What must be preserved? That's an easy one - the Gospel.
What must be changed? Everything that does not proclaim the Gospel as revealed in God's Word.

I would disagree with Spencer in his belief that house churches are the future. I think such a decentralized model will only feed American individualism and make us less the body of Christ and more arms and legs singularly flailing about.

For any numbe of reasons, Evangelicalism's pursuit of many good things has sadly too often been at the expense of the best thing - it's primary work of proclaiming the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While this has increased the movement's (perceived) influence, it has impared it's ability to proclaim what is true. Doctrine is not what is wrong with us - it is what distinguishes us, and makes our message and methodology unique. But I agree with the CSM article's charge that we have failed in many respects passing on the faith, and core issues (like the nature of man apart from Christ, the atonement, God's role in salvation) have been relegated to the trashbin in favor of programatic expediency. Like most things, Evangelicalism's perceived strength of doctrinal inclusiveness may prove to be its defining weakness.

Brandon,

I would add that this study is a well done project that should be disturbing to the church. Thanks for highlighting both the ARIS and the CSM article.

But, it is important to note that although iMonk provided an articulate and provocative case in his CSM essay, the ARIS study actually showed an INCREASE in the number of self-identified evangelicals, with a simultaneous decline in self-identified Christians.

So, the study shows the percentage of self-identified Christians is in decline but that is not the same thing as a great crackup of evangelicals. That may indeed be coming (and I have written on that myself), but the ARIS did not show such a trend.

Thanks for the good writing.

Ed Stetzer
www.edstetzer.com

What is the church doing right?
> awakening.
> looking around and realizing that actions speak more loudly than words.
> recognizing the mistakes of the past and taking responsibility.
> acknowledging the power of creativity that God has given us to use
for His kingdom (in thought, approach and mission).
> realizing that differences shouldn't be deal-breakers.
> avoiding clichés and pressing people into cookie-cutter shapes.
> loving people unconditionally.
> putting money into making ministry happen.
> trying to love God and love others with service.
> realizing that Jesus was Jewish and lived His entire life sinless,
even in regard to Jewish law.
> engaging in open, honest and sincere dialogue with people and
organizations that have historically been opponents.
> using love to direct people to Jesus.
> serving a creator.

What is the church doing wrong?
> sleeping.
> talking a lot but doing little to back it up.
> trying to cover up the sins of the past.
> doing things the same old way.
> majoring on the minors with a "my way or the highway attitude."
> requiring people to change before they come in.
> putting money into buildings and systems that aren't cost-effective.
> trying to love God and love and serve themselves.
> preaching Jesus is a Western invention in which Christianity and
Judaism have no connection.
> remaining closed and combative to others.
> using fear to scare people away from hell.
> selling a commodity.

*points used courtesy of b. baltimore brown, pastor of creativity and intergallactic superhero.

Hallelujah!

I think its a great thing. One of the worst events that ever happened to Christianity was making it the official religion in Rome and thus the dominant religion in the west.

Modern evangelicalism is so polluted and just as morally corrupt as many evangelicals view the Catholic church. Evangelicals have a horrible name in society and people ignore Jesus because they hate His followers. It is only natural that this demise would come, and none too soon.

We may complain because we've grown accustom to being the majority but I think being a minority and not having the draw of power/pride that characterizes modern evangelicalism will be the best thing for the Christian faith!

I mentioned house churches once in three long posts. Hardly known as a house church cheerleader. I have serious qualms with the movement on a number of fronts.

I mentioned house churches, new church plants, a dominant Pentecostalism, evangelicalized Catholicism. I described a numerically chastened, but diverse and evolving evangelicalism.

I'm not a house church guy. It's just part of a very diverse picture that is appearing.

There is a question that always nags me when I read reports like the ARIS one just released...how do they define Christian? How do we define evangelical Christian? As we all know these are not monolithic entities and therefore often defy simply definition. So it seems that we need to know this information if we are to make an informed decision about whether or not the reported decline is a good or bad thing. I am sure that ARIS included their definitions in their methodology and I admittedly have not had the time yet to look at the report more deeply so that's on me.

I guess the reason this question nags me so much is that I just spent the last six years in the Deep South where almost everyone self identifies as a Christian. However, when scratch the surface, you are often disappointed by their lack of understanding of what it means to truly follow Jesus. Instead, folks will tell you what church they are member of, how many times they attend worship, how much money they give, etc. Rarely do you hear them describe a Christianity that looks like the Christianity presented by the Bible. Obviously, this is a broad stereotype and I don't mean to suggest that this is only a "Southern" problem. I actually think it's much broader than that which is why the question premise of the report nags at me so much.

Does anyone have a thumbnail sketch as to how the folks doing these surveys defined their terms? Or perhaps I should get off my butt and do the research myself! :-)

What needs to be preserved? Followers of Jesus lending a listening ear to the Spirit of God, being formed into the image of Christ through the disciplines, being aware of what God is doing in the world, serving the marginalized, and inviting others into the Life we have found.

Meeting together. Worshiping together. Communion. Baptism.

