tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399758738069542627.post5381138202676712958..comments2016-12-30T15:18:08.128-05:00Comments on Global Ambassadors: Evangelicals and ChristendomNorman Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12925113525836315536noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399758738069542627.post-39816360754369259842009-06-19T19:05:37.732-04:002009-06-19T19:05:37.732-04:00Now if we truly repent and are willing to be led i...Now if we truly repent and are willing to be led into the new thing that God does among us, we need not fear.<br /><br />I'm not the first ever to have this thought, but it seems that the current church infrastructure (hierarchy, denominations, whatever you will) will not be conducive for this "new thing" - tinkering, as Carter puts it, will not be transformation. It seems like we'd need new wineskins for this.<br /><br />Perhaps not - there have been and will be reformations in the church. God could do His new thing however he wants... let us pray we have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.::athada::https://www.blogger.com/profile/09046982982270546995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399758738069542627.post-37264214666208798502008-08-04T12:19:00.000-04:002008-08-04T12:19:00.000-04:00Steve’s reactions to my comments posted above are ...Steve’s reactions to my comments posted above are helpful and appreciated as I try to clarify my thoughts regarding Evangelicals and Christendom. Let me preface my response with two caveats.<BR/><BR/><BR/>First, my comments above regarding Carter’s book are not a fully adequate representation of his ideas, nor am I inclined to be his advocate. I am still not totally convinced of Carter’s assertion that the situation has changed so significantly as to render Niebuhr’s typology of little use. In fact, Carter’s proposal regarding a “post-Western Christendom” typology still takes Niebuhr as a point of departure. Nevertheless, I am convinced with many others that the ground is shifting under our feet regarding Christianity and world-views, radically changing the ways that we will relate to society and cultures going forward. Carter asks us to turn the prism in looking at Niebuhr’s typology, to see if we are missing something in viewing Christianity and culture through a popular typological lens of the previous century. I welcome these kinds of critiques as I try to get handles on ways to understand better the situation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Second, I do not want the tone of my reflections to put evangelicals so much on the defensive such that we miss some of Carter’s observations that can help us to be “always reforming.” For me, the terms “Christianity” (“as another way of describing The Church”—to take Steve’s definition) and “Christendom” (where “the church is not only in the world; it is also of the world”—to take Carter’s definition) can be helpful in our discussion. I share Steve’s concern that we may “…only see the visible church and ignore the beautiful but all-too-invisible Bride.” He’s right that God is at work in a multitude of ways through His Body, The Church, and that we should not apologize for Christianity. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I cannot tell who all Carter had in mind in writing his book. Nevertheless, I am hesitant to concede that the concerns raised by his critique apply only to “mainstream evangelicalism.” For me, the twin questions raised by Carter’s critique are also worth serious consideration by all fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ: <BR/><BR/>1. In what ways have we allowed ourselves to be co-opted and shaped by the pervasive influences of culture in western Christendom?<BR/><BR/>2. In what ways do we who call ourselves “Christians” in western culture give authentic witness as members of the true Church of Jesus Christ? <BR/><BR/>I think we all can benefit from this kind of self-examination, lest we too begin to look too much like the world and get too comfortable it to be aware of our own blind spots.Norman Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12925113525836315536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399758738069542627.post-55535473315123014692008-07-22T16:09:00.000-04:002008-07-22T16:09:00.000-04:00Two thoughts: First, I've not read Carter but have...Two thoughts: First, I've not read Carter but have read Niebuhr. I found helpful his treatment of how the various flavors of Christianity interact with culture. Sounds like Carter is only considering one kind of Christianity (mainstream evangelicalism) and neglecting the rest of the global scene. Would you concur? If so, his prescription may only apply to those who have been co-opted by Western ideals.<BR/><BR/>Second, I'm uncomfortable with the thought of apologizing for Christianity (taking "Christianity" as another way of describing the Church). Certainly, the Church has not always lived up to its NT description, but it remains the Bride of Christ. Critiques like Carter's only see the visible church and ignore the beautiful but all-too-invisible Bride. When we profess, in the Creed, our belief in the Church, we speak of more than the visible, I think.<BR/><BR/>Nor do such criticisms even take account of all the evidence for the visible church. The good that has been and is being done by the Church far outweighs its faults, in my opinion. And the Church has a good record of "always reforming." In short, the report of the church's demise may be (as it always has been and will be) premature.Steve Lennoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05599371659889483877noreply@blogger.com