This is a paper I wrote March 2009 on Holiness and Social
Justice for my Doctor of Ministry at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary - Please give me your thoughts
Introduction
The churches in the United States
today usually lean to one side or the other in some broad categories called
Liberal (Progressive) or Conservative (Evangelical). Both groups have strengths
and weaknesses. These differences might be categorized in relation to James
1:27 which reads, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless
is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself
from being polluted by the world.” Both emphases in the church today can learn
from each other in regard to the issues of holiness and social justice and can
become stronger, better balanced, can walk in greater unity and can become a
better witness and influence to our culture.
Although this is a broad
generalization, progressive churches tend toward fighting for social justice,
meeting the needs of the poor, the marginalized and the broader needs of
community – Loving their neighbor (if you will) – the doing more than the
being. Evangelical churches tend to focus on being unpolluted by the world
(holiness), individual moral issues – Loving God (if you will) – the being more
than the doing.
Again, I know that these characterizations
are crass over-generalizations, and these may even be offensive to both sides,
but they seem to ring true in my observations. I was reared in the Episcopal
Church during my childhood and have been involved in Evangelical churches for
some thirty years since then. I now tend to interact with people who have more
conservative leanings. I have chosen to attend Pittsburgh Theological Seminary,
which I would infer has leanings to the Progressive emphases, so that I might
learn some of the strengths of this perspective (and possibly share some of the
strengths and perspectives of the Evangelical bent if God permits).
I will discuss briefly some of the history
reflecting this church split and possibly some of the signs that the two sides
are coming together to love God, love their neighbors and love each other. This
dichotomy is reflected in many areas of our American political culture:
Republican and Democrat, pro-life and pro-choice, the definition of marriage
and gay rights, illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants, just war and
pre-emptive strikes, global warming and “dig, baby, dig,” and many other
issues. Many church members’ views on several of these issues are related back
to these divided perspectives.
Brief History of the Division
Evangelical is a term that has come
to be used primarily to describe the religious views of various groups of theologically
conservative Protestant groups in Europe and North America.
Evangelical simply means of the Gospel
(good news). This term has been used by some of the leaders in the Protestant
Reformation in the 1500’s to emphasize salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
In the 1700’s, it was used to describe the religious revivals of English
preachers John Wesley and George Whitefield. They emphasized the need for
personal conversions through God’s grace and the importance of leading a holy
and disciplined life.[1]
At the end of the 1800’s, many
liberal religious scholars challenged the accuracy of the Bible, questioned
previously accepted Christian beliefs and attempted to adjust Christian
theology to then new discoveries in biology and geology. Many Christians
believed the work of the liberals threatened the authenticity of Christianity.
From 1910 to 1915, anonymous authors published 12 small volumes titled The Fundamentals. Fundamentalism got its
name from these booklets. The authors tried to explain what they felt were
basic Christian doctrines that should be accepted without question, such as the
infallibility of the Bible, the Virgin Birth of Jesus and Christ’s atonement
for the sins of humanity through his Crucifixion.[2]
This debate caused a division
between more liberal and more conservative Protestants. After World War II, the
fundamentalists became known as the “new evangelicals” who became closely
linked to the popular preacher Billy Graham. These fundamentalists also
influenced the growth of many non-denominational groups that are primarily
conservative and Evangelical.[3]
The mainline churches have
continued to grow progressive and liberal and to emphasize the social gospel
more than the individual need for conversion. The term mainline churches
usually refers to such denominations as Presbyterians, Methodists,
Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, Lutherans and American Baptists.
The division is evident even in the
title of Diana Butler Bass’ book Christianity
for the Rest of Us. She makes reference to other Christians that are not
part of politically conservative evangelicalism. She says, “I knew, though,
that ‘other’ Christians existed. I am one.”[4]
Division Today
In the church today, there seems to
be antagonism from both sides. When I told a few people in my circles that I
was attending Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and they heard that it was
Presbyterian, they felt that I would get a liberal education (and they meant
that in a negative way). The non-denominational church in which I serve is used
to lively worship and interactive preaching. If the congregation is
non-responsive or non-energetic, comments have been made such as, “Am I in a
Presbyterian church?” or “This Methodist church is very quiet today.” In the
first few days in the cohort classes this January as we were getting to know
each other, some interesting comments were made. One student said
apologetically, “I grew up as an Evangelical.” Around the time of the
Presidential Inauguration, there were some very negative comments about Rick
Warner and his views.
