Denominations are easy to criticize, but the concept of denominations is actually a good one--they recognized that they are different "names" for distinct segments of the Body, but they also recognize that there are many "denominations" that make up the Body of Christ.

If we can admit that the voices that represent me are merely a few of the many that make up the Body, that's a good thing.

I am unclear as to whether the author is saying that the "united"spokesperson of Billy Graham etc was a good thing or not? I personally am not sure they really did speak for the church-I think they spoke for the white male churches and denominations. They certianly did not speak for the black American church! Actually the different voices now bring out the reality of the true church-it is very different dependent on your age, income, location, gendar, etc. The TRUTH of God's Word does not chane but the face of the church is and should be very diverse. I, for one, do not want any of the Jims speaking for me.

Some of these men who have become or have been spokesmen for the Evangelicals in America for the most part were not trying to be spokesmen. I suppose when you become the head of the National Association of Evangelicals you become a natural spokesman, but for whom and for what? Most of these men were simply called upon to answer some questions at various times and in various situations. Often the criteria for selection was simply the size and influence of their church rather than some voted upon consensus that they were leaders and spokesmen. Some men like Billy Graham, without churches, had such prominent positions in the world that they too became spokesmen. They do not and cannot address every issue there is in regard to the Church in America. Whether I agree with them all of the time or not, they tend to become someone people turn to when they are trying to get a pulse on Evangelicals. It is like Mother Teresa; whether you like it or not, she became someone symbolic of the Church and its compassion in the world.

In these positions of being spokesmen, these men do not dictate the questions or issues to be addressed for the most part. In some cases like with Jerry Falwell there was an agenda set by the spokesman, but even that was limited and not an agreed position of how all Evangelicals should be involved politically. I would hope that Trish would not want to be identified with men like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Despite the volume and frequency of these men in the public eye, Martin Luther King Jr. they are not. Nor do they speak for the Church. They speak for their own grandeur and public appearance notoriety rather than anything to do with what God would want said in the public arena. Men like Sharpton are clearly self-serving in their efforts.

As a minority, whether or not the spokesman is white is not the criteria I consider as the most important issue to be raised in regard to who will speak for Evangelicals. Do they speak “as the oracles of God” and are they men of integrity, these are more important to me than someone being of my own nationality. I am a Christian first. While Ted haggard was not a good example of someone who was a nationally recognized spokesman, Leith Anderson as head of the National Association of Evangelicals is a great example of someone who can be relied upon to weigh the issues and give a rational and compassionate answer.

So, while I agree with Trish there are some who are spokesmen who do not speak for me or the issues of my race, there are some Jims that I think are worthy spokesmen…even if they do not. They speak God’s truth into the public forum and that is good enough for me.

I suppose it depends on the evangelical. Billy Graham still holds much influence with me. John Stott continues to pour forth amazing wisdom and is truly an evangelical treasure. Eugene Peterson helps me slow down and go deeper into scripture and my spiritual life. I definitely value his thoughts and writings. Of course, we have Mark Driscoll and John Piper representing neo reformers / neo Calvinism. For me, Tim Keller stands out for the PCA / reformed as well. The author of this, another reformed pastor, John Ortberg, is definitely an influential voice who continues to enliven scripture for me though Menlo’s podcasts. Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are especially influential on issues of social justice. Tony pumps me up and motivates me too. Then we have Tony’s former Student, Shane Claibourne who is inspiring and challenging many of us. In regards to helping the poor and “the least of these”, especially among the third world , I go to Richard Stearns and Wesley Stafford. From a historical perspective, Marc Noll is an awesome point man. N.T. Wright, need I say more… On the missional front, Alan Hirsch continues to author books which get underlines and markings on virtually every page for me. For Old Testament to Christian mission , the Anglican, Christopher Wright is quite the resource too. Brueggemann is key on the Old Testment side for sure. For creation stewardship, I go to R.J. Berry. I’m not sure what category to place Frank Viola in, but he definitely emphasizes Christology, as does Hirsch (i.e.:Rejesus). If you want to know about new religious movements, I recommend the Australian Baptist, Philip Johnson , or John Morehead. John Stackhouse and Leonard Sweet are great resources to better understand culture. My list which is not limited to this paragraph is different than yours. However, I think this is a good thing as the Holy Spirit works through each of us differently. Looking at this list, it’s sad that I don’t have any non western Christians mentioned which means I know I’m missing much from the perspective of the global body of Christ.

