Presiding over the ruins...

The longer I am an "evangelical" the more I realize that I have less and less in common with this far too broad, unserious, banal, (feel free to supply your own adjective) movement.

I was going to comment on Phil Johnson's latest sobering and excellent post but Carl Trueman supplies the commentary quite nicely.

Trueman writes:

I read 2 Cor 6 this morning. Then, in an idle moment, my attention was brought to Phil Johnson's latest post over at Pyromaniacs. As usual, the good doctor nails it. And I was more sickened than I have been for many a year by what he highlights there -- the videos and the defence of what the videos contain by one of the great and the good.. WARNING: it contains material, language and behaviour many viewers will find offensive. Sadly, that is not unusual in 'gospel' circles these days.

My mind went to 2 Corinthians 6:6-7. And given the identities of the men involved and their "great white hope" status in terms of gospel outreach, I was left wondering if I really do believe a different gospel after all.

Check it out for yourselves, bearing in mind the `viewer discretion' notice I posted. And thanks to Phil Johnson for having the courage the blow the whistle on such wicked ugliness parading itself as the light of gospel hope. I am sure he'll get ignored or creamed or ridiculed by the establishment; but such was always the way. That is what Paul describes elsewhere in that same chapter.

What's wrong with evangelicalism?

In a recent interview Phil Johnson was asked, "What is the biggest problem facing evangelicalism today and how should we respond?"

Johnson answers:

The greatest problem I see is the ever-broadening boundary of the evangelical movement and (corresponding to that) the increasingly ambiguous definition of evangelicalism. Evangelicals are too concerned with gaining collective clout and publicity and not concerned enough with being evangelical (being faithful to the gospel). Many of evangelicalism's most visible and popular leaders and institutions—including evangelicalism's self-styled "house organ," Christianity Today magazine—have been tearing down evangelical boundaries instead of guarding them. Consequently, a host of dangerous influences have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews don't see the danger, because it's considered impolite to be critical of a fellow "evangelical." In an era where everyone from Benny Hinn to Brian McLaren wears the evangelical label, it is sheer folly to be so blithely accepting of everything and everyone who claims to be evangelical. That attitude has already ruined the evangelical testimony and done much to render the evangelical movement spiritually impotent.

How should we respond? We need to recover our love of the truth, our courage in standing for it, and our will to defend it.