Unity in Scripture
In the fourth chapter of the letter
of Ephesians, there seems to be two aspects or perspectives regarding unity. In
verse three, it reads, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit
through the bond of peace.” The author then proceeds to list some things that
he may be saying on which we should keep unity. Verses four through six read,
“There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when
you were called – one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all,
who is over all and through all.” Then later in the chapter, the author writes
in verses eleven through thirteen that leaders in the church (or extra-local
church) are “to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of
Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the
knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure
of the fullness of Christ.”
So, there seems to be a keeping of
the “unity of the Spirit” and a reaching of the “unity in the faith.” Whatever
the primary (or fundamental) areas in which we should keep unity, there seems
to be some areas in which we will grow in unity. Unity does not necessarily
mean uniformity. 1 Corinthians 12 discusses diversity and unity. Members in the
church are compared to members in a body. There are many parts, but one body.
Because we are not all alike, we should not say to each other, “I do not belong
(12:15)” or “I don’t need you (12:21).” There should be no division in the
body, but each part should have equal concern for each other (12:25). Together
we are the body of Christ with our individual perspectives, strengths,
weaknesses and emphases. We need each other to reach unity. It is Christ in you
(plural) that is the hope of glory (Col 1:27b).
Guilt and Shame
One perspective that influences
this discussion is what has been characterized as Western and Eastern
worldviews, generally stated as guilt-based or shame-based. When humankind fell
in the Garden of Eden, there were at least three negative consequences: guilt,
shame and fear. In Genesis 3:7, after Adam and Eve had disobeyed God, they
realized they were naked and attempted to cover themselves. They experienced
guilt. In Genesis 3:8, when they heard God in their midst, they hid themselves
in shame. In Genesis 3:10, Adam said that he hid himself because he was afraid.[5]
Generally speaking we see these three responses to sin
expressed in three worldviews. Some
cultures have more of one than another, but all three are present in all
cultures today.[6] Many
western nations (Northern Europe, North America, Australia
and New Zealand)
have cultures that contain mostly guilt-based cultural characteristics. Much of
the 10/40 window (Eastern nations from Morocco
to Korea)
is made up of shame-based cultural characteristics. Most of the primal
religions and cultures of the world (such as tribes in the jungles of Africa,
Asia and South America) are structured around
fear-based principles.[7]
While the United
States has been primarily a guilt-based
culture through the years, over time, this has begun to change. The yardstick
in our culture has been right versus wrong. However we have defined it, we want
to do the right thing and not the wrong thing. We have believed that there is
some way of objectively determining if something is right or wrong. If we do
the right thing, then we are innocent; if we do the wrong thing, then we are
guilty.[8]
This tends to be an individual perspective. I did something right or wrong
independent of my relationship to others. The respected leader in a Western
culture will determine guilt, punish the offender, and then right and goodness
will reign again.
Eastern cultures tend to operate under the worldview where the paradigm
is shame versus honor. They would say that there isn’t necessarily a right or
wrong way of doing things, but an honorable or dishonorable way of acting. Honor
is wrapped up in one’s tribe, one’s family and one’s community. The respected
leader in an Eastern culture will maintain honor for his people in the midst of
a shameful and alienated world.[9]
Our culture is shifting toward more of a shame-based culture. Today’s
young people are reluctant to label anything right or wrong. Instead, they will
assign the labels “cool” or “uncool” to things. Cool and uncool are very shame-based
or honor-based words. You are cool if you do something honoring to your clique
or community; you are uncool if you do something shaming to your tribe.[10]
In broad strokes, I see this reflected in the two categories I am
discussing in the church. The Evangelicals/Conservatives tend to view choices
based upon right and wrong, objective truth, individual righteousness and
holiness (what is right for the individual). The Progressives/Liberals tend to
view choices based upon social justice, community honor and shame (what is
honorable for the community).
