, and uncommon things to insure a future for our fragile planet,” Edgar states. “I am especially interested in inspiring and challenging what I call ‘Middle Church,’ ‘Middle Synagogue,’ ‘Middle Mosque’ -- the many millions of faithful people who do not always connect their spiritual values with political issues and whose voices are, as a result, often drowned out by the far religious right.”

As it turns out, one does not have to be very conservative in order to be considered part of the “far religious right” as identified by Bob Edgar. Interestingly for one whose own organization pushes so many political agendas, he claims to speak for those “faithful people” who do not, at least always, “connect their spiritual values with political issues.”

As Edgar sees it, there are two different churches in the United States -- one based on love and the other grounded in fear. As Edgar asserts, “fear, fundamentalism, and the FOX Broadcasting Company must not be allowed to set the agenda for our nation.”

Well then. As children, we are wisely advised by parents to learn the art of compromise. This is good advice for children playing in the sandbox. However, it is disastrous advice when it comes to matters of truth. Compromise works when truth is not at issue. But the very character of the National Council of Churches and the larger ecumenical movement is one of constant compromise at the expense of truth.

As the book begins, Edgar traces his own political involvement to the inspiration he received from the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Inspired by King’s example, Edgar wants to call America’s Christians to a middle way. “It is time for Middle Church -- an umbrella term I use to refer to mainstream people of all faiths -- to stand up to the far religious right and to embrace Christianity no less sincerely. The classic, historical Christianity practiced by Middle Church is far more authentic than the narrow religious expression of most radical right-wing religious leaders. We in Middle Church, Middle Synagogue, and Middle Mosque are not secularists who wish to banish God from the public square. We are people of faith whose traditions lead us to work for peace and care for the poor.”

Conservative Christians are certainly not above criticism. The evangelical movement is certainly capable of political misjudgment, spiritual triumphalism, and a truncated set of moral and theological concerns. Bob Edgar could have written a book offering an intelligent analysis of conservative Christianity and its cultural and political engagement. Unfortunately, this is not that book. It is not an intelligent analysis, and the intelligent reader will find the book absolutely perplexing at many points.

For example, Edgar could have offered a careful, exegetical, historical and theological engagement with moral issues. Instead he offers irresponsible generalizations such as this: “The Bible mentions abortion not once, homosexuality only twice, and poverty or peace more than two thousand times. Yet somehow abortion and homosexuality have become the litmus test of faith in public life today.”

How can an intelligent reader, armed with even the slightest knowledge of the Bible and the Christian tradition, take such a statement seriously? The Bible does not mention abortion only in the sense that it does not make direct reference to the practice of surgical abortion as is common today. The Bible speaks clearly to the sanctity of human life and to the priority of protecting unborn life. Furthermore, to state that the Bible mentions homosexuality “only twice” indicates that Edgar has redefined homosexuality as something other than that which the Bible addresses in numerous passages.

There can be no doubt that the Bible’s consistent judgment is that homosexual acts are inherently immoral and sinful. The Christian church in all of its major branches has understood this for 2,000 years. This has been a true ecumenical consensus until recent years when some more liberal churches in the West have abandoned the Christian tradition in order to endorse homosexual practice.

Thus, it is an act of intellectual dishonesty for Edgar to claim to speak for “classic historical Christianity.”

Just in case we might miss his point, Edgar offers this assessment of Scripture: “The far religious right is fond of condemning homosexuality because they say the Scripture is immutable and its words are literal.” Again, Edgar identifies the scriptural consensus that homosexuality is sinful as an example of the radical nature of the “far religious right.” Once again, one need not be very conservative to end up in Edgar’s category of the far religious right.

As for his view of Scripture, “I do not personally believe God stops talking to us with the final word in the book of Revelation.” Edgar explains that, as a pastor, he had included readings in worship from the Old Testament, the New Testament and what he calls the “Now Testament,” by which he means readings from Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., among others.

