This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« Looking at the Heresy of Joel Osteen | Main | Am I a Progressive Christian? »
February 04, 2005
INFLUENTIAL EVANGELICALS
Time Magazine’s list of 25 most influential evangelicals was gratifying for many reasons. Mostly obviously, it is always welcome when a major news outlet treats devout Christians with respect and affords them some recognition. I love lists and horses races, so its fun to see if my favorites are the winners. I am a great admirer of some of the individuals on the list.
(Disclosure: I worked as Chuck Colson’s chief of staff and communications director and then as his public relations consultant over a course of nearly 20 years. I know him well and regard him as, although not perfect, a great and wise man of God. I’m delighted to see him on this list).
Here are a few thoughts:
o No Televangelists: It is gratifying that the flamboyant fundamentalists who used television to argue their cause and alienate much of the nation are not on list. I’m thinking here of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
o Too Much Washington: It is good to see some variety of missions, but Time primarily is defining influence as political impact. The selections lean heavily to people who have had an influence e in Washington politics and the measuring stick for clout is an individual’s connections in Washington. This is a myopic view because political influence is just one, and most would argue one of the lesser, roles of the church and leaders in the church.
I understand this “inside the beltway” obsession, having worked in Washington, D.C. and in a politicized arena for 14 years, and I remain involved with Washington clients in my current enterprises. That’s why I recognize it. Judging political influence is the Washington parlor game.
If we measure evangelicals who have had and are having an influence on the church, the church’s biblical faithfulness, the culture’s spiritual tenor, the theological maturity of the nation, and the dissemination of the Gospel around the world, the list woudl be somewhat different.
o Missing Bill Bright: No one has replaced Bill Bright’s passion and persistence to evangelize the world. There are thousands who share his heart on international domestic and international missions, but no one is providing the kind of leadership he did. His death has left a hole. The closest one on this list would be Ralph Winter who, although different, provides the focus on international missions.
o Connections: You can connect the dots between the Fellowship’s Doug Coe, who was in the small group who discipled Chuck Colson after his Watergate-era conversion. Colson hired the current presidential speech writer Michael Gerson right out of Wheaton College to write for him. Richad John Neuhaus and Colson are joined at the ecumenical hip. And James Dobson and Chuck Colson are close friends.
o The Money People: The selection of the Ahmansons is an example of the favoring of those who have Washington influence (big donor to Diane Knippers and her DC group), rather than much more familiar foundations whose funding tends toward evangelism—such as The DeMoss Foundation or the MacClellan Foundation.
o Few Southern Baptists: There are more Roman Catholics on the list than Southern Baptists, by far the largest Protestant denomination. The one prominent Southern Baptist listed is Richard Land, head of the SBC agency that deals with public life and has lots to say on, you guessed it, Washington politics. The Southern Baptist with much broader impact would be Jimmy Draper, who heads the agency, that produces enormous amounts of Christian books, literature, and Sunday school materials, Lifeway.
o The Charismatics: T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer, and Steven Strange provide the charismatic balance. I’m relieved that the charismatic-turned-motivational speaker Joel Osteen didn’t make the list.
o The Grahams: Franklin’s influence is derived from the pulpit his father created. But Franklin Graham is doing some good work around the world with Samaritan’s Purse. And his post election comments on the dangers of Christian leaders getting too carried away with political influence were excellent.
o American Worship: Like it or not, Bill Hybels has had more influence than anyone on how the American church conducts its worship, and how to reach those in their neighborhoods who are not coming to church. Rick Warren is also having an influence by changing the way the church thinks and reaches out to others.
o Making Strong Contributions: Stuart Epperson’s Salem Radio is changing Christian radio and making it far more professional. Ted Haggard is bringing the National Association of Evangelicals back from the ashes. Jay Sekulow is an extremely effective barrister on religious freedom.
o Really Smart: Mark Noll and J.I. Packer give the list some additional gravitas. Packer holds up the Reformed end of things. This could have been R.C. Sproul, but Packer is less prickly.
o Left Behind: Never been a big fan of the LaHaye’s or the books.
o Why the Senator?: Rick Santorum is a strong supporter of Christian conservatives, but it seems odd to have this Roman Catholic on a list of evangelicals. Perhaps he’s an evangelical Roman Catholic. A list of influential Roman Catholics friendly to the evangelicals would include Sean Hannity. The Roman Catholic with the most influence on evangelicals in the last year may have been Mel Gibson.
o New To Me: I confess that I’d never heard of David Barton, Luis Cortes, or Brian McLaren.
Posted by Jim at February 4, 2005 07:59 AM
Comments
T.D Jakes or Joyce Meyers may make a lot of money and sell a lot of books, but I don't consider them evangelicals. They're both word-faith apostates, and Jakes denies the Trinity. I also have some questions about Ted Haggard.
Where is Al Mohler on this list? Or John Piper? I'm like you; I would have liked to have seen more SBC folks. Mohler would have been a crucial selection.
Posted by: Matt at February 4, 2005 08:40 AM
Also - Brian McLaren is the leader in the post-modern church movement. I gather there's a few good things in his ideas, but largely it's not something that conservative (in theological terms) Christians would appreciate.
Posted by: Matt at February 4, 2005 09:03 AM
I felt the same way about the bias towards defining influence in terms of politics in your "Too Much Washington" section. I've enjoyed this series on "Know your Evangelicals" over at http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/cat_religion_evangelical.html
Posted by: gabe at February 4, 2005 12:44 PM
I am weary of the terms "influence," "influential," and especially the word "most" in conjunction with top selling, rich, culturally popular evangelicals...some on the list I would agree as one's being influential (Packer, Colson, Graham for examples), but so many are there because of other-than-Christian or -biblical factors like money and popularity. Wesley. Whitefield. Edwards. Paul. And we forget, the hang on a cross our leader. I tell you, none of these men, no matter how great, godly, or conservative will face lions, let alone an old rugged cross. I fear for the evangelical Christian community who needs to count on such culturally-suit religious icons like Rick Warren--he is NOT my pastor--and Hybels as the one's with the influence. Heaven help us.
Posted by: Chip M Anderson at February 6, 2005 06:19 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if John Piper was more influential than Meyer, Jakers, or Warren? One can dream (or pray...)
Posted by: John at February 7, 2005 04:02 PM