What do you think? Has evangelicalism shifted so much at the grassroots level that it is headed either for a crack-up (split) or will it retain the coalition?
Richard Flory, at Southern Cal, has this post and I clipped the opening.
Several recent reports suggest that the evangelical Christian world, as we have come to know it over the last 30 years, may be changing forever. Much has been written since the last presidential election about the rise of a new consciousness among young people, including evangelical young people, many of whom supported of Barack Obama in 2008.
More recently, however, reports of younger evangelicals suggest that they have a distinctly different perspective than their elders on such issues as gay identity and marriage, the environment, how to address poverty and other social justice issues. As writers for the New York Times and TransMissionshave reported, they are even, apparently, arguing against a traditional conception of hell. While it is not exactly clear the extent to which these beliefs are really a part of the world view of younger evangelicals, or how they may translate into different forms of social action, they do suggest that important changes are unfolding within a important sector of American society.
And this piece from Paul Markham, which I could wish every evangelical younger than 40 would read because he sketches its recent history so well:
This article will address the possibility of a new evangelical movement in the United States and explore its potential to generate significant social change at the local, national, and global levels. In many ways, these “new evangelicals” share notable similarities with early evangelicals dating back to the eighteenth century – the most notable similarity being their fervor for personal and social transformation. Our present-day technological culture replete with such a high rate of information exchange is helping to form a generation of evangelical Christians who are shaped by multiple forms of knowledge and practice. I will argue that we are seeing a significant movement away from the Religious Right as these Christians find innovative avenues of social reform and entrepreneurship.
And he nails it with this:
As this segment grows numerically, there is an outstanding need for an organizational center to emerge. As we will see, many new evangelicals are characterized by a post-partisan mentality and therefore shun formal organizational affiliation; thus, a much more creative approach to organizing is required than we have seen in mobilizing tactics of the far left or right that create a distinctive in-group/out-group dynamic through polarizing one group against another.
This is right too:
Much of the character of new evangelicalism is determined by a reaction to the politics of the Religious Right and this reaction is resulting in an identity crisis of their evangelical faith. Many of these Christians are abandoning the term “evangelical” altogether and seeking new ways of expressing their religious commitments to personal and social transformation. Many scholars are attempting to reconnect these Christians to the deeper religious heritage of evangelicalism and demonstrate how they might consider themselves committed evangelicals without adhering to the narrow conservative politics of the Christian Right (e.g., Olson). As young evangelicals struggle to define themselves in a religious sense, many seem to lack a historical understanding of early evangelical reaction to the growth of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. This understanding is critical because, in many ways, the early reaction to the fundamentalists is like the present-day reaction to the conservativism of the Religious Right.
What Markham calls “New Evangelicalism” will have to have an organizational center to survive, at least so I think. The grassroots level of work is already there, but how can we organize this coalition?
Does a seemingly non-centred movement like this really need an organizational center to carry on, or is it just the modern conception of a movement that would seem to necessitate it? A “movement” only needs a man made center if it desires to be a united movement, but not if it is generally individualistic and cynical towards institutions. I think any attempt to create and organized center will result in the collapse of what “the movement” is based on.
Well, however it organizes, I hope it keeps these three things in mind:
1) There should only be enough organization to foster dynamic and authentic relationships to be build — and the form of organization should be consistent with the variety of cultures and contexts of each locality (whether IRL or virtually).
2) There should be enough intentional non-organization (chaos?)embraced for creativity and communitas to form as the issues that arise are understood and overcome in each local group. No cookie-cutter or rubber stamping branding.
3) There should be a very loose holding of any organizational “power” — including the control of information — so that the Spirit has more freedom to speak broadly through diversity.
Markham’s thesis doesn’t appear to be supported by any actual empirical data. When you look at the numbers the exact opposite of what he claims becomes obvious (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/01/the-good-news-about-evangelicalism).