When it comes to familiarity with the Bible and the Christian tradition, there is no excuse for Edgar not to be well versed. After all, he is a seminary graduate and was for a decade president of the Claremont School of Theology. Thus, the reader might be surprised when Edgar, criticizing the fact that evangelicals seem too concerned with the Rapture and the end of the world, states this: “The book of Revelation does speak of the Rapture, and the portrait it paints is in fact quite fierce. But it’s equally important to understand that the books of the New Testament are works of human beings.” In the span of two fairly short sentences, Edgar manages to suggest that the New Testament is to be read as a merely human book while moving the Bible’s text concerning the Rapture from 1 Thessalonians 4 to the book of Revelation. Continuing to define his understanding of Scripture, Edgar suggests that “not every single word can be taken as literal historical fact.”

When it comes to global warming, however, Edgar is quite certain that the problem is real and can be resolved by human beings. Furthermore, he offers his conclusion that dealing with global warming would not “cause economic problems.” Edgar is quite certain that the Bible does not reveal an explicit command by God against homosexuality, but he is confident that God has a position on global warming.

Now, there is an urgent need at present for a truly thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of global warming and its theological significance. It would be fair to suggest that many evangelicals are simply dismissive of ecological concerns. Nevertheless, Edgar never makes his case for why we should, on his authority, assume that global warming should take priority over other concerns -- especially those related to the sanctity of human life and the ordering of human sexuality.

Edgar dismisses the theory of Intelligent Design and the claim by “biblical literalists” that the earth is less than 6,000 years old. “Let me just say here that I believe God is an ‘intelligent designer,’ and that’s why God ‘intelligently designed’ the theory of evolution.” That statement is cute, but it cannot be taken seriously. Readers with the slightest familiarity with the dominant theory of evolution held in the scientific community today will know that the very idea of an external design is incompatible with that theory. Cute statements are no substitute for serious thought.

The same is true when Edgar turns to moral issues -- after all, the central concern of his book is to replace the agenda of conservative Christians with a different public agenda for Christianity. The “Middle Church” Edgar affirms must be absolutely certain about issues like peace, justice, poverty, racism and ecology, but “must be prepared to agree to disagree about homosexuality, abortion and stem cell research.”

In an amazing passage, Edgar asserts: “People of faith must be able to conduct a respectful and open conversation about all aspects of sexuality including homosexuality. God has a lot to say on all these topics, and if we skip the listening and rush straight to the judging -- an enterprise in which we’re not supposed to be involved anyway -- we can’t hope to make serious progress in our discussion.”

Statements like this must leave us wondering if this author actually means to be taken seriously. His book is filled with moral judgments -- judgments about ecology, justice, racism and a host of other issues. But when it comes to sexuality, Edgar offers the facile suggestion that moral judgment is “an enterprise in which we’re not supposed to be involved anyway.”

In other words, when Edgar makes moral judgments, he’s not being judgmental. But when others make moral judgments, they are being judgmental. The Bible does not say that we are not to make moral judgments, or that we are not to judge moral behavior. Indeed, the Bible makes absolutely no sense if that is the case. The Bible -- in both Old and New Testaments -- is filled with moral judgment and with advisement on how we are to make such judgments. Of course, the judgments we are to make concern behavior, not the heart. We are expressly forbidden to judge another’s heart. That distinction is missing from Edgar’s analysis.

As is always the case, the major issues of moral consequence are rooted in issues of more fundamental importance. When it comes to theology, Edgar demonstrates himself to be on the far left of the ecumenical movement. Consider this: “My God hopes for positive outcomes. My God does not play tricks or determine outcomes. My God has enough self-confidence to be less concerned with the language in which people pray than with the fullness with which people love one another. Most important, my God does not withhold love or acceptance from a Hindu child in India, a Buddhist child in Thailand, a Jewish child in Jerusalem, or a Muslim child in Ramallah.” All that is said with absolutely no reference to Jesus Christ, or the Gospel.

Just in case we missed his point, Edgar argues that, in his personal opinion, God does not “even ask us to convert those who espouse other faiths.” Why? “I believe God reveals his love to different people in different ways and through different vehicles.” This from the general secretary of an organization known as the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.

