Comments on: The Future of Evangelicalism http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-future-of-evangelicalism/ Serving the joyful cultivation of the theological craft for the life of the church: inquiring honestly, deliberating wisely, acting faithfully Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:38:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Chris TerryNelson http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-future-of-evangelicalism/#comment-17358 Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:25:20 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=3127#comment-17358 It really bothers me to see the word “missional” getting bastardized into a slogan for “service.” It has far more reach than that, at least it should. Of course, this is the problem when a word goes viral in American Christianity. At its core, missional theology locates the apostolicity of the church in the apostolicity of God, which has everything to do with (and gives even more weight to) “orthodox” doctrines in such a way that they are made, to my mind, even closer to orthodoxy because of their witness to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ through Holy Scripture. Unfortunately, “missional” becomes descriptive of a church that’s out doing stuff in the world with only vague notions of why it should be doing anything. To be sure, this isn’t all bad. Many churches are dying because of their insular Christendom-assumptions, safe-guarding themselves against a “sinful world” outside their walls, and even a vacuous “missional church” movement might jolt them from slumber. Still, it’s irresponsible for theologians and pastors to limit their church’s identity in service. Service, just like rational “orthodoxy,” becomes disconnected from the call to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the world.

]]> By: Stephen http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-future-of-evangelicalism/#comment-17355 Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:32:31 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=3127#comment-17355 This account does seem to be able to make sense of ‘seeker sensitive’ and ‘emergent’ thinking within Evangelical camps. Both of these groups definitely put aside doctrine and theologizing for the sake of ‘missional’ commitments.

Having said that, I don’t think the formal/material distinction can be pushed to far. That is, I definitely see there being a definite doctrinal element to being Evangelical. This is at least within the context of the 20th century. I am not so familiar with pre-20th century Evangelicalism.

I think the whole formal/material might be missing the mark. Could not the Evangelical camp be, in fact, both missional and doctrinally orthodox? What I mean is that Evangelicalism is neither defined by her missional character nor by her historic creedal nature, but by her unwavering commitment to both and the inherent tension that comes with that matching. This would seem to account for the rationalistic side (Piper, Grudem, Carson) and the ‘seeker sensitive’ and ‘emergent’ sides. It is only when someone or some group forgets this balance that we become aware of their incoherence with the rest of the movement.

]]>