Also, his claim that “Christian awakenings have been associated with progressive politics” is a silly bit of equivocation. The politics of Jonathan Edwards and others during the Great Awakening look nothing like the “progressive” politics of today.
I think there are differences in thinking between older and younger evangelicals, but I think the older evangelicals are more prone to organize.
I don’t see a coalition of younger, like-minded evangelicals arising. There is too much skepticism of authority and “organized religion.” The younger evangelicals who do organize are more likely to be of old mindsets (as we see in the youth movement of T4G). The evangelical coalition will probably just grow old together, and the younger evangelicals will grow old in tribes.
Joe,
It’s hard to know which thesis of Markham you are denying.
I’d say it hasn’t really shifted but that attitudes regarding Evangelicalism have. What used to be considered Fundamentalism is now labeled Evangelicalism. Which is curious. Evangelicalism is, while Orthodox, still characteristically “open.” A practically universal public angst to be associated with any idea of religious fundamentalism has resulted in an exodus of Orthodox Christians moving further and further from their Christian moors so as to demonstrate the credibility of their faith and beliefs and find acceptance in society at large.
Let me reword my last comment:
I’d say it hasn’t really shifted but that attitudes regarding Evangelicalism have. What used to be considered Fundamentalism is now labeled Evangelicalism. Which is curious. Evangelicalism is, while Orthodox, still characteristically “open,” while Fundamentalism has always been “closed.”
This change of attitude has resulted from a reactionary, and almost universal, public angst from association with any idea of religious fundamentalism. It has resulted in an exodus of Orthodox Christians, caving to social pressures from a left-moving social environment, moving further and further from their Christian moors so as to demonstrate the credibility of their faith and beliefs and find acceptance in society at large.
I wish there were a way to organize. I’m feeling a need to connect to like-minded folks.
As for the following quote, it makes me think of the insistence of some in my church that people become members and conversations lamenting the fact of why more people don’t want to become members, even though they may be fully engaged in the church. People tend to blame it on the current generation not wanting to take responsibility and being able to walk away at any time when things aren’t going so well. While that may be true for some, I think the rejection of partisanship gets more to the heart of the matter. Rather than insisting people conform to our policies, I believe we need to be looking at trends and seeing if there’s something there that we should be changing out ourselves and the way we do church.
“As we will see, many new evangelicals are characterized by a post-partisan mentality and therefore shun formal organizational affiliation; thus, a much more creative approach to organizing is required than we have seen in mobilizing tactics of the far left or right that create a distinctive in-group/out-group dynamic through polarizing one group against another.”
Well, gee, I know flattery will get me everywhere . . . I think of you, Scot, as my connection to the newer, better face of evangelicalism.
Perhaps young evangelicals have ‘crucified’ themselves to the form of survival that an organizational coalition would ensure. Perhaps this form of survival (branding?) isn’t even on our horizon.
Also, to what extent might it be that post-conservative evangelicals and postliberals have backed away from their respective constituencies only to bump into one another?
@3 Joe
Suffrage, YMCA and YWCA, Salvation Army, Civil Rights movement, New Deal architects, child labor laws, abolitionist movement, etc all had support from evangelical churches concerned with personal piety that impacted the society around them. Heck, even the Social Gospel that ended up being denounced began with focused, personal study of the life of Jesus and the imitation of him.
I’m a bit of an “older Evangelical” (52 years old) and I have stopped using the capital “E” for my identity due to what prominent voices of the “Evangelical” movement have done to shape the nature and spirit of the movement over the past 20-30 years. I still consider myself evangelical but I am far more Orthodox according to the ancient creeds than I am aligned with popular “Evangelical” theology.
“Fundamentalist” positions against ordaining women and about debatable matters of eschatology are distasteful at best and divisive at worst. I understand brothers and sisters in the “Evangelical” movement can honestly have different viewpoints on such matters but to make these positions a matter of exclusion has diverted focus from the centrality of Jesus Christ. This is shameful and has discredited the name “Christian.”
