Did he hire Eric Metaxas? 
As a student of Christian church history, the Vischer video above easily had my attention all the way to the end. I am particularly interested in the history of the evangelical movement and this was a take on that history considerably different from my own, which sees Charles Finney of the second great awakening as the central historical figure of the movement and all about a shift from theological battles of denominationalism to the power of Christ in changing human lives. Those three mentioned by Vischer, J Wesley, Whitfield, and Edwards of the First Great Awakening had more to do with Methodism, Congregationalism, and the Baptists – more about denominationalism and fundamentalism. And from there Vischer leaps forward to Billy Graham. I think it is a version of this history which gives more legitimacy to the modern involvement in politics of many who call themselves evangelicals.
What would stir up hostility in that video, besides him accusing a large part of the churches in America of overt racism? Oh, and equating evolution and science, as if they were the same thing.
My biggest beef with Christianity in general today? Many, maybe most, so-called followers of Christ are no such thing. They are practitioners of a type of Paulianity which twist his words and disregard those of Jesus himself.
Wow! I wouldn’t know if Ham is guilty of teaching a false gospel but I think I found what happened to the fundamentalists and anti-intellectualism. At lest one of them. What an entitled so and so!
Great to get a condensed overview of evangelism and the streams of Protestantism. The guy would make a great teacher. When I first got here my take on it was the emphasis on spreading the word or proselytizing. I thought an evangelical was one who proudly evangelized any chance they got. My father was big on Billy Graham and he’d watch his televised revival meetings every chance he got. Maybe it was the part where he’d invite everyone up to declare or renew their faith that had shaped my sense of what “evangelical” meant.
1 Like
I have always heard that Evangelicals started with Wesley in England. I think in America, the Second Great Awakening with Finney was key in spreading Evangelical teaching of a certain flavor. I think Vischer was interested in the question, “how did Evangelicals in America get the way they are today?” which is why the Rise of Fundamentalism and the Evangelical/Fundamentalist divide was important.
At the end, I think he references Bebbington’s Quadrilateral which are the belief distinctives associated with Evangelicalism (conversionism, activism, high regard for Scripture, focus on the Cross of Jesus for redemption), but unlike lots of people, acknowledges the politics that have shaped the movement and the role that anti-Darwin and anti-desegregation attitudes played in getting things to where they are today. This checks out with everything I’ve read.
The truth hurts sometimes. Fundamentalist Evangelicals have a profoundly racist past. And evolution is science, so do the math.
3 Likes
I’m listening to the Holy Post podcast. Skye Jethani said that our big trouble is that we lose the simple solution to our, and the world’s, problems. That, I agree, is a central problem; it’s not even a Christian problem alone. We all (religious and non-religious, too) want a simplistic answer. It seems that’s a natural bent–and leads us into all sorts of trouble, with populistic political leaders, etc.
Walton believes that Gen 1 was a Temple dedication ceremony (emphasizing rest, parallel of the first 3 days with the 2nd 3 days). Tim Keller says it’s made to be recited aloud. I found it helpful to discuss with a YEC member of my family that William Jennings Bryan had said that the 6000 year old idea was a straw man, made by secularists to make fun of Christians, sort of like claiming that orthodox Christians believe in a flat earth. I had no idea that an old earth was so widely accepted then.
It seems a bit confusing. Potentially, this could be a genetic fallacy–because a subgroup of fundamentalists were racist, all evangelicals were not. As Vischer says, Ockenga, Graham and Henry were by no means of the racist point of view, but neo-evangelical. Not to drag divisive issues in too much, but abortion was a big motivator here–not racism. I am concerned this can be an unintentional straw man. Ham himself is strongly ant-racist, as reflected in many of his pages on line; yet he is a fundamentalist.
2 Likes
I know of people who really like his “One Race, One Blood” book. Going by every other conclusion of his and the form he uses in his writing, I have an idea of where it will lead so I haven’t read it myself. There are others who make the same theological conclusions while consulting and including the harmonizing results found in genetics and anthropology (amongst others).
You might want to correct this typo, Randy, so we don’t get Ham sympathizers thinking that Biologos is accusing Ham of having a problem with ants. 
I was intrigued by that too … I knew that Bryan and many (nearly all I guess!) of his lot had no problem with old earth, but I didn’t know he had said that specifically. I could listen to Vischer again to see if he says, but can anybody give a credible source that could be sited for where Bryan put it specifically that way?
2 Likes
Yes, Phil voiced Bob, and also Jimmy Gourd, and Archibald Asparagus, which is probably the one I most hear “come out” in his voice once in a while, especially when singing. Mike Nawrocki (VeggieTales co-founder) did Larry and also Jerry Gourd… and maybe some of the French peas?