What needs to be changed? Anything that gets in the way of us doing those things or being those things. If our cultural values no longer support a megachurch or a pastoral staff, then we become bi-vocational. If our nation becomes politically intolerant of the gospel message, then we become confessors and martyrs.

There will come a time when it will no longer make sense to spend our efforts simply preserving our methods and culture. And when that times comes, so be it. God is alive and faithful.

In a way, it's all pretty irrelevant. Whether Christians/Evangelicals are the majority or minority, our mission is still the same.

All we can do is continue to live out our faith as best we can and share the Gospel, and then let God worry about the rest.

I wonder if conditions aren't ripening for revival. God certainly did a great work with the Jesus movement in the early seventies in a dark time as well as the first and second great awakening which had similar dark clouds. We certainly need to be praying for God to revive His people to Himself.

I wonder if this is not symptomatic of a cultural problem in the West. the depersonalisation of relationships via electronic media have reduced the connection points and the depth of connections that the average person experiences in day to day to life.
Elderly people are more likely to retain connectivity to their culture through their felt need of human relationships.
Younger folk live a hurried life dominated by insular technologies (ipod, tv, computer, etc, now even introduced into the classroom at an early age) that mean they no longer need "to get out more". I would not be surprised should a study be done on other social organisations showing their decline at a similar rate (such as Legion etc).

I suggest we do NOT need to preserve the consumer driven model as evidenced by one of the rotating banner ads at the head of this article which shouts the imposing question, "Does your church website attract the un-churched?" Maybe it gets replaced with an add that says, "Lifting up Jesus and demonstrating his love in word and deed attract people." Of course, nobody makes any money on that. Just a thought.

According to Spencer, the result will be that “evangelicalism [will] look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success.”

There is probably a lot more truth to that statement in the current day than most conservative Protestants are willing to admit. However, these surveys are not what I would generally consider trustworthy sources of American religiousity. These are fly-bys that often depends on obscure wording and reductionist methods.

I'm not saying that evangelicalism isn't facing a crisis, but that evangelicalism is. Huh what? Conservative Protestantism isn't going anywhere soon. It certainly has its issues but it is too fruitful for too many to disappear. Yet it is that label of "evangelicalism" that we will see disappear. It has become utterly useless. It no longer means anything except what the media wants to portray it as. Evangelical Christianity has become, in essence, either rigidly partisan and narrowminded or so broad and catering to the lowest common denominator that it simply does not mean anything.

Post Christian is Pre Islamic .

I suggest we do NOT preserve a consumer driven model as evidenced by one of the rotating banner ads at the top of this website ominously asking, "Does your church website attract the unchurched?" Instead, maybe we replace it with and ad that says, "Lifting up Jesus and demonstrating his love in word and deed 'attracts' the unchurched." Just a thought.

These studies are always interesting. It speaks about evangelicalism as a monolith. Or maybe it is speaking about a narrow brand of evangelicalism.

For instance, are African Americans considered evangelicals? Usually we are not simply on the basis of political party affiliation. Very few know that the African American community is extremely conservative.

My main point with this is that in 10 years, we will see another study saying something else. Does anyone remember when in the 1990s, studies showed an uptick in religion among teens yeat the decade before, they talked about teens abandoning religion wholesale.

Studies are good but I view them with a wary discerning eye. This study is going to justify some new methodologies from the church that may not even be necessary...and some books to sell to go with it.

Brandon,
Thanks for the article. Well done in highlighting the issues and the perspectives.

You asked: Is the decline of religious adherence in the U.S. a sign of the death of evangelicalism? Or is it an opportunity for the gospel?

I'm thinking this might be a matter of AND, not OR. That is, the death of evangelicalism is an opportunity for the gospel. I'm not as down on evangelicalism as some of the comments have been, but I do think the less powerful/monolithic evangelicalism becomes, the more open the opportunity for the gospel.

The challenge seems to be that pretty much all of us are infected with some sense of evangelicalism and likely unable to extract what is gospel worth preserving and what needs to be thrown out. Most of us make poor choices about what is baby and what is bathwater.

-Chad Hall
www.chadhall.net

As a software engineer in Northern New England, I generally work with the scientifically educated, evolutionary humanist. Some are definitely antagonistic toward Christianity. So, I can definitely relate to a lot of what iMonk had to say.

A number of those I work with would consider themselves former Catholics or deists. They can't rationalize the science and religion question, and tend to follow science because it makes logical sense and doesn't make them feel guilty.

These people are family oriented and want to raise their kids to be normal productive successful adults. They see the need for ethics and most morals, yet don't have a rational justification for them besides the golden rule.

A good number view the church as really bad for society at large. Religion is the cause of most wars. Those with some church background definitely feel it's salvation by works and they're too busy already. Grace is not part of the equation. Religion is a crutch for the stupid.

Yet being 'intelligent' they see the stupidity of some cultural trends (Body piercing and tattoo's are proven unhealthy and are generally vain, and permanently disfigure the body.) While others they indulge in (Heavy drinking is expected on the weekends, some week nights. Recreational drug use isn't really that bad.).

The local church isn't even trying to relate to these people!