In addition, the popular alignment of “Evangelicals” with the Republican Party seems like political prostitution. Vote that way if you please but count me out. I consider myself moderate in political matters and have voted for candidates of various persuasions but I tell my friends that the rich don’t need anyone to defend them and I’ll stand with the poor every time. This often places me in direct opposition to Republican political philosophy.
For the time being, I worship and fellowship with a Methodist Church. It’s not perfect by any means but I can be “evangelical” there without being forced to drink the “Evangelical” Koolaid stirred up since the marriage of Reaganism and the Moral Majority. If the “Evangelical” movement has any moral and spiritual power in the days ahead, it will turn to more of the spirit and behavior of the mature Billy Graham.
I guess my question would be: What exactly would be the purpose of organizing? I can see the new evangelicals responding in large numbers via technology of one type or another to provide specific disaster relief, using channels that others have set up (within or outside of the Church). I can see them doing the same to fight human trafficking or some other serious injustice. But as the author noted, these folks “shun formal organizational affiliation” and modern technology allows for near instantaneous (and highly efficient) ad hoc administrative mechanisms (ad hoc “organizing”) for moving significant resources and/or communications on a project by project, as-needed basis. Many of the old reasons for permanent bureaucratic structures no longer apply.
Dean,
Your comment is of the very sort that I was taking aim at. Why are Evangelicals being so strongly associated with Fundamentalism now? Evangelicals have always engaged culture, whereas Fundamentalists have not. That Evangelicals are writing books disagreeing with women in ministry for popular culture is evidence of this. Are Evangelicals to be labeled fundamentalist simply for opposing broader culture? There are certainly fundamentalist attitudes at work here, but it seems to me that its coming from opposing voices.
Am I mistaken?
Michael
This may be indicative of a shift: http://www.recoveringevangelical.com/
I have seen the extreme wings of conservatives and liberals erode the center by polarizing the people in the middle by casting every facet of the faith in militant either/or terms and the undying penchant for heretic hunting. Today in the church we’ve developed a new triathelon sporting event that connects backbiting, shuning, and jumping to conclusions and invited everyone to come in and watch. I think a split is inevitable and will have long lasting consequences in this country. The last 2 years has left me with an acceptance of this.
A season of heretic hunting has opened that won’t leave the old intact.
Michael – Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell are largely associated with Evangelicalism. It’s not the disagreement that most find distatestful, it’s the method of engagement mixed with a “be Republican or unsaved” mentality. Evangelicalism has tried to be a big tent sort of idea, but the loudest voices are not helpful.
Personally, I find the big tent meaningless and ultimately more confusing than helpful, but that’s another conversation entirely.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are Evangelicals? Surely you jest.
Like Dean I have stopped using the term Evangelical to describe myself unless I situate the term in relationship to people like Stott, Packer or Henry who had a much broader, more generous understanding of Christianity than some of the fundamentalists who are usurping the term Evangelical. I’m 70+ and remember dimly a time before Christianity Today began publishing. AFAIK my orthodoxy has not changed but I no longer relate to many who attempt to speak for Evangelicalism.
I do feel like my ‘label’ has been stolen. Since fundamentalist became a bad word, the fundamentalists all call themselves evangelicals. All charismatics now seem to be lumped under the evangelical label now as well. Plus, some very non-orthodox people claim to be under the umbrella at times as well.
So, if I want to describe my belief system to someone as ‘evangelical’, I’m not sure if they think I’m Benny Hinn, or a KJV-only YEC AIG dude, or Rob Bell. I don’t know about a major shift in evangelicalism, but I do know that the label is pretty much meaningless in practical terms.
If the “new Evangelicalism” are simply a reaction to traditional Evangelicalism, doesn’t that make it equally as superficial, only in reverse?