Bob Edgar -- and the movement he leads -- has replaced the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a platform of political involvement. “I admit that I do not give much thought to the afterlife personally,” Edgar explains, “but it’s only because I am keeping plenty busy here on Earth and I trust God to sort out eternity.” On that last part we can all agree. God will “sort out eternity.” What separates Bob Edgar and biblical Christianity is the fact that God has told us how He is going to judge humanity -- and the crucial issue in that judgment is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

When it comes to matters of public policy, evangelicals surely do not have all the answers. Furthermore, evangelicals are well served by a reminder that our moral agenda needs to be broader than the issues of the daily headlines.

Nevertheless, conservative Christians did not decide to make abortion, homosexuality and embryonic stem cell research front-line issues. It is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty to suggest that evangelicals prompted the national debate on those issues. On all of these fronts, evangelicals are simply calling on the Christian church to stand by its historic convictions and moral wisdom.

We must always be willing and ready to read what our own critics have to say. Unfortunately, Bob Edgar’s book appears to be nothing less than a parody of mainline Protestantism -- a cartoon reflection of what the ecumenical movement really represents. Middle Church is a roadmap to nowhere except further decline in influence and relevance for liberal Protestantism.

________

This column was adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s website at www.albertmohler.com.

A New Path To Theological Liberalism? Wayne Grudem On Evangelical Feminism

Genesis 1

Are American evangelicals charting a new path into theological liberalism? That is the serious question posed by Wayne A. Grudem in EVANGELICAL FEMINISM: A NEW PATH TO LIBERALISM? This new book is one of the most urgently needed resources for evangelical Christianity, and it represents one of the most insightful and courageous theological works of our times.

Wayne Grudem is no stranger to controversy. Currently Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, Grudem is the author of several important volumes on a range of theological issues. Most importantly, he is the author of his own SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY and EVANGELICAL FEMINISM AND BIBLICAL TRUTH. He also co-edited the landmark volume, RECOVERING BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD, with John Piper.

In EVANGELICAL FEMINISM, published by Crossway Books, Grudem argues that evangelical feminism now represents one of the greatest dangers to the continued orthodoxy of the evangelical movement. “I am concerned that evangelical feminism (also known as “egalitarianism”) has become a new path by which evangelicals are being drawn into theological liberalism,” he explains.

In this new book, Grudem considers twenty-five different patterns of argument put forth by evangelical feminists, and demonstrates that every single one of them either contradicts or compromises the authority of Scripture.

In considering the arguments put forth by evangelical feminists, Grudem is careful to avoid AD HOMINEM attacks on egalitarian scholars and spokespersons. Instead, he considers each of their arguments with considerable scholarly care and attention, drawing the logical conclusions from the methodological assumptions the egalitarian scholars embrace.

At the same time, Grudem is careful to specify and name the scholars whose proposals he considers, and the book is carefully footnoted and documented so that readers can follow the arguments for themselves. Grudem’s use of the term “theological liberalism” is certain to be controversial. After all, the very genesis of the evangelical movement in North America was grounded in an effort to avoid the errors of theological modernism and liberalism that had already, by the midpoint of the last century, overtaken the mainline Protestant denominations. Grudem defines theological liberalism as “a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives.” In defining evangelicalism over against theological liberalism in this way, Grudem returns to the Scripture Principle that stood as foundational to the evangelical movement.

Grudem is equally careful in defining evangelical feminism as “a movement that claims there are no unique leadership roles for men in marriage or in the church.”

A work like EVANGELICAL FEMINISM has been desperately needed, and Grudem’s new book arrives just in time. A new generation of younger evangelicals is facing the challenge of evangelical feminism just as the current and the larger culture are moving even more swiftly against biblical authority. Grudem understands that the temptation toward evangelical feminism is the same as that which has attracted so many theologians, pastors, and denominations in recent decades. As a matter of fact, he correctly observes that “evangelical feminists today have adopted many of the arguments earlier used by theological liberals to advocate the ordination of women and to reject male headship in marriage.” Interestingly, Grudem provides an historical overview which traces the emergence of evangelical feminism and egalitarian theory to 1974, when Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty published their work, ALL WE’RE MEANT TO BE and Paul Jewett of Fuller Theological Seminary published MAN AS MALE AND FEMALE. As Grudem observes, “While egalitarian positions have been evocated since the 1950s by theologically LIBERAL Protestant writers, no EVANGELICAL books took such a position until 1974.”