This affects our views on holiness as well. The Evangelical tends to
think of holiness in terms of things that they don’t do, don’t watch and are
not involved in. Progressives tend to relate holy living to things that they
are doing, lives they are affecting and changes they are making in others. We
sometimes confuse holiness with morality. Holiness should make us more moral
and cause us to make better choices, but the essence of holiness is being
uncommon, peculiar and “other.” We are holy because God declares us holy, which
should affect how we live. In Exodus 3:5, God says to Moses, “Take off your
sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” The ground was
set apart because God declared it so, not because it made better moral choices
than the other parts of ground around it.
We sometimes separate the holiness of God from his incarnation and thus
our holiness and our incarnational ministry. We are called to be holy in the
midst of an unholy world. As John Webster says in his book, Holiness, “The
church’s holiness is visible as it bears witness to the world.”[11]
Examples of Division
A case in point is the debate on the illegal alien/undocumented
immigrant. Conservatives say, “They have done something wrong. They have come
here illegally. We should not reward bad behavior. They need to be punished. We
need to stand up for righteousness! They are illegal aliens.” The liberals say,
“It is very complicated. They are part of a family. Their children are born
here. Many of us came here from other places. We do not need to shame them; we
need to honor them within their family and their culture. We need to give them
social justice! They are simply undocumented immigrants who need our help.”
Although obviously a very complicated issue, abortion rights, pro-life
and pro-choice is another topic that is affected by this discussion. A
technical question is that of when life begins – does it begin at conception or
at birth? Most Evangelicals contend that life begins at conception and quote
such verses as Psalm 139:13 which states, “For you created my inmost being; you
knit me together in my mother’s womb.” They say that the fetus is alive and
growing and that ending the pregnancy prematurely is murder. They are for life.
The choice was made at conception; by choosing to engage in sexual relations,
one is choosing to conceive life.
Most people from Progressive denominations tend to lean toward
pro-choice, abortion rights and giving the woman the right to control that
which is in her own body. They would contend that life does not begin until
birth. They might quote such verses as Genesis 2:7, which states, “The Lord God
formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life and the man became a living being.” They would assert that life
does not begin until the child takes that first breath of life. By ending the
unwanted pregnancy, a woman is making a choice with her own life. This choice
is one that is made in community; one that is made for honor and not shame to
the individual within a family, extended family and culture. This choice may be
for many, many reasons including economic, emotional, age of the mother, cause
of pregnancy (rape or incest) and pregnancy outside of marriage.
Effects of Eschatology
These groups’ perspectives are also affected by their views on
Eschatology (End times views). I disagree with those who say that our view of
eschatology does not affect how we live. Over the last sixty or so years, many
Evangelicals have embraced Dispensationalism (Futurist, Premillennial,
Pre-Tribulational and literalist interpretation of end times events). Many have
become convinced that the great Eschaton, a rapture, a seven-year Tribulation
period, and the new Millennium are destined to happen quickly. There was a book
published in the 1980’s entitled, Eighty-Eight
Reasons Why Christ Will Return in 1988.
This perspective has affected the Evangelicals in many ways. It has put
many into a “Wait” mode. If Christ is coming back soon, they I don’t need to
worry about taking care of the planet – it will be destroyed anyway. I don’t
need to worry about long-term social issues – I just need to be concerned about
getting people saved so they will get into heaven. I don’t need to be concerned
with influencing my world for good – it is destined to get worse and worse and
then Christ will return to save us. I have even heard well-meaning Christians
tell me that we shouldn’t try to make the world a better place; we should allow
it to get as bad as possible; the world getting worse more quickly, will cause
Christ to return all the quicker.
This has caused many Evangelicals to pull back into what some call “holy
huddles.” They are fearful of the world. They have pulled there children out of
public schools and put them in Christian schools or have home-schooled them.
They then blame the terrible conditions of the public schools on the liberal
government who took prayer out of schools. I tend to think that the schools
have suffered because the salt and light of Christian influence has been pulled
out. The “holy huddle” syndrome also caused the increase of a separatist Christian
sub-culture – Christian Yellow Pages, Christian Entertainment, Christian
bookstores, Mega-churches, etc.
They have developed a Christ against culture mentality.[12]
They have developed a monastic Christianity. Evangelism now comes over the
radio, through the television, from the pulpit, or through tracts that present
conversion as an intellectual decision or a decision to avoid Hell. Many have
lost their connection to individually share the love of Christ with their
neighbor in a long-term relationship. In some ways, they have become the modern
day Essenes and are attempting to escape to a safe place. The Evangelical Church
has become known more for what they are against rather than what they are for.