However we get organized, it absolutely cannot be motivated by political ideology. As the evangelical conservatism of the ’80s and ’90s is now being reacted against, so will the evangelical liberalism be reacted against of the ’00s and ’10s in another 10 or 20 years.
If we have any hope for the future, we must organize ourselves around the core theology of the historical church. We must become center-defined, because as long as we define ourselves by boundary beliefs, we will never become a unified Church/movement. We must organize around belief in the Triune God, the unique atoning work of Jesus, his death and resurrection, the reality of sin, and the authority of Scripture. (I may be missing a couple.)
Regardless, for any movement of God to last it must be, first of all, theological. Unfortunately, it seems that politics will be the demise of evangelicalism.
I like Matt Edwards’ observation (#4): “The evangelical coalition will probably just grow old together, and the younger evangelicals will grow old in tribes.” The very term “organize” and its vision will not sit well with highly motivated, creatively contextualizing younger evangelicals. The center, missionally-defined, will be fluid, but will hold them together.
I do not think there will be a major split. There is a generation sitting in the pews content to hold different beliefs. They will sooner shift the whole than break out.
Randall’s gritty realism (#16) must not be overlooked. WE live in a day when human pride is defined at being right and inerrancy is not applied to the Bible, but to one’s alleged “biblical view(s).” Everyone else is a heretic. We are reliving the 16th century Pope and Martin Luther days.
Evangelical believers of Jesus Christ will never break up. Organized religion full of manmade ideologies and beliefs certainly will.
The word “at” in comment #25 should read “as.”
An informative post, closely related to this conversation, appeared today on Roger Olson’s blog:
http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/09/announcing-a-forthcoming-book-on-evangelicalism-and-an-essay-on-the-two-evangelicalisms/
A good summary of some history, I think, among other good observations.
It was also interesting in his post to see the authors of a forthcoming book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. Two things struck me as strange about the list:
1) There is a chapter by Al Mohler (who I think of as one of the biggest current influences pushing Evanglicalism toward fundamentalism) and a “Fundamentalism” chapter, but they are not the same chapter.
2) There is nothing from what one might call a progressive evangelical perspective (McLaren, Rob Bell, etc.), unless Olson has gone further in that direction than I think.
Digital communications media have revolutionized learning, cognition, and sociability and facilitated the younger generational behavior and consciousness. And many of the old guard simply do not get it. Things have changed.
Haven’t read anybody’s comments, so if I’m repeating something anybody else, I apologize.
I guess since I’m one of these “young evangelicals,” (I’m 22) I should probably say: I don’t think anyone my age is any less likely to listen to a pastor or theologian or Biblical scholar (yes, professor, that means you), then their parent ares. Kids may not like the idea of organization, but in practice that dislike doesn’t actually mean anything. Leaders will emerge, and people will follow them.
However, even if organization doesn’t come in a top-down, leader-to-laymen form, the internet (especially facebook) allows grass-roots movements to mobilize without a unified center almost on-the-spot. Within hours, people can organize. So, it may not be structured, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t possible or even ineffective.
Though I should add, even in these circumstances, leaders will emerge- groups need leaders, and kids my age don’t dislike leadership per se- they dislike static rather than dynamic leadership. We don’t want to toe up to a party line (and for that matter, neither do some people 2, even 3 times my age)- but that doesn’t mean we don’t want leaders.
I have seen three distinct groups emerging from within what could be called Evangelicalism (if there ever was one movement with that name), based on passionate young evangelicals I have encountered.
1) The New Calvinists – those inspired by Piper and Piper’s friends. Been plenty of discussion on this blog about them.
2) Charismatics – almost forgotten sometimes, but these folks are definitely a force, associated with the 24/7 prayer movement and the Call Prayer gatherings. They are also highly political around issues like abortion, and, to a lesser extent Israel and gay marriage.