The mainline Protestant denominations began to ordain women in the mid-1950s, and it took some evangelicals less than twenty years to move in the same direction. Grudem’s concern is to demonstrate that the hermeneutical moves necessary to justify the ordination of women to the pastorate subvert biblical authority. Furthermore, these same interpretive maneuvers open the door for a complete reshaping of Christianity.

In a brief historical analysis, Grudem demonstrates that denominations move through “a predictable sequence” of theological liberalism. First, biblical inerrancy is abandoned. Then, in turn, the denomination endorses the ordination of women, rejects biblical teaching on male leadership in marriage, sidelines pastors who are opposed to the ordination of women, approves homosexual conduct as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains homosexuals, and elects homosexuals to “high leadership positions in the denomination.”

As Grudem observes, the Episcopal Church USA has, to this point, been alone in taking this sequential progression to its ultimate conclusion with the election of an openly gay bishop. Nevertheless, virtually all of the mainline Protestant denominations are embroiled in deep conflict over these very same questions. Indeed, these denominations have already moved so far along this line of progression that stopping at any point short of the ordination of homosexuals to ministry appears purely arbitrary.

The heart of EVANGELICAL FEMINISM is a consideration of the patterns of argument put forth by advocates of egalitarianism. Some evangelical feminists simply deny the authority of the Genesis account of creation, at least as this account deals with the creation of man and woman. Some, like Rebecca Groothuis argue that the Genesis account tells us “nothing about God’s view of gender” because the gender issues are simply rooted in the “patriarchal” nature of the Hebrew language. Of course, this means that biblical inerrancy is now compromised by the assertion that we cannot actually trust the language accurately to convey what God intended. Similarly, other figures argue that Genesis 1-3 can be relativized on the issue of gender relations by arguing that parts of the Genesis account are nothing more that literary devices.

Egalitarian theorists must deal with the Apostle Paul, and Grudem traces the move of Jewett and others in claiming that Paul must be understood as limited in his understanding of gender relations due to his own rabbinical training and the fact that he had not carefully resolved these issue by the time he wrote his epistles. Grudem documents how some figures make this argument by suggesting, for example, that Paul incorrectly understood Genesis 2-3, or that he willingly presented what he knew to be a false argument in order to reach his audience. As Grudem explains, if the Bible is the Word of God, then Paul’s interpretations of the Old Testament are also God’s interpretations “of his own Word.”

Again and again, Grudem allows the advocates of egalitarianism to reveal their own efforts to get around the clear teachings of Scripture on the different roles assigned to men and women. Gordon Fee, for example, argues that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are “certainly not binding for Christians” because these verses, he argues, were not actually written by Paul, but were additions of a later scribe. As Grudem demonstrates, not one single ancient manuscript has ever omitted these verses.

One of the most important sections in EVANGELICAL FEMINISM is Grudem’s consideration of the so-called “trajectory hermeneutics” now gaining favor in many evangelical circles. Grudem traces this hermeneutic to Krister Stendahl, a former dean at Harvard Divinity School. As far back as 1958, Stendahl was arguing that the church must not be trapped in a first century understanding of gender issues, but must press forward to a new reality, even as the New Testament pressed beyond the Old. Thus, evangelical figures such as R.T. France have argued for the ordination of women on the basis of a “historical trajectory” traced from the Old Testament through the New Testament and pointing beyond to the present age.

This approach is made clear by David Thompson in a 1996 article: “Sensing the direction of the canonical dialogue and prayerfully struggling with it, God’s people conclude that they will most faithfully honor his Word by accepting the target already anticipated in Scripture and toward which the Scriptural trajectory was heading rather than the last entry in the biblical conversation.”