Many have attempted to be the morality police of our society. In that way, they
have become the modern day Pharisees.
About the Progressive/liberals, many Evangelicals would say that they
are the modern day Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the resurrection and the
miraculous. Some would say that the liberals have entered into Christ of
Culture and are compromising and accommodating. They have accepted pluralism,
subjectivism, and relativism. Many Progressives in desiring not to be exclusive
have stated that there are many ways to God, of which Christ is only one. Some
would say that the liberals are not holy because they have become tainted by
the world and that they do and act just like everyone else. They are not
distinct or peculiar.
Returning to our end times discussion, the Progressive churches tend to
different views of eschatology. If they believe in a literal second coming of
Christ, they are more Post-Millennial or Amillennial in their views. Christ is
reigning in us today. We are to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done.”
Their mentality is much more Christ transforming culture than escaping it. We
are called to fight for the rights of the marginalized, the alien, the poor,
the widows (single-moms) and the orphans (children disserted by dead-beat
dads). They are not sure when Christ is coming back or what that will look
like, but until then, they will be about the Father’s business, and the
Father’s business is to love the unlovely.
Stewards of Creation
I also see this church split reflected in how we view our responsibility
to the planet, ecology (water, air and land pollution), global warming and
endangered species. Many Evangelicals would say that this is not important
because this is a fallen creation and Christ will be coming back soon to redeem
his creation. All energy in that direction is counter-productive. The liberals
would say that we are stewards of God’s creation and should take good care of
the planet, God’s creatures and be faithful to what he has entrusted to us.
N.T. Wright goes into a great discussion of creation, redemption, the
new earth, the resurrection and hope to encourage us to be good stewards of
God’s good earth. The gospel story is one of God’s Kingdom being launched on
earth as in heaven, generating a new state of affairs. The power of evil has
been decisively defeated and the new creation has been launched. We have been
commissioned and equipped to put that victory and inaugurated new world into
practice. God’s rule is to be put into practice in the world, resulting in
salvation in both the present and the future, a salvation that is both for
humans and through saved humans, for the wider world.[13]
Faith and Works
There are some who categorize these differences according to being and
doing (faith and works). They say that we need not only orthodoxy (right
thinking), but also orthopraxis (right doing). This has been a theme that has
been with us for some time. James 2:17 reads, “In the same way, faith by
itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” Paul in Romans 3:28
states, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing
the law.” This is obviously a large discussion that encompasses a great deal of
theology regarding justification, sanctification, and God’s role and our
responsibility in salvation. Much ink and many words have been put to this
discussion over the years.
An over-simplistic characterization of these theologies has been presented
in the following humorous description: Augustine’s theology could be summarized
as “Be to Do.” If you are right with God, then you will do the right thing.
Thomas Aquinas’ theology could be summarized as “Do to Be.” If you do the right
thing, then you will be right with God. And then the famous theologian Frank
Sinatra sang, “Do Be Do Be Do.”
A balancing passage for me in this discussion has always been Ephesians
2:8-10. It reads, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and
this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God – not by works, so that no one
can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good
works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” We are saved by faith in
Christ’s righteousness, not by any works that we might do, but God has works
for us to do. These works reveal and express our faith in God. Martin Luther is
attributed to have said that we are justified by faith alone, but that faith is
never alone; it is always accompanied by good works.
Regarding this discussion, Evangelicals have tended to focus on faith
and grace. Many have emphasized to completed work of Christ, the doctrine of
eternal security as “once saved, always saved,” and justification by faith to
the neglect of our response in faith which should be to serve our community and
to love our neighbor. Many Progressive or liberal Christians have emphasized
the need for serving and the social gospel more than the presentation of the
gospel and Jesus’ message of reconciliation and atonement for sins. In our
cohort class, one of our brothers from the United Church of Christ said
something like, “I would rather serve than be saved.”
