Barna, Universalism And Pluralism, What Americans Believe

This was posted a while back, so I'm a little late on this. Thanks to David Kinnaman, this is going to be a fun little exercise. I will post the relevant sections with some of my own commentary. I may ignore the section on Pluralism and Christian perspective, as my focus is more on the generation aspect of this topic.

Universalism
Broadly defined, universalism is the belief that all human beings will be saved after death. On balance, Americans leaned toward exclusive rather than inclusive views. For example, 43% agreed and 54% disagreed with the statement, “It doesn’t matter what religious faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons.”

I think already there is an issue here. On the one hand, it makes sense that Americans would prefer more exclusive views on such religious matters. On the final hand, however, I would disagree with how the question seemed to be framed. Most of the Universalists I know don't think all religious faiths teach the same lesson, so I'm not convinced the question is properly placed. But this is a minor quibble.

Interestingly, younger born again Christians stand in stark contrast to their peers, being much less open to inclusive or universalist views of eternity. Still, while they are holding firm on many matters of orthodoxy, young Christians also expressed less certainty than previous generations did about what will happen to them, personally, when they die.

Instead, this is where the heart of the issue lies. This explains the rise of the Emergent Church movement and the rising tide of neo-evangelicalism. Uncertainty is a big part of my generation, and this is something we seem to actually cherish. In many ways, I agree. Uncertainty drives me towards research and contemplation, so in most ways I'm with them.

I'll list a few examples. Peter Enns, Fuller Theological Seminary, Annihilationism, Inerrancy. All of this is driven by a younger generation (and some within the previous generation) that is simply not convinced that the traditions of old figured it all out. In many ways, this is exciting. We're seeing new theological ground being mined and stronger exegesis in regards to how we treat the texts.

So, universalism and all of these other topics aren't driven necessarily by a desire for tolerance. In many ways, I think it is the opposite. Evangelicalism is built upon questioning such things. To question them is to be truly biblicist.

Thoughts?

--Nick

An Evangelical Quadrilateral, or musings with Brandan Robertson

I have never met Brandan except via scattered facebook and blog comments, but I get the impression that we'd be jovial friends with the occasional friendly jab. He wrote a post about the spectrum of Protestantism and it attracted some pretty hefty flack, including a response by Dan Kimball.

Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read the comments on the blog or check out any additional response Brandan may have offered. So I'm shooting from the hip on this one.

Here is the picture that started it all (in a good way):

I confess, I find this compelling for the most part. I think I agree with the majority of placements on here (saving Tim Keller in the Neo-Evangelical category) so for the sake of argument I won't push much on this.

But here is my big question(s):

What determines the label "fundamentalist?" Or "Reformed Evangelical?" Why distinguish between Reformed Evangelical and Free Will Evangelical?

Is it a belief in Dispensationalism? Exclusive male hierarchy? Elder only board? Inerrancy?

 In many ways, I feel this graph is part two of a series, and we've somehow skipped part one. The labels themselves need to be defined more specifically. I know DA Carson got after Bebbington and Noll for defining evangelicalism sociologically, but I think there should be more put into this. The subjective nature of labels does blur the lines of an already postmodern society.

So how should Brandan, myself and others defines these terms? The terms change with each generation and what was progressive back in the day (an example is Paul K. Jewett's advocating the ordination of women in the 70s while at Fuller, causing a big stir. Or Edward John Carnell being "soft" of Barth when they met for a session discussing inerrancy). Karl Barth wasn't a fan of liberal theology the way he knew it, yet today he's considered a liberal by many (not necessarily by me, as I'm only 6 pages into his Church Dogmatics).

Please don't misunderstand, I do not consider a definition of labels to be necessarily an exclusion of an individual or group. Rather, I would prefer to see an objective (within reason) form of looking at the way people labels themselves but also the way we label them. This should include some method of evaluating the belief systems and where the chips fall.

So, in essence, this chart is an excellent one, but I believe it is incomplete and a lot of people may be left scratching their heads. I know I was when I saw Tim Killer in the neo-evangelical category. However, I look forward to dialoguing with Brandan about this, as I too am fascinated with labels, being one who rejected labels for some time. Especially when I was just beginning my journey. Brandan is a forward-thinking soul and I am glad to be a part of this discussion.

For the record, I consider myself, according to the chart to be Neo-Orthodox. :)

Here is Brandan's original post.