3) What has emerged from the emergent movement. Here are more centrist (sometimes right-leaning and sometimes left-), social justice-oriented, new creation-oriented folks influenced by Scot and by NT Wright and other men and women. This loosely connected group is threatened to break apart over the gay issue, but not necessarily.
Of course, there’s a lot of overlap, and there are certainly people who won’t fit into any of these camps, but it’s what I see happening. I have been a part of all three in my evangelical life (I’m 34).
Let’s just call ourselves “post-Evangelicals” and be done with the movement as it is today.
Elaine, Joshua, and Bo kinda help illustrate why I think a rift or split is coming.
As Elaine put it and I agree, ‘thing have changed’ and ‘many of the old guard just don’t get it’. I think the segment of the church that a few folks can run rough-shod over is a changing quantity. We are not going to replay the 16th-17th century reformation in this era and have the same outcome. They could burn their dissenters, we don’t do that as readily, possibly to the chagrin of some.
Leading people today will probably become increasingly organic and relational rather than airily polemic. Young people ask questions, “Who are you, ole man?” or “just take our word for it”, isn’t a successful way to engage them today if it ever was.
Bo mentions the 3 groups that I think have emerged even though only one group cites that in their identification. Each is a return of the church to a period of thinking and differents ones at that. I think that spells split.
All of these folks are brothers and sisters but many regard the others as heretic, that makes going forward challenging at best.
I happen to believe God plans this to strengthen the body, I just am afraid some of us will roast each other before that happens.
#31 Bo – I like your list of what comprises Evangelicalism. However, I think you should add Fundamentalists into this list. Because I think you’re confusing Emergent with the Fundamentalists on gay issues. Most from the Emergents that I’ve seen are highly tolerant of those from the LGBT community.
From what I know of its history, I think E. has always been a coalition sort of animal, with the edges pretty fluid and changing over the decades. I’m not surprised that the general population can’t differentiate among the various flavors.
Andy @22,
Be careful mucking about in the core theology of the early church; you might be surprised at what you find there. The farther back I went in history, the more I found that:
a) the “historical church” and its theology seemed to follow a trajectory rooted in what N.T. Wright has set forth in his “Christian Origins” series, in taking the C1 Jewish worldview seriously and making an effort not to read Reformation questions back into the questions of C1 Judaism; so, out of Judaism but retaining some important things from Judaism and reshaping them according to the meaning of the Christ Event;
b) the meaning of the Church was really different than what is expressed in Protestantism. One of the “missing” things on your list is ecclesiology.
Nope, I am not Roman Catholic, though some who delve into “the historic church” end up there. I ended up farther east, and my becoming Orthodox was in a very real way *energized* by mucking about in the theology of the early church. Be careful
Dana
I agree with Dana at #35. Ecclesiology is a big driver of the coming rift, if one is coming. Neo-reformed/new calvinists have a stunted ecclesiology. They can develop something more robust, and their are signs that that may be happening, although Keller, bless his heart, just won’t go there. I suspect, given the confessional nature of reformed theology, it isn’t likely to happen. Sola scriptura so long as it conforms to 16C interpretations of scripture.
It seems to me we’ve emphasized “big tent” evangelicalism so long there’s no longer even a tent – just the wide open sky and everything under it labeled “evangelical”.
By the way, how young does one have to be now to qualify (I know I don’t) as a “young evangelical”?
I have the same reservations as Joe Carter and I certainly don’t see such a trend and I live, move and have my being within evangelicalism. I served at a large evangelical church, planted another and raise money for a large Christian legal ministry which takes me to 20+ states on a regular basis. I see more and more younger evangelicals bum rushing events like the Students for Life Conference in DC in January that had to cut off the registration at several thousand college students for entire weekend without a marquee speaker.
The hard surveys I have seen seem to indicate the exact opposite.
Egypt, Libya and the unrest in the middle east is the same issue as young evangelicals going against the organizations that are repressive to their thinking. Communication today makes leadership much more important than positional authority, and church organizations are generally structured according to position, not influence.