Three thoughts. First: the underlying challenge is defining "evangelical". David Bebbington's 4-fold definition of biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism helps, but still requires defining each of the 4 categories. The NT seems much more content with the simple confession, "Jesus is Lord", but this assumes we can agree on who Jesus is and what it means to follow him as Lord. Today there is no universally accepted definition of "evangelical". Perhaps that is a good thing because I'm sure that if we could define it, it would be either too broad to be meaningful for some or too narrow and so risk excluding others. Ortberg is right to suspect that we couldn't even agree on whether there is a table. However, some evangelicals might feel that other evangelicals wouldn't know a table if they met one.

Second: this discussion as a whole is the luxury of the western church! Christians facing persecution and day-to-day struggles in other parts of the world probably don't have the luxury of wondering who speaks for them - in fact, sadly, many of us in the West, who should be speaking for them (our sisters and brothers in Christ), don't!

Third: having said this, the conversation, rather than the conclusion, may be more important. If, even at local church levels, we can engage in thoughtful, humble dialogue with one another, we may be surprised to discover that it's not that important who speaks for us, but more important that we have something (Someone) of importance to speak about!

The longer I'm in ministry, they less I want to be identified with a "spokesman". I'm especially uncomfortable with some of our more angry brethren who make great sound-bites but whose speech is lacking the seasoning of grace. I wonder if isn't healthy to be difficult to pigeon-hole.

When a high-profile leader flames out, heartbreak is mingled with relief that I had not closely aligned my position with theirs. Maybe I'm dealing with a reluctance to really trust, having been burned by so many high-profile leaders?

While it might be helpful to have someone who can speak for Christ's church, isn't it more biblical to need to talk with people one-on-one?

Who speaks for me? At the final judgment, there's only One who will speak for me: the Advocate, Jesus Christ, who will say either "Well done, enter into your reward," or "I never knew you."

That's probably the only answer that matters, ultimately. Human spokespersons, even the one called "the vicar of Christ," are all sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and always sinners in need of grace.

We will not have a spokesperson or spokes-model, but what we are in need of is a voice of consensus that will be hammered out in council. The early church defined and defended her/our faith and we live in such a time as to have it clarified again.

We have crossed over a very prophetic time line: the third millennium. Every 500 years give or take a significant transformation takes place upon the landscape of the church.

1-500 Creeds, Councils & Canons
500- 1000 Great Schism East & West
1000-1500 Protestant Reformation
1500-2000

It is upon us, we all sense it, we can't and maybe even shouldn't try to define it but we must collectively begin to dialog about it and with today's technology we may have a fighting chance to contend earnestly for the faith that has been handed down to us in our day.

This is an interesting article because it raises some broader issues.

Like Trish notes: did anyone really speak for the Evangelical church in the past? The white, middle-class faction was certainly represented. But did that representation help? Or did it only coalesce and reinforce the blending of Evangelicalism with the American Way of the early 20th Century?

I'd make this argument: Evangelicalism's heritage is problematic precisely because it has none. It's a movement whose main motivation was to distance itself from Fundamentalist, Catholics, and Pentecostals. All those movements were fraught with embarrassing, counter-cultural tradition, doctrine, and practices. For those who wanted a mass Christianity it had to appeal to the mass culture. Therefore it made sense to reduce everything to principles, private, and personal. A movement birthed with Neo-liberalism's gospel principles mixed with American private sensibilities and crossed with Billy Graham's personal Jesus experience. It was the answer to question, "How can my Christianity coexist with my American lifestyle?" This is seen in C.F.H. Henry's push for inerrant principles not inerrant practices. As an Evangelical I can think differently without having to act differently.