That surprised me too. “Young earth” and “evolution” went hand-in-hand for my whole life, so it’s interesting to learn that there was a time when that wasn’t necessarily so, especially coming from someone who was considered a hero of the faith.
I also thought the part about colleges “going liberal” was interesting – that was always my perception, that Christian colleges that taught evolution had made a recent shift due to “secularization” or something like that… when many of them have been doing it for longer than YEC has been trending.
3 Likes
I didn’t find that exactly, but here’s a quote from the Scopes trial. Bryan says:
–from GeoChristian
Clarence Darrow [D]: ‘Mr Bryan, could you tell me how old the Earth is?’
William Jennings Bryan B: ‘No, sir, I couldn’t.’
[D]: ‘Could you come anywhere near it?’
B: ‘I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.’
[D]: ‘Does the statement, “The morning and the evening were the first day,” and “The morning and the evening were the second day,” mean anything to you?’
B: ‘I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.’
[D]: ‘You do not?’
[D]: ‘Then, when the Bible said, for instance, “and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,” that does not necessarily mean twenty-four-hours?’
B: ‘I do not think it necessarily does.’ ‘I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.’
[D]: ‘And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time.’
B: ‘They might have been.’
[D]: ‘The creation might have been going on for a very long time?’
B: ‘It might have continued for millions of years.’
1 Like
It certainly is not my claim that my view of evangelical history is the correct one. That is as dubious as the claim that ones Christianity is the correct one. Interpretation is always a big component of any telling of history as it is in the function of human memory. It is about deciding what meaning and lessons we take from the events in history. To be sure I am somewhat biased toward the experiential “flavor” as you call it from Finney, seeing much less value in the contributions of Wesley, Whitfield, and Edwards, which in my mind have more to do with early American Christianity and its various denominations. Since Quakerism is one of my favorite historical religions, I am particularly interested in the religious ideals which drew them into the evangelical movement, and far less interested in what I choose to see as the southern Baptist hijacking of the movement and its involvement in politics.
It is honestly and frankly focused on what I see of value in the evangelical movement and seeking to downplay the parts of the movement which I simply wish didn’t exist at all.
BUT that doesn’t mean I am without interest in different interpretations and understandings of this history which I have to admit shines light on things which I tend to ignore. Which is why the video above held my attention to the end. It is always good to know all of the facts.
Indeed, that is also a big part of my own motivation for focusing on the particular sector of the evangelical movement which I like and looking for reasons to discount the sectors which I hope to see the end of as soon as possible.
Yes… it is good to resist the human tendency to lump all of the things we dislike together.
LOL Are you absolutely sure that was a typo. LOL
2 Likes
There are pockets of Twitter that are truly enjoyable. @Christy and I bumped into each other in the #WCT (Weird Christian Twitter) portion of the site. I probably spend more time on it than I should, but WCT has helped me retain faith when the US evangelical sphere kept coming up with new and creative ways to disappoint and discourage me in 2020.
5 Likes
That sounds interesting. I have never really looked hard at Twitter, but may now that one of the irritating users may not be on it as much this year. (Reprimand given and accepted. Sorry)
1 Like
Look me up if you decide to spend any time there, Phil!
I wasn’t saying they were. I was just commenting on the fact that people get offended when you bring up facts about racist things that did happen. As if acknowledging that racism motivated some of the political and religious alliances is calling everyone at all associated an evil person. Self-identifying Evangelicals of today have some racist roots. They also have roots in the abolitionist movement. But people need to own all of their heritage to understand how it impacts the present, not just pick the parts they are proud of.
If you really study it out, abortion only became an Evangelical/Fundamentalist rallying cry after the civil rights movement proved they were on the wrong side of history with the anti-desegregation stuff and when that proved too divisive to unite Northerners.
I think part of that history is covered in this Holy Post podcast, which is also a real winner for understanding the landscape of Evangelicalism today:
2 Likes
I find myself wanting to talk about ideas from The Righteous Mind here. I don’t think the Bible has to be literally true or to function by appealing to our rational minds in order to be of value culturally. My hunch is that there is a lot of hyperbole in it but it isn’t actionable directives for our rationality to work on. If it has any cultural value it is because it sets the rational mind up to expect something greater, disposing it to look for -and find- resources that are inherent in us but not by way of our usual pathways. If it sounds like I don’t know what I’m talking about, that’s true. Whatever it is is outside the range of what we can ‘know’. But that is my 2¢ worth.
3 Likes