Comments on: A good glimpse at US evangelicalism

By: dh

dh — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:37:04 +0000

I don’t get it. I have read much of their work and don’t see at all what you are talking about. I think it is strange for people to support things that are contrary to Scripture but I understand that much of the world is anti-God. 96% of Germans don’t go to church, 98% Danes, etc. To me I could care less about marketing. God never says that marketing is wrong. They aren’t US goods but books that are founded on the Gospel that happen to come from the US. THey do happen to have some political literature but that is not the main focus. What is wrong with “consuming” it? The Bible doesn’t say consuming is wrong except if you put the consumption above God and that is not the case with the people who support FOTF. Maybe your own political disposition predisposses you to be against FOTF without focusing “no-pun intended” on the good that this organization and the books it provides encourage the body of Christ.

By: Bene D

Bene D — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:35:41 +0000

Doug: I’ve made it no secret I don’t have much use for FOTF Canada. I think they are a political lobby group selling US goods and using US marketing techniques.

On the other hand I’ve seen them do half decent and more culturally sensitive work in Singapore.

My complaint isn’t about room to operate. It’s the how and it has little to do with God. I hope our culture doesn’t get comfortable with the techniques. It isn’t the US’s or US believers problem. It’s ours for consuming it.

By: dh

dh — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:39:04 +0000

I don’t understand the problem with FOTF? What is so wrong with looking at nations as mission fields as well as our own (in this case the US)? FOTF is multi-faceted. Within the US there are political issues but out side the US they focus on that but more on Evangelism for Christ. We all know there is nothing wrong with “the Great Commission”. The body of Christ is made up of many members and some have giftings that include Evangelism and there is nothing wrong with that. We shouldn’t say as a hand “…to another hand, I have no need of you”. Just because it doesn’t feel “comfortable” to a particular culture. Sometimes as Christians we have to stand up to the culture rather than conform to the culture. “Be in the world but not of it.”

By: Bene Diction

Bene Diction — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 05:34:21 +0000

I honestly don’t know if our American friends are aware of how uncomfortable our countries are with the import of some of the import of some aspects of US evangelicalism is.

Destiny in NZ, Family First in Oz and in Canada more obvious groups such as Focus in The Family, the SBC and others.

I also hope Ted Olsen follows up, but I don’t think the international aspect will be included.
We are not the target Christianity Today audience.
I think what he has to say is informative.

It’s such a catch 22. We can learn from each other, but aggressive importing with agendas using US models is disconcerting.
On the flip side, US evangelicals sincerely believe our countries are mission fields and I have no idea how in the quest for political power and the language groups use, we’ll find common ground with the importation.

By: saint

saint — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 01:21:30 +0000

I have to admit I read Mr Krauss’s comments twice (notwithstanding that it is much more tiring to read on screen then on paper) and then had to google up a few terms. Like “chattering classes”.
To get this

The “chattering classes” may have originated with T.S Eliot or perhaps Huxley (my online search was inconclusive) to describe a middle-class elite incessently talking about the irrelevant.

Which only leads me to say that those talking in postmodern deconstructionalist terms probably don’t realise how irrelevant - and unintelligible - postmodern descrontructionalism is to average Jo and Joanne down at the pub and on the net. Or even to any academic who is conversant in another field.

OK I am being a bit cheeky (used in the Australian sense of the term).

Anyway, good post Bene. And an interesting discussion from Jeff et al. I think Ted Olsen nailed one reason for the discomfort some Christians outside of the U.S. feel when looking at American evangelicalism from the outside. And that also has some bearing on countries like Oz where Christians are taking their lead from their American counterparts. I hope he does do a cover story on that.

By: Bene Diction

Bene Diction — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:52:33 +0000

We have had this discussion Mike, and I need to remember it.:^)

It is not distaste it’s annoyance.
A good academic will speak his/her language well to other academics. And a very good academic can convey the ideas to the rest of use.

What good is post modern deconstructionist language in a clear discussion if most of us don’t know what the heck he is talking about?

…vocabulary appropriate to the topic?
Excuse me Rev. Mike, it may well be, but is the venue the appropriate place to be using it?

I didn’t say what he contributed had no merit so
how about you breaking down what he said with clarity for the non-PhD’s?

By: Rev. Mike

Rev. Mike — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:01:44 +0000

BD, you and I have had this discussion about people having academic-level discussions like Dan Krauss before, and I’m a little disappointed that you feel compelled to take him down for using vocabulary appropriate to the topic. Krauss was not the one who mentioned power as the real issue behind the discussion of Hillary. Ted Olsen did that. Krauss’s contribution took up that aspect appropriately, albeit in somewhat academic and postmodern, deconstructionist terms by my way of thinking. I had no problem understanding him, and your distaste for that type of discourse is no reason to treat him like he’s out of line.

By: Bene Diction

Bene Diction — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:33:55 +0000

No excuse, lost in thought.
Fixed.
Spelling someone’s name I respect shouldn’t get lost in the ideas.:^)

By: Jeff Sharlet

Jeff Sharlet — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:05:31 +0000

Thanks, Bene. I agree with you about Ted Olsen’s remarks — I urged him to draft them up into a cover story for Christianity Today, where he’s an editor.

Oh — no harm done, but I’ve only one t to my name. Believe it or not, it stands for “Torah.” My last name began as an acronym — shin, reysh, lamed, tov — peace to all who study the torah.

By: dh

dh — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:34:14 +0000

I really liked the Krauss part and the Sharlett part. I feel that we can address moral failures in all of its forms equally. We can address the poor and uneducated, as well as address the problem of an oversexed society equally. It doesn’t have to one or the other. I think that is the problem of the left and the right. They feel they are mutually exclusive.
However, I wonder if some on the left use this mutual exclusivity to condone behavior that God says is clearly wrong (except within marriage and between only a man and a woman). I guess the same can go for the right to condone not giving as much to the poor and needy. I feel both can pursued equally and with no detriment to either issue.