Effects on Evangelism
Evangelicals have tended to use John 3:16 extensively in personal
evangelism. It reads, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one
and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
life.” They emphasize that each person need to believe on God’s one and only
Son in order to receive eternal life. The Progressive churches have emphasized
1 John 3:16-18. It reads, “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid
down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If
anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on
him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with
words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”
Bryan Stone states “the most evangelistic thing the church can do today
is be the church – to be formed imaginatively by the Holy Spirit through core
practices such as worship, forgiveness, hospitality, and economic sharing into
a distinctive people in the world, a new social option, the body of Christ.”[14]
Stone quotes Albert Outler who says, “Give us a church whose members believe
and understand the gospel of God’s healing love of Christ to hurting men and
women. Give us a church that speaks and acts in consonance with its faith.”[15]
St. Francis of Assisi
is quoted as saying, “Preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words,”
and “Don’t go some where to preach unless your going is your preaching.” We
need both: speaking and doing (talking and walking). One of my favorite
scriptures regarding evangelism is 1 Thessalonians 2:8. It reads, “We loved you
so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but
our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us.” That is when
evangelism happens, when conversions happen, when life is transformed, when we
share the good news and our lives with others.
Existentialism and
Essentialism
Just to show what a nerd I am, I will share another perspective on this
dichotomy. In the early Star Trek movies, these two perspectives were
displayed. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of
Khan, Commander Spock sacrifices his life for the ship and says, “The needs
of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” In the next
installment, Star Trek III: The Search
for Spock, the crew sacrifices their individual agendas to find their
friend Spock, and Captain Kirk says, “Sometimes, the needs of the one, or the
few, outweigh the needs of the many.”
Both of these perspectives are true. There are times when we as a
community make sacrifices for one person – a child who has been kidnapped, a
person down a well – we pull together to help one in need. There are other
times when we as individuals lay aside our individual needs for then needs of
the community or our nation – paying taxes, fighting a common enemy in war. Both
perspectives are equally valid dependent upon the situation.
Conservatives would say that they are more concerned with the needs of
the individual and his/her eternal salvation than they are for the community’s
extended temporal needs (more existential than essential). The liberals might
say that they lay their individual concerns aside for the needs of the extended
community (more essential than existential). The liberals might say that a
person is unconcerned with their ethereal and eternal needs if their practical
and physical needs are not being met.
Movements to Unity
There has been some movement on
both sides to unite, show love to each other and to present a balance in being
and doing. In their book entitled The
Externally Focused Church, Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson describe four types
of churches based upon their emphasis on good deeds and good news.
- Internally focused church – These churches are good at preaching and teaching, worship, and serving the needs of those inside the church. They excel at pastoral care and building up the saints. Attendees hear biblical truth and the message of salvation. They have an attractional or “come to” mentality. They can be characterized as:
Goal: Building up the saints
Belief: Good teaching and truth will
change and heal people
Focus: Teaching truth
Actions: Caring for their own
- Serving churches – These churches are good at demonstrating love for their communities. They are at the forefront of bringing social change to the cities but are weak in proclaiming the gospel. They can be characterized as:
Goal: Serving the least
Belief: Transforming the community
leads to transforming individuals
Focus: Grace
Actions: Showing
- Externally focused churches – These churches are effective in proclaiming good news and showing love to their communities. The gospel is both show and tell. The can be characterized as:
Goal: Saving the lost and serving the
least
Belief: We are most effective when we
transform individuals and communities
Actions: Showing and telling
- Evangelistic churches – These churches focus on evangelism outside the church and going after the lost. They emphasize going door to door, handing out literature and sponsoring evangelistic crusades. They do little to serve as a blessing to their communities apart from evangelism. They can be characterized as:
Goal: Saving the lost
Belief: Transformed people will lead to
a transformed society
Focus: Truth
Action: Telling[16]
I would say that regarding these
categories: (4) Evangelistic churches – this describes many of the smaller
fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches. (1) Internally focused churches – this
describes many of the larger, Evangelical mega-churches. (2) Serving churches –
this describes many of the mainline churches in America. (3) Externally focused
churches – this is where the authors and I would like all of the churches to
find balance in saving and serving, showing and telling.
Randall Balmer, in his book Thy Kingdom Come, calls the Religious
Right, which he considers a sub-culture within the Evangelical subculture, to
change their ways. He asks them to live according to the Sermon on the Mount.