It's possible no one is speaking for the Evangelical Church because it isn't saying anything. They've become so culturally attenuated that Glenn Beck is probably the closest real thing they have to a speaker. He's religious, political, and unashamed. But isn't he Mormon? Does it matter? This is the Evangelical heritage: a checklist of personal principles over outward practice. On a hundred point checklist, Glenn Beck would differ only by 10 points from any leading Evangelical. But there would also be a 10 point (or more) difference among Jim Baker, Swagger, Wallis, or Dobson, or Kennedy and they're allowed under the umbrella. Evangelicalism is founded on the lowest common-denominator belief system and it's a little too late to get choosy now.

I don't know that Evangelicalism was ever supposed to have a speaker. It was supposed to create an acceptable theological bridge to the dominant culture. And it succeeded. This is why Oprah, Osteen, or Obama can just as easily speak for Evangelicals today: we just selectively apply their bits and pieces to the loosely held platitudes that comprise our spirituality.

Who speaks for us today? I'd like to see the Body of Christ speak with power and compassion in the midst of a perverse generation and a dying world. In fact, I'd like to see a whole lot less speaking and more doing. And while there has been token gestures toward social justice and compassion ministries in the last decade, they aren't making a difference and these efforts have ended up as so much empty marketing. Surely compassion ministries and social justice extend beyond fixing up yards, handing out water, and random acts of kindness? It isn't that Evangelicals don't care, it's that they confuse the church as another social service. Unless the church moves in the power of Christ as the community of the Spirit, it will never have anything to offer the world around them. Unless the church speaks prophetically it has nothing to say.

Anyway, I enjoyed the post, thanks John.

A major reason for the apparent lack of "official spokesman" is the Biblical teachings of sainthood of believers and autonomy of local churches. This was generally the case throughout church history. Another reason is that many of the groups are "self-centered" and not evangelistic. This is why Billy Graham was so well recognized and supported by churches and Christians. I think evangelicals need to get back to the basic: proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations, regardless of ages or generations.

If James Kennedy speaks for evangelicals, he will do so from the grave. Dr. Kennedy died in September 2007.

"Do Christians even need a unified voice?"
Yes and No.
Yes we need to be as unified as the Son is with the Father. That means we have throw off many traditions that feel good to us but are bogus from what God has asked for. Our unity should be in both what we say and what we do. The voice of the church in my opinion is 90% voice and 10% action. The world is weary of our words when actions are hard to find. I think this huge warp is due to the main gathering of saints being 90% words by one hired expert and very little true body life that reflects our identity. Saints have suckered for an "alternative lifestyle" for thousands of years now.

No, a unified voice from one celebrity Christian is not needed. It would make many saints feel good and more powerful, but it would be one more way saints outsource to experts their responsibility to speak and act the gospel on a heart to heart basis with the lost. The God we worship is always a heart to heart God. He never speaks in one-way communication with 0% feedback desired.

Lots of really good points and counterpoints. After thinking about this overnight and reading more posts, I think I feel like the question is not "who speaks for us?" but "who do we speak to and what are we speaking for"? In some ways-it really doesn't matter who speaks to the press or media or what they say-I need to continue to be a disciple of Jesus, love the lost and needy, speak and work for justice, and walk humbly. The unity of the Jesus's body is more important than a lot of these other issues.

Maybe we don't need a spokesperson.

Maybe we need to become anonymous servants countering a culture of celebrity.

Maybe we finally can move beyond elevating a man above his pulpit and letting our actions and love speak volumes more than our rhetoric and positions.

Seems to me the media wants to pigeon-hole Christians, but the New Testament teaches that there is no supreme undershepherd. There is just the Shepherd.

Because in reality,
You are the Church!

Kudos to Robert! Great point!

Jesus speaks for me. Plus, while the Catholic church has always had a spokesman, they've been just as divided as we have in the sense that that person while speaking for the church, often did not get everyone's backing. Many Catholics have not practiced or believed in natural family planning, just to name one issue. In more recent years, the credibility of their spokesman (or the people's faith in that person) has crumbled with sex scandals and closings of local parishes. So, we would all be better off looking to Christ and holding loosely to our earthly leaders.