Kosmin's new book "Secularism and Science in the 21st Century" displays the reasoning behind the rising secularism (ch. 8). Kosmin displays the best secularism has to offer, and it is strangely wanting. The effect of "scientism" upon society is to devalue the person and depersonalise relationships. Of course the result of this pursuit of secularism is the removal of meaning from humanity. As Evangelical Christians we have much to offer in this barren wilderness of secularism.
The two great commandments "You shall love the Lord your God,.. and you shall love your neighbour as yourself" are relational.
In our offers of reconciliation with God (a relational term) we are offering something that is sadly lacking and produces meaning. As Evangelicals we should concentrate on being relational with our unsaved secularised neighbours (that is called "loving" them in Scripture) in order to see them enter a love relationship with their Creator.
The weakness of the Secularised system is that it doesn't recognise other forms of knowledge other than empiricism.
One of the greatest forms of knowledge not recognised by the empiricist is that of love and that of beauty. It has no place for either of these concepts within its system, yet these are givens (call them "epistemic primitives", Romans 1:20 From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. ... a presuppositional apologetic) within our consciousness.
Our evangelistic strategy as evangelicals must be to offer reconciliation to the God who relationally offers them His love.
This fills the value-free vacuum that so many of the secularised "feel".

I think the studies may show a legitimate trend, but let's put it in perspective: the U.S. is not Germany, France, England, or any number of other European nations where Christianity is essentially on its way to extinction. Yes, there may be small percentage ticks down, but all this talk of "major collapse" is just fear-mongering to play on evangelicals' irrational fear that they will eventually end up as a persecuted minority.

What I found interesting is the note that there will continue to be Evangelicals moving into either the Roman Catholic communion or to the Eastern Orthodox communion.

As a former Evangelical pastor, now Orthodox seminarian, and a former Pentecostal, I resonate with the CSM article in both the observastions about Evangelicals converting to Catholicism and Orthodoxy AND the observation that Charismatic/Pentecostal expressions of Evangelicalism will become the predominate expression of Evangelicalism in the future.

What is the key for these observations? It is the undiscovered country for Evangelical theology - Ecclesiology. Simply put, the question of "What is the Church?" is the driving force in these changes in the face of an increasingly hostile secular culture. At the heart of this struggle (and one of the main reasons I left Evangelicalism) is the theologically and practically debilitating sickness of gross individualism - "me and Jesus got our own thing going." It is simply antithetical to the Christian faith preserved for 20 centuries by the work of the Holy Spirit. While this may be an "unpleasant" development, I do believe it is a "good" developement. If it can be shaken, then let it be shaken.

"Post Christian is Pre Islamic"

Thats real helpful to the debate...

One problem is that the strength of evangelicalism is also its weakness. Its driving force is preaching the gospel. This is the primary reason of existence. This creates a culture where communication is the primary value - not worship. Even if worship nearly is all you see, it is repackaged into something whose highest value is acceptability. This will ulitmately cause the evangelical movement to compromise the gospel. Any movement acts out of its core values. In order to balance this evangelical churches need to recover a Eucharistic praxis. Reorienting the covenant meal as central in the worship service will help keep the movement theologically integrated and from selling out.

fr. matt -

amen. and thank you.

brother matt.

Once upon a time it was the Anabaptist, then the Puritans, the Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Fundamentalists; the name changes but message goes on. When the news media noted politicians were courting the "evangelical vote" and evangelical organizations started using political clout, death became imminent. We (evangelicals) have wandered from the single message of Christ crucified and we need to get back in our place. The "gates of hell will not prevail" over the proclamation of the gospel. But the Evangelical political movement; may it R.I.P.

In the Great Commission, did Jesus tell us to make converts, get people saved, etc., or did He tell us to make disciples? There is a difference. How many of our church programs are evaluated by the question: "Does this activity promote active discipleship?" Perhaps Evangelicalism needs to re-examine its priorities.

I am the more convinced that the Evangelical subculture is not dying, but dead. In the words of John 11 "Lord, he stinketh". Many have heard the phrase that "African christianity is a mile wide and an inch deep" oh that Western christianity had that degree of depth! A professor of Church History noted about our own denomination almost 20 years ago that the Pentecostal movement that had nourished our own beginnings in the life of faith was rapidly sinking into the pits of putrification. What began as a renewal movement had already lost its bearings and moved past building structure/organization and the attendant peril of ossification and moved into the graveyard of nostalgia for the "good old days" when sinners were being converted and lives were being transformed.

Let me take my own share of the blame; I was a paid pastor for almost 20 years myself, with a lamentable lack of new life in others, or myself or my own family. How can we call any movement "Evangelical" when there is precious little proclamation of any "Good News" to any but the already converted? It is a mockery of the very word, not to speak of mocking The Word Incarnate Himself! And here I am again, in a forum composed of primarily, if not exclusively, self identified "Christians". Good thing that Jesus is building His Church, because we sure are not!

Is there hope? He who is our Hope, the Blessed Hope, tells us to repent in Revelation 3. In His loving eyes, there is more than hope, there is Life. May we repent, may I repent and see the power of the Resurrection and the Fellowship of His Suffering made real, in me...and you. Amen.