As was said in the comments, leaders will emerge, but they must come before the structure comes. Leaders in the new perspective will have to build the structure and organization and not the reverse.
I too like Randall#16,
Yup.
Dana#35, what I meant in the other thread is that I thought you eastern orthodox types missed out on the reformation and you seemed to have some expertise there. I think it is an enviable position to be able to say, what reformation?
Matt – It seems to me that the shift isn’t so much towards theological liberalism as it is towards a less political approach and a melding of the spiritual and social. Young conservatives aren’t as polarized by cultural shifts, but aren’t necessarily writing a moral blank check.
That’s not to say there isn’t a strong group of highly conservative youth, especially when they come from highly conservative cultures. It’s just that this looks less and less like the Republican powerhouse that our parents participate in.
I’m a “young evangelical” in ministry in a slightly liberal, but still “evangelical” baptist denomination. I grew up in a southern baptist church. Recently I was told about a position in my home state in a southern baptist church by someone who thought I would be a good fit.
I’m not planning to leave my current church, but when I tried to explain why I was a bit scared of serving. At a baptist church in the south I think I hit on part of what describes this “new evangelical” way of thinking.
I said that in my current church I’ve felt the freedom to question and explore things in my faith. In a traditional evangelical context, questioning may not be a problem, as long as you come to the traditional answers.
DRT,
I was only received into Orthodoxy in mid-2009 (but on my way in for a couple of years- Scot knows my story). I was raised RC, and journeyed +30 years in Protestantism (several flavors of Evangelicalism, and finally mainline). I have an interest in theology and history. So I hope I understand something about the Reformation and how/why it arose.
Yeah, it’s kind of interesting to be able to say “What reformation?” Although Orthodoxy has definitely had its less edifying moments through the years…. But that didn’t stop me from going in; in fact, the way Orthodox have lived with the “messiness” through history was one of the things that attracted me.
Fr Stephen Freeman put up a relevant post a few days ago.
It’s not necessarily easy to grasp, but the fragrance of O. ecclesiology is very strong in it – like a bracing incense.
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/the-temptations-of-church/
Dana
@ 43: Dana … I too left evangelicalism and was received into the Orthodox Church last year. Ecclesiology was a driving force behind my move, as well.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Younger people typically start out more liberal (politically) and become more conservative (politically) as they become employed, have children, etc. This cycle has happened countless times over our history. There are many who were wild-eyed social justice types in the 70s when they were in college and have now grown into conservative leaning evangelicals. The main difference now is with structure of the church, and I agree that this is different than in previous cycles. However, politically, we’re going to see stories like this every generation, because it’s just how it works.
Dan @45,
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you implying that because younger people are more liberal in college but then become more conservative later on, that this may indicate where young evangelicals are going in terms of the movement of evangelicalism?
If that’s not what you’re saying, then would you clarify for me what you mean?
If that is what you are saying then I think it is a non sequitur. People my age want to transcend liberal and conservative politics altogether. It’s not like they’re liberal, and all we need to do is stand by and wait to get older, although that may be the case for some. Most of the kids I talk to don’t’ affiliate with either party (Independents are largely made up of kids my age).
Dana,
I too was RC for many years, then seeking, then protestant, now mainline….I am a huge fan of Fr. Thomas Hopko….I can easily see ending up trying for Orthodoxy. Thanks.
…continued 47,
Except for that women in ministry thing…..
Dan#46, I am on the side of Joshua#46, I hear a generalization that is not really relevant in the context of what I see going on. Sure, kids are kids but I think we are talking more than that here. Are you saying this is just typical oats sowing?
DRT and Josh: I’m saying this is a trend we’ve seen for generations. It differs in some respects, but the basis is the same. Younger folks are often very ideological, and become more practical (not to ascribe positive or negative connotations to either status) as they age. Most of those who, at at 23 want to “transcend politics” will realize by 35 or so that politics is how policy is shaped, and will utilize that to whatever ends. Every generation thinks it will be different, and it always turns out the same.
