Comments on: Evangelical Idolatry

By: United Against Theology « Theology Forum

United Against Theology « Theology Forum — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:43:48 +0000

[...] Therefore, it seems that evangelicals, like moth to the flame, find themselves strangely drawn to an account simply if it is common-sensical and a-theological. Theological reasoning, to put it more positively, is too foreign to make sense. Theology,therefore, is simply left to decide who is good and who is bad, which then morphs into movements whose fundamental orientation (like almost all movements in evangelicalism) is idolatry (for my post outlining this see here). [...]

By: Evangelicals and Tradition « Theology Forum

Evangelicals and Tradition « Theology Forum — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:26:59 +0000

[...] 3, 2009 by Kyle Strobel In my last post on Evangelical idolatry I focused on the various movements in evangelicalism and how they tend to be attached to various [...]

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:33:34 +0000

Geordie, I hadn’t really thought about a local church when I was writing it, but I imagine all of the marks would carry over. There are other distinct evils in local churches, most notably the way other churches are seen/talked about.

By: Geordie Ziegler

Geordie Ziegler — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:49:48 +0000

Kyle,

i really like this post and find many of the ‘marks’ of this conversationalist approach to be healthy challenges to my own tendencies towards idolatry.

It strikes me that these 7 qualities could describe a local church – one that i would love to be a part of i might add! Did you think of this as exclusively toward parachurch or mega-movements exclusively, or could these parameters and criteria apply on the local church level as well?

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:24:56 +0000

Paul, I think the blame must fall to seminaries first and pastors second, but, of course, pastors are trained somewhere…well…many of them at least. Evangelical seminaries tend to start the trend I think.

In terms of the media deal, I definitely think that is the case. If you look at Christian publishing, blogs, internet ministries, etc., the average pastor/seminary, in my opinion, just tells people what the right people to read and what the right buzz words are, and as long as they have those down (and, of course, can deliver a stellar 3-point sermon) then the kingdom will come.

By: Todd V

Todd V — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:27:59 +0000

There is a tension in any group to (a) preserve its identity and culture and (b) to promote its agenda / message. The latter requires “getting out there” and the risk is exposure to ideas that potentially threaten the identity and culture of the group. So the strategy essentially becomes launching a war from the cozy confines of your own castle (or only visiting “the faithful”) in your own franchise network (your ‘satellite churches’).

I happen to believe the identity and culture of institutions are important. If you have a Christian University I don’t think you should be hiring tenure-track faculty who hold ideologies that are antithetical to the identity of your institution. However I also believe if the identity and culture of your institution is “worth its salt” you should be confident enough to offer peripheral tracks and/or guest speaking events to your (alleged) “enemies.” Dialogues and conversations are nice, but what is needed is *real* debate where there is real risk (hope?) for being persuaded by another’s views.

As it is, there is too much of a personality-cult in the evangelical world. There are too many “fans” and not enough “disciples”; or if there are disciples, they are not the Lord’s disciples. I can put it into a very simple modus tollens:

If (p) Christians are perfected in Oneness in the way that the Father and the Son are One, then (q) the world believes in the Truth of their message. [Jn 17:23]

~(q) The world does not believe in the Truth of their message.

Therefore, Christians are not perfected in Oneness in the the way that the Father and the Son are One.

They have not yet resisted sin to the point of shedding their blood. They only subscribe to the Twitter and satellite-feeds of speakers who “tickle their ears.” They have a “form of godliness, but deny its power.” They have a semblance of ‘love’ but they do not love *as He has loved them*; they do not love with *God’s love* or obey Jesus’ commands (If you love Me…). They are still bystanders on the Via Dolorosa. They have yet to step out from the crowd, declare Him “Lord”, take up *His* cross, and follow Him daily! [Hebrews 12:4; 2Timothy 4:3; 3:5; John 14:5; Luke 9:23]

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to do get some more Christ-mas shopping in ;-)

By: rising4air

rising4air — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:55:02 +0000

Some shots of light…thanks…the strength of the discussion, though, got me to reflecting about the nature of idolatry through the post here. Thanks again.

By: Paul Wheatley

Paul Wheatley — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:24:25 +0000

Kyle, in your fifth point you mentioned the extent to which you suspected the laity to buy into this “inbred” all-or-nothing view. To what extent do you think this idolatry is coming from the ground up, vs. from the top down? I am curious how implicated you would see seminaries to be in this idolatry as well.

Could some of this also be in part a result of the proliferation of media in the last 40-50 years? It seems too difficult even for the most dedicated reader to stay abreast of the many streams of discussion within his or her own tradition, much less to allow time for reading and discussion outside the tradition. Could it be that in the glut of information, people are most desperate for reliable editors who can tell them who to trust and who to doubt? It seems that this could easily cause the myopia of many American evangelicals.

By: Justin S.

Justin S. — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:15:10 +0000

There are some shots of light in those comments as well (I’ll say without elaborating).

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:05:07 +0000

One of the reasons I didn’t name names, other than fighting the obvious temptation to succumb to what I have stated already (viz. by trying to show that those who disagree with me are just stupid, immature, etc. – you pick your ailment), is that I know that we all immediately think of “those people,” and that alone should clue us in to the fact that we find it relatively easy to just write off other Christians. Ryan is right, we all can think of groups who break every one of my points above – but I would be willing to bet that many of us would be thinking of totally different groups.

I would even, at this point, be so bold to say that I’m not sure you could adequately define evangelicalism without adding in a disclaimer that part of what it means to be evangelical is to judge other Christians as either ignorant or dangerous, either stupid or “probably not in” (if you know what I mean). It just seems to be so ingrained in the DNA of the “movement” that to ignore it would be to fail to describe it correctly.