Matt,
You wrote: "Once upon a time it was the Anabaptist, then the Puritans, the Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Fundamentalists; the name changes but message goes on. When the news media noted politicians were courting the "evangelical vote" and evangelical organizations started using political clout, death became imminent."

This is a great historical perspective if I am hearing you correctly. Christian history has shown us that anytime the Church in all of its forms grasps for the role of king in this world then that reveals the absence of the Spirit and decline will surely follow.

I think what we're seeing here are people showing their true colors. I never really believed that 86% of Americans were Christian. Maybe they thought they were because they were raised in church or whatever reason but never truly embraced Christ for themselves. Because of that they were more apt to be swayed by the world or by the hard teachings in the bible. Plus the bible says the love of many will grow cold.

Normally, when you invest money, you diversify the stocks that you purchase so that you do not overly expose yourself to one company’s potential failure. When it comes to your retirement account, this is a wise move. What may work in the financial realm, however, will not work in the spiritual realm. To experience Christ fully, to please Him, to have His full blessing, and to glorify Him, we must “put all of our eggs in ONE basket.”
This is the "all or nothing" devotion to which Jesus calls us. We have tried unsuccessfully as the people of God to diversify ourselves spiritually. We have been trying to invest some in God, some in materialism, some in self-protection, some in self-glorification, and some in fleshly pleasures. We have sought to appease Christ, rather than to please Him, even though Christ is NEVER appeased (Revelation 2:4-5).
We have taken on a similar mindset as the culture that surrounds us. Is this not the very mindset of most of the people in our nation? Even the lost that do not come to church tend to view themselves as spiritual/religious people that believe in God.
Can God bless this apathetic, half-hearted Christianity? Is it any wonder that the Church is so fruitless in our nation?

We must not stop at despair over what is taking place in the Church. Instead, we must get a laser-beam focus on Christ and cry out to him for cleansing and for the filling of the Holy Spirit (2 Chronicles 7:14).

Personally, I do not sense antagonism from everyday people toward evangelical Christianity. Rather, there is an ignorance among average people about Christianity. The vast majority of unbelievers I encounter do not seem to have heard the true and simple Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What this tells me is that we have our minds and hands in so many other things, that we are not doing our primary job as believers (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8; Luke 19:10; etc.)

May God cleanse us and pour out His grace upon us that we may be the bride of Christ ready for His return.

I don;t think anything has given Christianity a bad taste in the unsaved mouths then the conservative republican movement leading to church as a business/poltical force, Christians in self-will run riot putting power, money, political agendas ahead of the good of the country or the cause of Christ. What Bush, Chaney, DeLay, Ken Lay, Reed and others have done in damage to the cause of Christ in their lust for poltical power and corporate control cannot be measured. Anyone working with the unsaved knows this. They ask me, why should I be a Christian, you're just like everyone else, besides you're intolerant and won't accept me anyway. That kept me from the church for years until God opened my eyes. For many of us, evangelical church values has meant southern American political and cultural values and not biblical values, and as a result, many out there don't like us. Most of our bible publishing, record companies, book stores, and radio stations are now owned by secular comglommerents. We are not separate from the world, the world owns us and the unsaved know this. Many of us are leaving the church because of we are tired of the doctrinal/ political BS from the pulpit. Many of us just want to know Christ and Him alone, the rest of the man made garbage don't matter. The closer you come to Christ, the further away you get from religion anyway, which was Paul's whole point. It's time for the church to grow up past teenager tibalism into the mature love of the father that casts out fear. We have to start loving these folks; they are hurting, they need us to be Christ to them, not doctrine/dogma and they are not getting that from us. As a Christian, I see more love, tolerance, acceptance and rigourous honesty in 12 step rooms like AA/NA than I see in many churches these days. As a church, I feel the best thing would be a collapse and a going back to the basics; there is a God and I'm not it. A true relationship with each other can happen despite technology. It happens all the time in AA/NA, it should happen in the church. Read the 12 step traditions and imagine a church run on them; no buildings, no ownership of groups, no leaders except as servants, free will contributions as God leads to keep the group going, honest sharing and storytelling like in the early church, a binding together in love and accountability because of a common disease (with us, the sin disease), a willingness to go to any lengths to change, the knowledge that one cannot live life without God's and each other's help, a simple structure to follow minus gross man made interpretations. We have made individualism an idol in the church and have lost community. I believe unless Christianity comes back to a genuine humility, honesty and realness in Christ, there will be no Christianity within a generation. The folks will have found their way to other spiritual paths that God will use to reach them. We are becoming a dead thing, minus any reality of what Christ was really all about, just like the church of Christ's day. Despite all our protestations that we have a personal relationship with Him, most of us don't really know the meaning of true surrender. He died for us, not just me. This is what we have forgotten

I think that people are waking up to the deficiencies of a pragmatic Evangelicalism that sometimes favors the ego's of the leadership without much real value to the attendees. People are tired of Sunday production without a sense of community throughout the week. Small groups is heralded as the solution to this alienation but the value of these groups is over-emphasized. We need to return to the spirituality of Evangelicalism in smaller churches capable of creating and sustaining the kinds of inner depth needed to be the church.

