frank

rick

Phil:

Thanks for the article and the included links.

I grew up in first a midwest methodist church until we were sent a hyperliberal pastor who insisted on a preaching series for the sunday morning worship on marital sex relations. I was in the eighth or ninth grade and decided to quit going. I was able to convince my Dad, who taught Sunday School there for about another 3 years or so, that it probably wasn’t beneficial for my spiritual formation to stay. /*though at that time I’m certain I didn’t use those words. */ Some friends at the local evangelical free church invited me to their youth group and the short story is that I ended up in the navigators in college and /*after seminary at TEDS*/ a missionary in germany for the board of overseas missions for the evangelical free church of america in the early to mid 80’s. Apart from a stretch of around 3 years or so /*in California*/ I’ve be in germany since, though not part of the mission since ‘88.

So, mostly as a result of being so far away, a lot of the people on the list are new to me, at least under the rubric of evangelical.

I got to know several people on the list personally through either joint speaking with them, taking a course from them or visiting a lectureship of theirs, but am most bemused, I guess, by the inclusion of the hyper-charisma-tics, Jakes and Meyers. The inclusion of the fundamentalists, like the LaHayes, is something I would have expected… though not greeted, even though it’s probably best understood in light of the following paragraph.

I think part of the “jello” factor is driven by media interests, which tend to view everything through “political-noticeability glasses”. However, since I don’t know what criteria the Times editorial staff used to work up their list of “600 senior pastors” for their inquiry, it’s difficult to know how much congruity my assumption in this case has with hard reality. Those criteria would naturally have something pretty close to a guiding hand in determining who the listees turned out to be. That Packer, for instance, is part of the group doesn’t, in my opinion, say so much about diversion from his root theology as about the tendency of the mature individuals to notice that it might be useful for the attainment of political goals to reach out _in politics_ on the basis of commonality on moral or other issues. If someone goes about this systematically and is noticed by the NAE and the US Catholic Church, that’s not too surprising, but that Packer showed up instead of someone like HOJ Brown or Ev Koop may say something specific about the 600.

I think your “fadism” labeling fits best on those who deviate most from what I consider the gospel. There are some on the list who I don’t think it fits on at all, like Mark Noll and Ralph Winter, but I haven’t heard much directly from them recently… so don’t really know if they haven’t done a Billy Graham and accepted something similar to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism… /* but I suspect not, they have much more emphasis on thought and biblical work than impressions… am I hinting they might be more calvinistic ? And this coming from a member in good standing of an open brethren assembly */

I picked up the blog url, by the way, thanks to Mike Corley and am looking forward to reading more of the coming pages.

Thanks for the commentary.

Actually, I have no clue what you mean, who you are, or why you have an agenda “to promote inconsistent and heretical teachings.” But this is definitely not the place for it. Please cease and desist.

The site is a blessing to me. Thank you all.

However, Phil, let me encourage you and your staff to be consistent and non-hypocritical in the treatment of issues and persons.- call it like it is, stop being a respecter of man.

This is a great place to learn and exchange ideas - but it should be a place to promote inconsistent and heretical teachings - and you know what I mean.

Good decision

You can delete this note, too. I wanted you to know your decision was greatly appreciated.