Your second footnote rings very true. I too have noticed this dynamic among people calling themselves exvangelical, or who have claimed to have deconstructed their evangelicalism. They may not run with the same people anymore but they remain very evangelical in their ethos and mode of discourse. Could you point me to those who have also made this observation?
"Many have noted that the habits by prominent exvangelicals are precisely evangelical ones: apologetic tactics against evangelical doctrine, reasoning from Scripture, appeal to personal experience, an aim toward social reform. The ends which are sought change, but the ethos is the same." Yeah, it does make me chuckle.
Footnote 1 is interesting. I am very sympathetic toward Catholic/Orthodox converts... as our often muddled water of people seemingly defining things for themselves—under the same ethos—becomes untenable for them. In that case, it IS a fundamental change in ethos which I can respect, as opposed to whatever ex/post-evangelical is. Which is part of your point.
Interesting thought about evangelism as an ethos and not an institution. Something I will have to chew on for a while, I think. One question though: when you compare John Piper to Rob Bell, is this an evangelist to ex-evangelical comparison? Or do you see Rob Bell as just a different flavor of evangelical as John Piper?
Man this is good stuff - from an evangelical getting my MTS at Duke, ethos over institution is exactly what I have been trying to articulate with my various institutional colleagues
Thanks for this. I really like footnote 2 as well.
Your second footnote rings very true. I too have noticed this dynamic among people calling themselves exvangelical, or who have claimed to have deconstructed their evangelicalism. They may not run with the same people anymore but they remain very evangelical in their ethos and mode of discourse. Could you point me to those who have also made this observation?
"Many have noted that the habits by prominent exvangelicals are precisely evangelical ones: apologetic tactics against evangelical doctrine, reasoning from Scripture, appeal to personal experience, an aim toward social reform. The ends which are sought change, but the ethos is the same." Yeah, it does make me chuckle.
Footnote 1 is interesting. I am very sympathetic toward Catholic/Orthodox converts... as our often muddled water of people seemingly defining things for themselves—under the same ethos—becomes untenable for them. In that case, it IS a fundamental change in ethos which I can respect, as opposed to whatever ex/post-evangelical is. Which is part of your point.
This was really great. It now makes me want to finally read Dr. Sander's essay I saw a couple years back. Seems like it might be an evergreen one: https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/the-use-and-abuse-of-history/articles/the-evangelical-question-in-the-history-of-american-religion
Lastly, I spent 5th-12th grade attending John Piper's church and I didn't realize at the time what a polarizing figure he was. haha
Interesting thought about evangelism as an ethos and not an institution. Something I will have to chew on for a while, I think. One question though: when you compare John Piper to Rob Bell, is this an evangelist to ex-evangelical comparison? Or do you see Rob Bell as just a different flavor of evangelical as John Piper?
Man this is good stuff - from an evangelical getting my MTS at Duke, ethos over institution is exactly what I have been trying to articulate with my various institutional colleagues