When I read this report in USA Today, I really didn't see the results as signaling the end of evangelicalism. After all, change is constant in non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christianity - and that's okay. Also, now that people can admit to not being Christians without being condemned socially, I think we're seeing the numbers of "true" Christians, authentic Christians. If we could see the numbers of authentic Christians over the centuries, we might see that the numbers have held steady if not actually grown over time.

What we in all areas of Christianity need to do now - and always - is to take long, hard looks at ourselves and ask the Holy Spirit to show us where we need to improve (which will cause a lot of arguments, of course, but anyway...)

People, especially the under-40 crowd, associate evangelicalism with the Religious Right. Not helping matters is the fact that Baby Boomer evangelicals are still proud card-carrying members of the Religious Right and seem determined to keep fighting the same losing battles - and they seem too old and set in their ways to ponder whether they made mistakes by following folks like Pat Robertson and Bush. I see the evangelical implosion already taking shape - most of the evangelicals are Boomers, with less than 10 years of physical vitality left. The next generation needs to make some real changes. The coming generation needs to value the intellect, learn to be skeptical of emotions, and be open to fine-tuning certain outmoded doctrines like Biblical inerrancy. They also need to re-think Christian spirituality - think of how one can have a real experience of God that isn't just trying to get an emotional high, or rationally articulating the correct doctrines. Brian McLaren and Rob Bell made some fumbling, flawed first attempts at starting the conversation and found themselves ushered out of the evangelical movement by Mark Driscoll and the other guardians of the angry, fundamentalist Christianity that now defines evangelicalism. Maybe someone else will come along with better luck.

Interesting and provocative article. Especially the lines

"“We are on the verge—within 10 years—of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity.""

and

""This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West,”"

The problem is that evangelical Christianity is not Jesus. Society does not want Jesus...which is nothing new. The mockery of Jesus and Christians has become so blatant (try watching Southpark) and acceptable that is really is difficult to imagine anything that would change peoples' minds.

The other problem is that for almost every story in the evangelical playbook there is a secular "counter story"...creationism (of any kind) is checked by naturalistic evolution, the Holy Spirit by cognitive neuroscience, traditional marriage by legitimization of homosexuality, beauty for pornography. Evangelical Christianity simply does not have the resources within it to counter these challenges...because the "good news" is no longer good.

I am skeptical that the attitude will necessarily be blatant persecution of Christians, instead what you might find is a
society that simply doesn't care. Where was the church when my parents divorced? What does Jesus have to do with social security? The church has failed to make its gospel relevant...which is bad news for everybody.

I personally think you can blame media for the downfall. How many times have Christians be made to look mean, freakish, judgemental in movies and t.v. shows. Evil and darkness is rampant in the entertainment industry and that industry has such a power over the younger generations. Those of you who have mentioned some political figures...your opinion of them have been so molded by the media and how the media wants them protrayed. Name one positive story about Christians in the media. This is just another step in the downward spiral of the world. All of the prophecy is coming true and true Christians will be persecuted in the end.

Are we in the world and not of the world? I think not, especially at CT online. Lots of coverage of mainstream concerns--most recently, depression and abuse in our homes--let's all go run off to a secular psychologist and worship at the altar of the DSM IV! Depression and abuse are real, but it won't help to completely leave out that New Testament part about the community of believers.....and even secular psych research says that participation in activities with others is of great help. So long as most men are suspected of abuse, we won't be coming back to church in the numbers that you might wish. So long as all discouragement is upgraded to depression, and drugs and clinical "sicko-therapy" are the only answer--many will note your dependence on totally non spiritual answers.

Perhaps there are too many sooth sayers and sibyls out there. Spencers predictions are guesses at best based on present circumstances. But if I may have my say my best guess is that the movement will divide itself to death. It will no longer have a center and it will have over accommodated itself to secular culture and loose a sense of the sacred.

If 'Evangelicalism' is a political movement focused on social and political issues then it is good that its dominance is coming to an end.

If, however, it is a strand of the Christian Church that takes seriously the imperative to proclaim the Lordship of Christ over all creation, then it's demise is a tragedy.

Sadly, what society sees as the dominant 'Christian' image is neo-conservatives at prayer: with a whole range of beliefs about economics, military defense, foreign policy, tax policy, etc, which have no origin in Holy Scripture. If this is terminally ill, then bring it on.

I think that evangelicalism's doctrinal minimalism (i.e. insistence on only the basic, non-negotiable doctrines) while (somewhat) consistent with its epistemology also dovetails rather well with society's prevailing relativism. As such it seems to have become anchorless and rudderless, which is why one of the distinguishing traits of evangelicalism is its addiction to fads and trends. We see how far things have gone when theological debate is not about freewill vs. predestination but about whether God knows the future. The tail of culture has been wagging this dog for some time now.

I sense a coming evangelical split. Some will retreat back into fundamentalism with its cultural isolation and avoidance of complexity. Some are already following the path of liberal Protestantism but follow at a distance. Some, as Spencer notes, move toward Catholicism or Orthodoxy. The Church preceded evangelicalism and will outlast it.