God bless.

--Nick

Shane Hipps Leaves Mars Hill

First Rob Bell leaves, now Shane Hipps. I'm quite curious as to how Mars Hill will recover and bring out new teachers.

Here is part of Hipps announcement:

Not long after Rob left, the Elders determined it was in the best interest of the church to restructure the role of the Teaching Pastor to be a full time teacher, which means approximately 40 Sundays a year.  In addition, that teacher would report to the Executive Director who would be responsible for the overall leadership of the church.

The original calling I accepted was to teach 25 Sundays a year, continue serving the broader church through speaking and writing, report directly to the Elders, and play a major role in casting vision. They acknowledged that the new role was significantly different than the one I originally accepted, but expressed a hope that I would consider applying for it.  I respected their decision and was grateful for their invitation to apply.

And so as I’ve done a number of times in my life, I set about the process of discerning that call.  Almost immediately I was hit with the sad realization that one way or another, my current calling was coming to an end. It took some time to get used to. I love the Mars Hill community and have been very happy here.

For me this was difficult because it presented me with a real dilemma.  If I accepted the new role, I would have to dramatically reduce my service to the broader church which is an integral part of my sense of call.  If I elected not to take the role I lose my grounding in a local community, which I understood as part of my sense of call.  Frankly, I didn’t want to accept either of those.

I came face to face with one of the most powerful and difficult ingredients in discovering call  — the role of limits.

For the rest, click here.

--Nick

Jonathan Merritt, "Millennials Are More Independent, Divided on Culture Wars"

I like Merritt, even if I'm not convinced by some of his theological opinions. As I'm known, I love respectful perspective. 

A new study produced by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) confirms what we already knew to be true. A majority of Millennials believe that abortion is “morally wrong,” are torn on same sex issues, and a plurality consider themselves independent.

The study reports that 51% of Millennials believe that having an abortion is “morally wrong.” This falls in line with other studies in years past, which assert that rising generations are as pro-life, or perhaps more so, than their parents’ generation. Most young people, it seems, will seek to protect of unborn life as did many of their parents. Only 37% said they considered abortion “morally acceptable.”

But young people differ substantially from their parents on same sex issues. According to the study, Millennials are divided on same sex issues, with 59% favoring gays and lesbians to legally marry. Christians of similar age are also moving this direction according to a study conducted by PRRI in 2007, which showed 52% of young evangelicals favor some form of same sex union. I've written on why I think this is happening in many outlets, including this article in The Huffington Post.

Perhaps the most interesting finding in this study, however, is Millennials affinity for “independent” affiliation. A plurality (45%) self-identify as such. Young Christians seem to align with this trend as well. A 2001 study of young evangelicals by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press uncovered 55% were self-described Republicans. When the study was repeated in 2007, only 40% remained in that category. Interestingly, the 15% didn’t migrate to the Democratic party; only 5% did. The remaining 10% now describe themselves as “independents” or “unaffiliated.”

Last week at the Q conference—a prestigious gathering of more than 750 young Christian leaders in Washington DC—a participant survey found that 61% of participants claim they don’t affiliate with either the right or left.

So PRRI has uncovered what we already knew to be true. Young people—including those who claim the Christian faith are eschewing the American culture wars in significant ways. They remain conservative on issues such as abortion, but are rethinking or altogether shifting on other issues previously considered progressive. It seems Millennials are indeed less concerned about involvement in the partisan culture wars than some of their parents were.

If you’re like me—tired of the culture wars with it’s sour tone, divisive tactics, and blind partisanship—you welcome such data. It’s time we move beyond the framework of the religious right (and the religious left, for that matter). This generation will not perfect a model for political engagement, but we can make strides toward more Christ-like engagement in the American public square.


Merritt/Millennials


--Nick

Peter Rollins, "The Violence of Christianity"

Its not what you think. Its actually quite powerful. Its roughly 6 and a half minutes. Worth your time.

Peter Rollins/Violence

--Nick

Peter Rollins & Rob Bell Interview, "Returning to the New"

Rob Bell and Peter Rollins engaging in a dialogue. If you have an hour, its pretty interesting. Fairy tales, Kierkegaard, Societal Values are covered in the first few minutes; in conversation about "dreams" and their "fulfillment."

The concept of iKon apparently germinated in a pub. Sounds like a good beginning.

Rollins/Bell

--Nick