As Grudem observes, “This means that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer our final authority. Our authority now becomes OUR OWN IDEAS OF THE DIRECTION THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS HEADING but never quite reached.”

At this point, a crucial question arises. If this hermeneutical method is legitimate, how can we stop at the ordination of women? This is the very argument made by proponents of normalizing homosexuality and ordaining homosexuals to the ministry. If the New Testament is to be superseded by a later reality based in a more modern understanding, how can the church justify relativizing some texts without relativizing others?

Grudem also offers a careful critique of William Webb’s “redemptive-movement” approach, which, as he observes, casts the entire ethical structure of the New Testament into doubt. Grudem goes to some length to demonstrate that Webb’s approach undermines the church’s ability even to understand the New Testament text. Webb’s cumbersome and elaborate criteriology for deciding these issues puts the question outside the reach of all but a tiny priesthood of scholars. Even more importantly, it points to something outside the New Testament as our authority. As Grudem notes, this is “a huge step down the path toward liberalism.” In other chapters, Grudem considers the fact that many evangelical feminists claim the right to prioritize certain biblical texts, while relativizing others. Others attempt to dismiss certain passages as “disputed” in order to eliminate their functional authority in today’s church. Grudem effectively undermines these arguments, showing once again that the acceptance of these arguments requires the subversion or outright rejection of biblical authority. These maneuvers are absolutely incompatible with an affirmation of biblical inerrancy.

In a series of capable considerations, Grudems looks to a host of alternative arguments made on behalf of the ordination of women, ranging from those who claim an authority of experience or “calling” above Scripture to others who claim that women can teach and preach in the church so long as they do so under a male pastor’s authority.

Finally, Grudem returns to the issue of homosexuality, arguing that the hermeneutic employed to advocate egalitarianism leads, if pressed consistently, to the normalization of homosexuality as well. “The approval of homosexuality,” he notes, “is the final step along the path to liberalism.”

The great value of Wayne Grudem’s new book is its combination of cogent argument and fair presentation. Grudem is careful to acknowledge that many, if not most, evangelical feminists have not moved completely along the trajectory toward the full embrace of theological liberalism. Nevertheless, his surgical approach to their theological arguments and hermeneutical proposals reveals the clear and present danger to evangelical orthodoxy posed by egalitarian theory and practice. EVANGELICAL FEMINISM is truly a tract for the times -- a manifesto that should serve to awaken complacent evangelicals to the true nature of the egalitarian challenge. Furthermore, the book serves as an arsenal of arguments to use in revealing the crucial weaknesses of the egalitarian proposal.

Nothing less than the future of the Christian church in North America is at stake in this controversy. Evangelicals no longer have the luxury of believing that this controversy is nothing more than a dispute among scholars. EVANGELICAL FEMINISM: A NEW PATH TO LIBERALISM? has arrived just in time.

Conservatism vs. Liberalism

Mark 12:31

Analysis by Bruce Bawer, a liberal Christian:

It seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal Christianity may be most succinctly summed up by the difference between two key scriptural concepts: law and love. Simply stated, conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine, and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love, spiritual experience, and what Baptists call the priesthood of the believer. If conservative Christians emphasize the Great Commission -- the resurrected Christ’s injunction, at the end of the Gospel according to Matthew, to “go to all nations and make them my disciples” -- liberal Christians place more emphasis on the Great Commandment, which in Luke’s Gospel reads as follows: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

Am I suggesting that conservative Christians are without love or that liberal Christians are lawless? No. I merely make this distinction: Conservative Christianity understands a Christian to be someone who subscribes to a specific set of theological propositions about God and the afterlife, and who professes to believe that by subscribing to those propositions, accepting Jesus Christ as savior, and (except in the case of the most extreme separatist fundamentalists) evangelizing, he or she evades God’s wrath and wins salvation (for Roman Catholics, good works also count); liberal Christianity, meanwhile, tends to identify Christianity with the experience of God’s abundant love and with the commandment to love God and one’s neighbor. If, for conservative Christians, outreach generally means zealous proselytizing of the “unsaved,” for liberal Christians it tends to mean social programs directed at those in need.