I think if you look at what's happened in Europe, you'll see the future of American Christianity. Our faith is dying in europe and already is dead in some places. Many people over there look at Americans as religious nuts. They say things like "you don't need God/Jesus/Religion to have a just society" and they point to models like Sweden, where Christianity is all but dead and the people enjoy a high level of cradle to grave care (not to mention avoiding wars and terror). In America, a Christian nation, we have 44 million without health insurance, violence and incarceration rates that are ridiculous. People look around them and say, why do I need Jesus? Look at his followers: they're judgmental, mean, hypocritical and often thieves. We don't want what they're selling.
I think the propositional approach to spreading the Gospel has failed. I think only the loving, stalwart approach, leavened with kindness and humility is the only hope for western Christianity, much less evangelicalism.

toddh, I fully agree with your comment. Too many people are falling into the trap of individualism, by saying, all I need is Jesus and my Bible. If that were the case God would have stopped at Adam, but He didn't he gave Adam Eve. This is also one of my reasons for moving into the Catholic church from the evangelical church. You are correct that while uncomfortable, because changed is not always comfortable, it is a good shift and a very much needed shift.

I think Spencer's assessments are a bit too hasty. My primary issue with his conclusion is that he seems to define "evangelicalism" with church affiliation. But if we are to take David Bebbington's four marks of evangelicalism, church affiliation doesn't figure into the definition of evangelicalism. For more on this, see my blog: http://www.semaphoric.org/culture/rumors-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated

PRETRIB RAPTURE DISHONESTY

by Dave MacPherson

When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I assumed that the rapture debate involved only "godly scholars with honest differences." The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave up that assumption many years ago. With this introduction-of-sorts in mind, let's take a long look at the pervasive dishonesty throughout the history of the 179-year-old pretrib rapture theory:

Mid-1820's - German scholar Max Weremchuk's work "John Nelson Darby" (1992) included what Benjamin Newton revealed about John Darby in the mid-1820's during his pre-Brethren days as an Anglican clergyman:
"J. N. Darby was a very subtle man. He had been a lawyer, or at least educated for the law. Once he wanted his Archbishop to pursue a certain course, when he (J.N.D.) was a curate in his diocese. He wrote a letter, therefore, saying he had been educated for the law, knew what the legal course would properly be; and then having written that clearly, he mystified the remainder of the letter both in word and in handwriting, and ended up by saying: You see, my Lord, such being the legal aspect of the case it would unquestionably be the best course for you to pursue, etc. And the Archbishop couldn't make out the legal part, but rested on Darby's word and did as he advised. Darby afterwards laughed over it, and indeed he showed a copy of the letter to Tregelles. This is not mentioned in the Archbishop's biography, but in it is the fact that he spoke of Darby as 'the most subtle man in my diocese.'"
This reminds me of an 1834 letter by Darby which spoke of the "Lord's coming." Darby added, concerning this coming, that "the thoughts are new" and that during any teaching of it "it would not be well to have it so clear." Darby's deviousness here was his usage of a centuries-old term - "Lord's coming" - to cover up his desire to sneak the new pretrib idea into existing posttrib groups in very low-profile ways!
1830 - In the spring of 1830 a young Scottish lassie, Margaret Macdonald, came up with the novel notion of a catching up [rapture] of Spirit-filled "church" members before Antichrist's "trial" [tribulation] of non-Spirit-filled "church" members - the first instance I've found of clear "pretrib" teaching (which was part of a partial rapture scheme). In Sep. 1830 "The Morning Watch" (a journal produced by London preacher Edward Irving and his "Irvingite" followers, some of whom had visited Margaret a few weeks earlier) began repeating her original thoughts and even her wording but gave her no credit - the first plagiarism I've found in pretrib history. Darby was still defending posttrib in Dec. 1830.
Pretrib promoters have long known the significance of her main point: a rapture of "church" members BEFORE the revealing of Antichrist. Which is why John Walvoord quoted nothing in her revelation, why Thomas Ice habitually skips over her main point but quotes lines BEFORE and AFTER it, and why Hal Lindsey muddies up her main point so he can (falsely) assert that she was NOT a pretribber! (Google "X-Raying Margaret" for info about her.)
NOTE: The development of the 1800's is thoroughly documented in my book "The Rapture Plot." You'll learn that Darby wasn't original on any chief aspect of dispensationalism (but plagiarized the Irvingites); that pretrib was initially based on only OT and NT symbols and not clear Scripture; that the symbols included the Jewish feasts, the two witnesses, and the man child - symbols adopted by Darby during most of his career; that Darby's later reminiscences exaggerated his earliest pretrib development, and that today's defenders such as Thomas Ice have further overstated what Darby overstated; that Irvingism didn't need later reminiscences to "clarify" its own early pretrib development; that ancient hymns and even the writings of the Reformers were subtly revised to make it appear they had taught pretrib; and that after Darby's death a clever revisionist quietly made many changes in early Irvingite and Brethren documents in order to steal credit for pretrib away from the Irvingites (and their female inspiration!) and give it dishonestly to Darby! (Before continuing, Google the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site and read "America's Pretrib Rapture Traffickers" - a sample of the current exciting internetism!)
1920 - Charles Trumbull's book "The Life Story of C. I. Scofield" told only the dispensationally-correct side of his life. Two recent books, Joseph Canfield's "The Incredible Scofield and His Book" (1988) and David Lutzweiler's "DispenSinsationalism: C. I. Scofield's Life and Errors" (2006), reveal the other side including his being jailed as a forger, dishonestly giving himself a non-conferred "D.D." etc. etc.!
1967 - Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon's "The Origins of the Brethren" quoted Darby associate Lord Congleton who was "disgusted with...the falseness" of Darby's accounts of things. Rowdon also quoted historian William Neatby who said that others felt that "the time-honoured method of single combat" was as good as anything "to elicit the truth" from Darby. (In other words, knock it out of him!)
1972 - Tim LaHaye's "The Beginning of the End" (1972) plagiarized Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970).
1976 - Charles Ryrie"s "The Living End" (1976) plagiarized Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970) and "There's A New World Coming" (1973).
1976 - After John Walvoord's "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (1976) brutally twisted Robert Gundry's "The Church and the Tribulation" (1973), Gundry composed and circulated a 35-page open letter to Walvoord which repeatedly charged the Dallas Seminary president with "misrepresentation," "misrepresentations" (and variations)!
1981 - "The Fundamentalist Phenomenon" (1981) by Jerry Falwell, Ed Dobson, and Ed Hindson heavily plagiarized George Dollar's 1973 book "A History of Fundamentalism in America."
1984 - After a prof at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in Florida told me that the No. 2 man at the AG world headquarters in Missouri - Joseph Flower - had the label of posttrib, my wife and I had two hour-long chats with him. He verified what I had been told. But we were dumbstruck when he told us that although AG ministers are required to promote pretrib, privately they can believe any other rapture view! Flower said that his father, an AG co-founder, was also posttrib. We also learned while in Springfield that when the AG's were organized in 1914, the initial group was divided between posttribs and pretribs - but that the pretribs shouted louder which resulted in that denomination officially adopting pretrib! (For details on this and other pretrib double-mindedness, Google "Pretrib Hypocrisy.")
1989 - Since 1989 Thomas Ice has referred to the "Mac-theory" (his reference to my research), giving the impression there's no solid evidence that Macdonald was the real pretrib originator. But Ice carefully conceals the fact that no eminent church historian of the 1800's - whether Plymouth Brethren or Irvingite - credited Darby with pretrib. Instead, they uniformly credited leading Irvingite sources, all of which upheld the Scottish lassie's contribution! Moreover, I'm hardly the only modern scholar seeing significance in Irvingism's territory. Others in recent years who have noted it, but who haven't mined it as deeply as I have, include Fuller, Ladd, Bass, Rowdon, Sandeen, and Gundry.
1989 - Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry produced evidence in 1989 that Lindsey's book "The Road to Holocaust" (1989) plagiarized "Dominion Theology" (1988) by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice.
1990 - David Jeremiah's and C. C. Carlson's "Escape the Coming Night" (1990) massively plagiarized Lindsey's 1973 book "There's A New World Coming." (For more info, type in "Thieves' Marketing" on MSN or Google.)
1991 - Paul Lee Tan's "A Pictorial Guide to Bible Prophecy" (1991) plagiarized large amounts of Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970).