By the way, loved that paragraph near the end out about the "Jimmys". So appropo.

I think most of the posts over-complicate the question. "Who speaks for you?" means "Who is writing/preaching what you are thinking/believing/practicing?"

My answer is John Stott, Rob Bell, and Bruxy Cavey.

Michael Patrick, interesting 500-year historical breakdowns. My decision after decades of being swept along with the various movements within Bible-believing circles as an Evangelical, yet never finding the consistency of intimacy with Christ I sought, was to return to the Church of the first 500 years and which still exists, having continued to build on that foundation--the Eastern Orthodox Church. I discovered that the Eastern Orthodox had remained the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, sacramentally and dogmatically united, despite no central (human) leadership (no papacy) and various diverse ethnic contexts, and never formally adopted any of the subsequent theological developments of the West. From an EO perspective, Western schisms and reforms, though frequently well-intentioned, have never properly re-established the Western churches firmly on their foundation of a fully Apostolic Christian faith. The Eastern Orthodox Church has many spokesmen and women (not all universally respected even within our own traditions), but those whom we universally respect and offer to the world are our recognized Saints. Ultimately, most would probably agree with the EO that the Christian's only infallible Spokesman is the Holy Spirit (and He doesn't disagree with Himself!). He speaks most clearly to the world in and through the lives of the Saints and the consensus of their witness that still unfolds to the present day.

When you ask "Who speaks for you?" the first thing that comes to mind is politics--because that is where the most noise is made. Answer: No one. Especially not Glenn Beck and his ilk. Theologically, the two who come the closest are both deceased: Elizabeth Achtemeier and Helmut Thielicke. I'm just trying to align myself and my preaching with the Scriptures and no one's "pulpit" in particular. I realize that leaves the question wide open, but it's my best and most accurate answer.

First, I think the question posed by John Ortberg ought to be rephrased a little. I think the question that he is really asking is "who speaks for the evangelicals?" as opposed to "who speaks for you?". That is, there is a presumption that most or all of the readers here are "evangelicals".

And even rephrased that way, there is still plenty of ambiguity. The term "evangelical" no longer has a concrete definition in terms of the body of Christian doctrine which is shared by that group. Instead the term often denotes an amorphous self-identified group whose defining characteristics are not at all clear.

Indeed, I was struck by the inclusion of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell on the list above. These men in what they have taught deny the fundamentals of Christianity, including the fact that Jesus vicariously suffered and died in the place of sinners to save them from sin and death and grant them eternal life. Any definition of "evangelical" that includes those teaching such things with those teaching the historical truths of the faith is too broad.

So, who would I trust to represent my views on governmental and social issues to political leaders, believing that they are faithful representatives of historical orthodoxy (to varying degrees) and effective, educated spokesmen? John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and J.I. Packer would be a good starter list. As for the (slightly) younger crowd, I'd start with Al Mohler, Tullian Tchividjian, Tim Keller,

Christ speaks for me... The rest are simply commentators.

We are all one in Christ. Jesus asks who do you say I am? Those who have had a revelation of who Jesus is become the body of Christ (His church) with Jesus at the head. Throughout the denominations are such a body. It is a tragedy that we have denominations as Jesus urged us all to agree with one another so the world would believe in the one He sent. Man has formed a religion out of what was quite simple in the NT church body. The reason christianity is under attack is due to a lack of unity. It is not the RC church representing the body of Christ although it is a well formed organisation with a heirachy that speaks for the RC view. It is the fact they require all to accept the Pope as the head whilst the New Covenant clearly states we are all priests and Jesus is the head. Man struggles to accept such freedom as the world says we need leaders etc etc.