Dan,
I think you’re missing the point. Despite generational patterns of individual growth, each generation has its own values and views. The conservative Christian generation of the 70s and 80s were not like their more mainline parents. In turn, it’s certainly possible that this generation of Evangelicals will step away from their parents shadow.
Brian @44,
Hi! Interestingly, ecclesiology was the last thing that fell into place for me that caused me to turn to Orthodoxy. What carried more weight for me at the beginning was anthropology, soteriology, Christology, and, yes – the question of “hell”.
DRT,
I understand about the women in ministry thing. I’ve been a staunch defender of it in comments on this blog; if one is Protestant, there are no restrictions. It was the biggest hurdle I had to get over going into O. I got over it. Too long an explanation for a comment, and not on the topic of this post.
Dana
Fascinating read leaving me with a question: what in the world does “evangelical” mean?
As I read the above, I thought, “How helpful to drop this combative adjective and just say Christian.” While the world “evangelical” has some value and history, here in the States it’s been used combatively, as in “Christian” Reformed Church, or “Orthodox” Presbyterian Church, or just “Reformed” Church – terms generally used to designate some form of spiritual one-upsmanship.
Yet, I have found no coherent definition anywhere (not for want of effort on the part of Carl Henry and “Christianity Today,” et al) which means it’s a throw-way term – i.e. a term used elusively to designate a group, and even create energy and identity, but in reality a term without substance, other than in the mind of the user, or the sub-group claiming it.
Which means we may have to use the term “Christian” and then engage in some thoughtful and lengthy conversation, as there have always been many nuances and shades of meaning, defying reduction.
Though people may perceive shifts within their personal field of vision, it’s interesting that recent empirical research using national data hardly shows any sign of changes for younger evangelicals. Researchers using 2007 data find this:
“We examine two separate measures of evangelical identity as well as a wide variety of political identifications and attitudes. Our study indicates that young evangelicals (1) are significantly more likely than older evangelicals to think that more should be done to protect the environment; (2) hold views similar to older evangelicals regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, marijuana use, government welfare spending, spending on the nation’s health, and the war in Iraq; and (3) remain significantly more conservative than nonevangelicals on these same social issues. We find no strong evidence to support the notion that young evangelicals are retreating from traditional positions or increasingly adopting more liberal positions on hot-button or controversial social issues.”
source: http://www.isreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/johnson_youngevangelicals.pdf
Dan @ 50,
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying- in that regard you’re probably right. It may be true that people are more ideological when they’re younger and as they get older become more pragmatic, but the manner in which they’re ideological shapes the manner in which they become pragmatic, wouldn’t you agree? The question is not how ideological vs. pragmatic students my age are, but how are the ideologies and paradigms changing from our parents’ generation, and how will that shape the movement of Evangelicalism, assuming that those ideologies will eventually boil down to something pragmatic and tangible.
@#20, Calebite: Yes. I agree,: the term is both loaded and ambiguous, and easily misleads people when it’s used because of that.
Michael #14
I was responding to your comment in # 7… Evangelicalism is, while Orthodox, still characteristically “open,” while Fundamentalism has always been “closed.”
If mainstream Evangelicalism hasn’t shifted into a “closed” system, try to serve as an ordained woman or a professing political progressive or anything but a “strict hell-forever for anyone who hasn’t accepted Jesus believer” in more tnan 90% of churches that describe themselves as “Evangelical”. In the mainstream Evangelical river, those would be anathema “in our backyard.”
If these are anathema now, why didn’t such dogma show up in the creeds??? Evangelicalism, on the whole, has become a sheep and goat identification movement on far more platforms than the early martyrs died for. Split hairs if you wish, but this is fundamentalism going by the current name of “Evangelical”.