1991 - Militant Darby defender R. A. Huebner claimed in 1991 to have found new evidence that Darby was pretrib as early as 1827 - three years before Macdonald. Halfway through his book Huebner suddenly admitted that his evidence could refer to something completely un-rapturesque. Even though Thomas Ice admitted to me that he knew that Huebner had "blown" his so-called evidence, prevaricator Ice continues to tell the world that Huebner has "positive evidence" that Darby was pretrib in 1827! Ice also conceals the fact that Darby, in his own 1827 paper, was looking for only "the restitution of all things" and "the times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19,21) - which Scofield doesn't see fulfilled until AFTER a future tribulation!
1992 - Tim LaHaye's "No Fear of the Storm" (1992) plagiarized Walvoord's "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (1976).
1992 - This was when the Los Angeles Times revealed that "The Magog Factor" (1992) by Hal Lindsey and Chuck Missler was a monstrous plagiarism of Prof. Edwin Yamauchi's scholarly 1982 work "Foes from the Northern Frontier." Four months after this exposure, Lindsey and Missler stated they had stopped publishing and promoting their book. But in 1996 Dr. Yamauchi learned that the dishonest duo had issued a 1995 book called "The Magog Invasion" which still had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (If Lindsey and Missler ever need hernia operations, I predict that the doctors will tell them not to lift anything for a long time!)
1994 - In 1996 it was revealed that Lindsey's "Planet Earth - 2000 A.D. (1994) had an embarrassing amount of plagiarism of a Texe Marrs book titled "Mystery Mark of the New Age" (1988).
1995 - My book "The Rapture Plot" reveals the dishonesty in Darby's reprinted works. It's often hard to tell who wrote the footnotes and when. It's easy to believe that the notes, and also unsigned phrases inside brackets within the text, were a devious attempt by someone (Darby? his editor?) to portray a Darby far more developed in pretrib thinking than he actually had been at the time. I found that some of the "additives" had been taken from Darby's much later works, when he was more developed, and placed next to or inside his earliest works! One footnote by Darby's editor, attached to Darby's 1830 paper, actually stated that "it was not worth while either suppressing or changing" anything in this work! If his editor wasn't open to such dishonesty, how can we explain such a statement?
Post-1995 - Thomas Ice's article "Inventor of False Pre-Trib Rapture History" states that my book "The Rapture Plot" is "only one of the latest in a series of revisions of his original discourse...." And David Reagan in his article "The Origin of the Concept of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture" repeats Ice's falsehood by claiming that I have republished my first book "over the years under several different titles."
Although my book repeats a bit of the Macdonald origin of pretrib (for new readers), all of my books are packed with new material not found in my other works. For some clarification, "The Incredible Cover-Up" has photos of pertinent places in Ireland, Scotland, and England not found in my later books plus several chapters dealing with theological arguments; "The Great Rapture Hoax" quotes scholars throughout the Church Age, covers Scofield's hidden side, a section on Powerscourt, the 1980 election, the Jupiter Effect, Gundry's change, and more theological arguments; "The Rapture Plot" reveals for the first time the Great Evangelical Revisionism/Robbery and includes appendices on miscopying, plagiarism, etc.; and "The Three R's" shows hypocritical evangelicals employing occultic beliefs they say they have long opposed!
So Thomas Ice etc. are twisting truth when they claim I am only a revisionist. Do they really think that my publishers DON'T know what I've previously written?
Re arguments, Google "Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts" and also obtain "The End Times Passover" and "Why Christians Will Suffer 'Great Tribulation' " (AuthorHouse, 2006) by media personality Joe Ortiz.
1997 - For years Harvest House Publishers has owned and been republishing Lindsey's book "There's A New World Coming." During the same time Lindsey has been peddling his reportedly "new" book "Apocalyse Code" (1997), much of which is word-for-word the same as the Harvest House book - and there's no notice of "simultaneous publishing" in either book! Talk about pretrib greed!
1997 - This is the year I discovered that more than 50 pages of Dallas Seminary professor Merrill Unger's book "Beyond the Crystal Ball" (Moody Press, 1973) constituted a colossal plagiarism of Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970). After Lindsey's book came out, Unger had complained that Lindsey's book had plagiarized his classroom lecture notes. It was evident that Unger felt that he too should cash in on his own lectures! (The detailed account of this Dallas Seminary dishonesty is revealed in my 1998 book "The Three R's.")
1998 - Tim LaHaye's "Understanding the Last Days" (1998) plagiarized Lindsey's "There's A New World Coming" (1973).
1999 - More than 200 pages (out of 396 pages) in Lindsey's 1999 book "Vanished Into Thin Air" are virtually carbon copies of pages in his 1983 book "The Rapture" - with no "updated" or "revised" notice included! Lindsey has done the same nervy thing with several of his books, something that has allowed him to live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars like Ferraris! (See my Google articles "Deceiving and Being Deceived" and "Thieves' Marketing" for further evidence of this notably pretrib vice.)
2000 - A Jack Van Impe article "The Moment After" (2000) plagiarized Grant Jeffrey's book "Final Warning" (1995).
2001 - Since 2001 my web article "Walvoord's Posttrib 'Varieties' - Plus" has been exposing his devious muddying up of posttrib waters. In some of his books he invented four "distinct" and "contradictory" posttrib divisions, claiming that they are either "classic" or "semiclassic" or "futurist" or "dispensational" - distinctions that disappear when analyzed! His "futurist" group holds to a literal future tribulation and a literal millennium but doesn't embrace "any day" imminency. But his "dispensational" group has the same non-imminency! Moreover, tribulational futurism is found in every group except the first one, and he somehow admitted that a literal millennium is in all four groups! On the other hand, it's the pretribs who consistently disagree with each other over their chief points and subpoints - but somehow end up agreeing that there will be a pretrib rapture! (See my chapter "A House Divided" in my book "The Incredible Cover-Up.")
2001 - Since my "Deceiving and Being Deceived" web item which exposed the claims for Pseudo-Ephraem" and "Morgan Edwards" as teachers of pretrib, there has been a piranha-like frenzy on the part of pretrib bodyguards and their duped groupies to "discover" almost anything before 1830 walking upright on two legs that seemed to have at least a remote hint of pretrib! (An exemplary poster boy for such pretrib practice is Grant Jeffrey. To get your money's worth, Google "Wily Jeffrey.")

FINALLY: Don't take my word for any of the above. Read my 300-page book "The Rapture Plot" which has a jillion more documented details on the long-hidden but now-revealed history of the dishonest, 179-year-old, fringe-British-invented, American-merchandised-until-the-real-bad-stuff-happens pretribulation rapture fad. If this book of mine doesn't "move" you, I will personally refund what you paid for it!

[The above is just some of evangelicalism's dirty linen. Are you concerned?]

Thank you so much. It is great information. I appreciate this information. You have done nice job.