I usually thoroughly enjoy John Ortberg, but what struck me most about his assessment of the spokesmen for the evangelicals is just that: all men. Are there no women voices in the quorum of evangelical spokespeople? Or does the patriarchal tradition of evangelicals continue even in its analysis? Are the "women's events" of the sort that Anne Graham Lotz and Naomi Cramer Overton inspire not significant enough or controversial enough to make the list?
I am grateful for the many women who are brave enough to enter into the evangelical fray to speak for me, as a member of the clergy, a believer and a woman. I deeply appreciate what Leith Anderson posted a couple years ago, although it struck me as a little enough acknowledgement - at least it was a mention:
Evangelical denominations and churches have been led by women clergy for generations. One of our member denominations at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was founded by a woman--Aimee Semple McPherson started the Foursquare Church. The Salvation Army has had women officers (clergy) for almost a century and a half. And, another denomination, the Wesleyan Church, recently elected Dr. Jo Ann Lyon as General Superintendent. In other words, women have been church leaders for a very long time--much longer than women have been business and political leaders in much of America; and, longer than women have been able to vote in America.
Thanks, Leith.
Usually John Ortberg does a better job of acknowledging the gifts of men and women in the work of the kingdom. The mere mention of one or two of these women in leadership would have helped to round out what ended up as a very narrow appreciation of the evangelical movement.

I agree with Kelly about the lack of women leaders mentioned in this post - and not only that: as much as some of those leaders such as Claiborne, Miller, Peterson, Bell, Warren, Jim Wallis etc have spoken for me, they are still white American males who cannot encapsulate and express wholly the sentiments of women, minorities or the marginalised, etc... but I am still grateful for their dedication to leading the evangelical church in so many ways

Rachel and Kelly,

Jesus is a male. Do we want to object to that, too? How could He possibly represent us "fairly"?
I am a female. But I object strongly to women who are always looking for ways they are not fairly represented. Remember the story of Deborah. She was a judge over Israel. She was the person behind Barak encouraging him to leadership. And when it comes to acknowledgment, Barak is listed in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews not Deborah. Deborah was successful in doing the job that God called her to do - but her most important role was in encouraging Barak back to his rightful role as a leader. What is wrong with evangelicalism today is women are usurping these roles and then whining when men are not the strong leaders they should be. It takes a strong woman to take a back seat and cheer the men on to leadership. I don't need a female representative, I just need Jesus, His Word and a good and faithful pastor to feed and lead the flock.

Janice, Rachel and Kelly. In a way, as an Eastern Orthodox woman, I stand a little outside this conversation--yet I'm not insensitive to the concerns on both sides. In Orthodoxy, the answer about who will be the disciple who is given primacy of place at the right hand of Jesus has been answered and is very visible on our Iconostases (Icon screens in front of the Naves in our places of worship). It is a woman, the Holy "Theotokos," the "God-bearer" or "Mother of God" (jarring as that title can be to modern, protestant, literalist sensibilities, it was and is a dogmatic affirmation of the orthodox Christian understanding of the Incarnation as opposed to variations that held that Mary bore only the man, Jesus, a mere human being, in her womb). Yet Mary holds this place, not primarily because she physically bore the Word of God within her womb in the Person of Christ, but because of the great faith and humility she exhibited in yielding to the will and word of God in hearing the word of the Archangel Gabriel in the Annunciation. Through her faith and willingness, in a very real way, she of all human beings was the one who opened the door to salvation for the entire human race. She was and is through her humility and willingness, the consummate co-worker with Christ for our salvation, and the prototype for all Christians, the symbol of the whole Church. All that she is proclaimed to be within the Church is what all Christians are called to become--bearers by grace through faith of all the fullness of God in Christ.

I agree with some of the existing posts. The first thing that came to my mind was Jesus speaks for me, hopefully before the Father...that is the biggest and only serious advocate I need. As for a voice, we have all been dumbed down and lost our voices...I think we should be speaking up for ourselves more often than we do. Larger scale things like governmental watchdogs and legal advocates for Christians in general is of the upmost importance...if we each chose to use our voices more in our households, in our communities, in our schools, in our workplaces, in our political realms, perhaps we wouldn't get dumbed down so much...

Paul the apostle spoke about this for us when he said "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged."

I'm satisfied that in 2010, Tim Keller, NT Wright, Brennan Manning, and Eugene Peterson speak for me. Saves me from having to write a book or something.