Comments
No. 1-7
thewordgirl
thewordgirl

This article is dead-on and eloquently voices why I no longer call myself evangelical, or even "Christian". These days, titles come with presupposed assumptions, many of which, in my own case, aren't remotely relevant. I hesitate to lump myself into the category of "Christian" today, because that name, too, has been watered down to include anyone who goes to church. In fact, even though I grew up in a Presbyterian church and have been going to a Methodist church for 25 years now, I don't call myself Presbyterian or Methodist. The truth is, I don't agree with everything in the dogmas of all of the above titles (and I'll go ahead and throw "republican" in there too). The only "religious" title I lay claim to is "Child of the Living God". The only beliefs I vehemently adhere to are beautifully delineated in "The Bible". It's really quite simple: this world is not my home, so why would I assign myself questionable, worldy-interpreted titles, when who I actually am is the person God sees me as?

russedav
russedav

Unsurprisingly compromised Keller doesn't even mention the basic root word of Evangelical: "Evangel" or "Good News" much less what that that Good News actually is, typical for meaningless, feel-good "evangelicalism" almost if not entirely divorced from God's Word, seen in compromised Christianity Today that, like Keller, is far more about aping the culture than even serious devotion, much less devotion total and unswerving, to the Word of God Incarnate and Written coextensive. I remember with sorrow how one of my former seminary professors said how we have to consider modern scientific views to inform proper exegesis of Genesis, showing his sadly oblivious useful idiocy regarding the incalculable level of corruption and deceit in modern "science" as seen in the massive "global freezing/ warming/ climate change" fraud religion seen in East Anglia and elsewhere, like the evolutionism religion masquerading as science in previous generations, where deranged secular religious bigotry determines the hypothesis first and the data is then shoehorned to fit. The greatest scientists are creationists, e.g. Galileo & NASA's Von Braun versus modern paid charlatans doing it for $ sex & power, not truth or reality.

kaslew
kaslew

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Excellent read. I like Keller quite a bit.

etbass
etbass

As to Keller's point if "Evangelicalism" can survive Trump and Moore, I think the answer is no for the term itself. The term isn't going to be recovered. We need to move on from its use with any theological connotations and let it be the political descriptor that it has become. I don't like it, but we have to deal with the world that is, not the one we want it to be. The term "conservative" is much the same way. While not having any theological connections, the term has been substituted so often for Republican and so often claimed by those that are not conservative, that it has lost all real meaning. When you have to constantly use qualifiers like real, true, traditional, long-time, solid, full spectrum, small government, etc. to give the term meaning, we should recognize that it has already lost the meaning. Otherwise, we wouldn't need anything besides the term itself.

etbass
etbass

Roy Moore is really not a good test case. As an Alabamian, many actual evangelicals continued to support Moore, not out of political expediency or political ideology, but because we did not believe the allegations. Many of us that have followed Moore's career over 20+ years have a much better read on who Moore is, the lies about his behavior being an "open secret" and the unlikely aspect that the allegations could be true and have escaped notice by political enemies and local and state media that hate Moore's guts over 5 statewide campaigns, 3 local races and 2 national legal battles. Whether we are right or wrong is irrelevant when applying the label. A lot of evangelicals voted for Moore, myself included, who are not hypocritical at all on the issue. We simply do not believe the allegations. Once you get outside of Alabama, you drop back into the Trump mold with Moore, where you see some of the "I don't care what he did because he is going to vote with me and tell it like it is" attitude. We have to be careful with the Moore race if you are using Alabama polling and votes to tell a larger story, as the disbelief factor was a really large component of Moore's evangelical voting base.