Who is following the dustup between Olsen and John Pierce

[Stephen Fox]

On the political use of the word Evangelicals.

Pierce has the high ground, the realpolitik take on this one.

Olsen falls naïve to what Bonhoeffer called the "Politics of stupidity."

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Good summary of the argument Keith. I'm afraid that while Olsen is right about the existence of progressive evangelicals, they have largely been shouted down in recent years by radically political right wing evangelicals so that evangelical has almost become a synonym for that part of the movement.

I used to used describe myself as an evangelical before the word became much more synonymous with people conservative evangelicalism than progressive evangelicalism.

[Cathy]

Keith, you did indeed do a great job of summing up the argument. I read this last week and thought they were talking past each other while in general agreement.

Roger Olson is an interesting character. I hold him in very high esteem and recommend his blog posts frequently to others. I posted the video of his visit to SWBTS on a forum last month that I had very much enjoyed. But he does have the tendency to be a bit curmudgeonly and I believe he has admitted that himself. But he can't hold a candle to Ed on the curmudgeon score.

But read on...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolso ... -challenge

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Cathy says of Olson "But he does have the tendency to be a bit curmudgeonly and I believe he has admitted that himself. But he can't hold a candle to Ed on the curmudgeon score." And I say give him another 19 years.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy, when your wrote "Last night, one of the remarkable figures from the polling data, was Bernie Sanders got slightly more than half of all the caucus votes cast by those under 30. " , what made that remarkable to you? Did you expect him to get considerably more from that age group?

I would not have been surprised at 60% of that age group going for sanders.

[Cathy]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

How is the term "Evangelical" defined?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Stephen Fox]

Hats off to KeithE for review of this topic.

Olsen did a great job on Molly Worthen a couple years ago. I think he devoted three blogs to it, naming Francis Schaeffer a "charlatan".

But he misses the forest for the trees in his reaction to Pierce.

Both of them, and Brian Kaylor at ED.com could better use their time and print to focus on Pressler and how SBC history got us to this point, latest case in point Thomas Powers review of Wuthno's Rough Country.

Just today, theatlantic.com has a piece on how Pressler and Jesse Helms--adding what I know to what they print--were driven by the John Birch politics of the Harris County Oil Community. That's what made Reagan's run in 76 when Helms helped him take North Carolina.

Pierce, Olsen and others should join me on the history that really matters now with Cruz propelled out of Iowa.

[Tim Bonney]

As Ed says, a lot depends on who is doing the defining. If you want to be a part of the National Association of Evangelicals you cannot be a member of the National Council of Church or World Council of Churches. So apparently being "evangelical" for some has ecumenical restrictions.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

I wonder what Bebbington means by "Biblical authority." That's kind of fuzzy.

[Tim Bonney]

Just to be clearer on the Biblical authority question. I know quite a few people who would characterize themselves as evangelicals but who don't believe the Bible is inerrant. They do see the Bible as authoritative and even may believe in "sola scriptura" but just not inerrancy.

All the fundamentalists I know believe the Bible is inerrant. For me I always thought that was the dividing line between "evangelical" and "fundamentalist." But I'm guessing that isn't where you would put the line Sandy?

[Sandy]

[Chris]

I think Johnny Pierce is 110% right. I loved his article. I have never met a "progressive evangelical"; though Dr. Bonney may be one (and he's a good guy). .

[Sandy]

I understand Pierce's point. But he sure takes a vitriolic, hateful tone. So much for tolerating the views of others. Isn't that a pretty standard criticism of "Fundamentalists", including his consigning those who disagree with him to hell, or at least, stating that they are not "Christian" by his definition?

[Sandy]