It’s not just that their theology includes places for mission and evangelism, lots of them really do it and I think the practice of evangelism often includes apologetics. Maybe it should involve less or none at all – not my point. Only that Evangelicals, often, really think people should believe the Gospel and really try to get them to – hence apologetics takes a front seat.

Again that could be wrong headed in it’s approach to evangelism but its not he same as lusting after “(epistemological) certainty” or worrying about “what the world thinks of them”. Those charges are certainly true in some measure but they don’t tell the whole story.

All I can say amen, to your vent. As an “Evangelical” I sense the same bewilderment as I try to engage my brethren with the logic that dogmatic theology presents.

I think “Evanglecalism,” by and large can be defined by fear (per its “Fundy” roots). As B. B. Warfield called it, the “Apologetic Religion,” and he should know. Their is a constant pietistic introspective fear that causes the Evangelical to wonder what the world thinks of them; which means there’s really no time to engage in positive dogmatic theology — just ‘negative’ reactions to the questions that the “world” poses. That’s the way I would define “contemporary Evangelicalism” — “The Religion driven by the fear of man.” But I still see some reedemable parts, thus my continued identification as an Evangelical (probably more historically defined though).

Anyway, I didn’t read any of the preceding comments, but I thought I would throw my 2 cents.

Is it really the same folks who are reading ‘Desiring the Kingdom’ and digging some of the stuff in there – that are tuning in to “CEO’s write books about leadership that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ or the gospel”?

Maybe, but who are these people?

This is why I think Smith is so interesting. He is a part of a line of Dutch philosophers who are interested in taking the Bible, cultural analysis and philosophy and developing a (Christian?) philosophical way forward. I think, deep down, that many evangelicals are just more comfortable with this because it avoids dogmatics.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Thanks for the theorizing. It seems you can’t claim any sort of evangelical heritage these days without confronting what I really think is an important generational change.

I’m not entirely convinced that the watershed is theology vs. practice. That seems like an entirely plausible distinction to make for an earlier generation of evangelicals. Perhaps I’m reading too much into anecdotal evidence, but I tend to think that the appeal of Radical Orthodoxy or narrative theology or liturgy is particular to a younger generation of evangelicals. And I don’t see these younger evangelicals owning the same anti-dogmatic tendencies of their parents. Off hand, I can’t think of any sustained, self-consciously liturgical movement which was not integrated with some dogmatic trend (it’s for this reason that I remain skeptical about the longevity of the ancient-future movement).

If evangelicalism is taking a postmodern turn, it may be toward a more historicist-narratival view of theology, but it does seem like theology has a newfound importance for the younger generation. I’m not sure exactly how this social imaginary will play itself out, but I’m fairly hopeful. Perhaps the orthopraxy is just preceding the orthodoxy in this first stage?

“[Early evangelicals] did champion doctrines that related directly to salvation, but the beliefs were appreciated chiefly as necessary instruments for converting people to Christ: ‘They cared for their “truth”, wrote Dale, ‘as a general cares for his guns and ammunition, or as a mechanic cares for his tools; not as an artist of genius cares for his canvas.’

This certainly carries over into today, but I wouldn’t say its an aversion to theology; rather its a perception of theology’s role and function cordoned off from the lived existence of the individual.