He asks them to examine their views on deploying military forces in light of
Jesus’ invitation to love our enemies, their views on consumerism and tax cuts
for the affluent in light of Jesus’ warnings against storing up treasures on
earth and their denial of equal rights to anyone which is inconsistent with
Jesus lifestyle of spending much of his time with the cultural outcasts of his
day.[17]
Brian McLaren is attempting to
speak to the post-moderns and the emerging church and to call them to develop
progressive evangelical Christianity. In
this book, Everything Must Change, he
is calling the church to examine their dysfunction in four areas of crisis:
Prosperity – Environmental breakdown caused by our unsustainable global economy
that fails to respect environmental limits and produces wealth for one-third of
the population. Equity – the growing gap between the rich minority and the
majority poor, which prompts envy and resentment from the poor and fear and
anger from the rich. Security – the danger of cataclysmic war arising from
resentment and fear among groups at opposite ends of the economic spectrum.
Spiritual – the failure of the world’s religions to provide a framing story
capable of healing the three previous crises listed. A framing story gives
people direction, values, vision and inspiration by providing a framework for
their lives.[18]
Conclusion
In the Broadway musical, Oklahoma,
there is a sequence in which there is a dance and they all sing “The farmers
and the ranchers should be friends.” The farmers and the ranchers have
different perspectives, methods, lifestyles and goals as they homestead the territory of Oklahoma. They needed to coexist and
complement each other as their territory became a state. The progressive
Christians and the evangelical Christians should be friends. We are called to
walk in unity with each other and to reveal God’s love to the world.
John 17:20-23 reads: “My prayer is
not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their
message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in
you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent
me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we
are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let
the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
Bibliography
- Barker, Kenneth L. eds. NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. All quotes are from the New International Version.
- Balmer, Randall. Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical’s Lament. New York: Basic Books, 2006.
- Butler, Diana Bass. Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith. New York: Harper One, 2007
- Jacobs, Dale W. eds. World Book Vol. 6. Chicago: World Book Inc.1993. “Evangelicalism,” by Mark A. Noll.
- Jacobs, Dale W. eds. World Book Vol. 6. Chicago: World Book Inc.1993. “Fundamentalism,” by Robert L. Ferm.
- McLaren, Brian D. Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crisis, and a Revolution of Hope. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
- Muller, Ronald. Honor and Shame: Unlocking the Door. U.S.A: XLIBRIS.com, 2000.
- Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1975.
- Rusaw, Rick and Eric Swanson. The Externally Focused Church. Loveland, Colorado: Group Publications, Inc., 2004.
- Stone, Bryan P. Evangelism after Christendom: The Theology and Practice of Christian Witness. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007.
- Webster, John. Holiness. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.
- Wright, N.T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: Harper One, 2008.
[1]
Dale W. Jacobs, eds. World Book Vol.
6, (Chicago:
World Book Inc.1993), “Evangelicalism,” by Mark A. Noll, 431.
[2]
Dale W. Jacobs, eds. World Book Vol.
7, (Chicago:
World Book Inc.1993), “Fundamentalism,” by Robert L. Ferm, 557.
[3]
“Evangelicalism”, 431.
[4]
Diana Bass Butler, Christianity for the
Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith (New York: Harper One,
2007), 3.
[5]
Roland Muller, Honor and Shame: Unlocking
the Door (U.S.A.:
XLIBRIS.com, 2000), 18-19.
[6]
Ibid. 19
[7]
Ibid. 20
[8]
Ibid. 22
[9]
Ibid. 51.
[10]
Ibid. 52.
[11]
John Webster, Holiness (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 74.
[12]
H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New
York: Harper Torchbooks, 1975), vii. Although, I do not quote directly from
Niebuhr, I do use his designations for interaction with culture.
[13]
N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope:
Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission
of the Church (New York:
Harper One, 2008) 204-205.
[14]
Bryan P. Stone, Evangelism after
Christendom: The Theology and Practice of Christian Witness (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007) 15.
[15]
Ibid. 53.
[16]
Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson, The
Externally Focused Church (Loveland,
Colorado: Group Publishing,
2004), 125-127.
[17]
Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the
Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical’s
Lament (New York:
Basic Books, 2006), 191.
[18]
Brian D. McLaren, Everything Must Change:
Jesus, Global Crisis, and a Revolution of Hope (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) 2-5.
