Does mainstream evangelicalism have the gospel?

[RemovedbyRequest]

Hello, I've recently joined the puritanboard, I'm grateful for all I've learned from your threads.

I'm curious about your opinions on whether mainstream evangelicalism has the gospel. In other words, are we brothers and sisters with them, or should we firmly draw a line and separate from them on the grounds of Galatians 1:9, that they have another gospel?

I'm not sure if "mainstream evangelicalism" is the best term, and I'm having a hard time defining what I mean exactly, but just the overall general spirit of the age, emotionalism, entertainment, shallowness, "fun church", man-centered self help preaching, using natural means to attract unbelievers (like drawing them to church with the "worship experience", entertainment, concert style music, big screens), and so on. Groups like hillsong, for example.

I'm still not sure if that's a clear definition because of how undefined evangelicalism is today, but I hope you get what I mean.

Do these people have the gospel or are they to be called out and separated from?

 

[Taylor]

“Mainstream evangelicalism” is so broad an umbrella that this question is virtually impossible to answer. I’m not sure what purpose answering this question would serve at this point, anyway.

 

[Polanus1561]

Practically, What do you mean in your last line, “called out and be separated from”? How do you separate from another church?

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

Practically, What do you mean in your last line, “called out and be separated from”? How do you separate from another church?

Not so much separated from another church per se, but I meant whether we should consider them brothers or not. Similar to our relationship with roman catholics, for example. "separate" was a poor word choice.

I’m not sure what purpose answering this question would serve at this point, anyway.

The point would be knowing whether they are brothers in Christ or a mission field. I recognize it's a broad group and I struggled to define it, but generally speaking I would think it's good to know who is a brother and who's not, especially when we're dealing with our friends and family members who are part of this broad group.

 

[Polanus1561]

Not so much separated from another church per se, but I meant whether we should consider them brothers or not. Similar to our relationship with roman catholics, for example. "separate" was a poor word choice.


The point would be knowing whether they are brothers in Christ or a mission field. I recognize it's a broad group and I struggled to define it, but generally speaking I would think it's good to know who is a brother and who's not, especially when we're dealing with our friends and family members who are part of this broad group.

I understand you better now, but I think you have approached this sensitive topic wrongly by first asking what a very very large group called 'mainstream evangelicalism' believes. You would do well to narrow down to the specific churches of the people you know. Take a look at such churches' statement of faith on their website etc.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Hello, I've recently joined the puritanboard, I'm grateful for all I've learned from your threads.

I'm curious about your opinions on whether mainstream evangelicalism has the gospel. In other words, are we brothers and sisters with them, or should we firmly draw a line and separate from them on the grounds of Galatians 1:9, that they have another gospel?

I'm not sure if "mainstream evangelicalism" is the best term, and I'm having a hard time defining what I mean exactly, but just the overall general spirit of the age, emotionalism, entertainment, shallowness, "fun church", man-centered self help preaching, using natural means to attract unbelievers (like drawing them to church with the "worship experience", entertainment, concert style music, big screens), and so on. Groups like hillsong, for example.

I'm still not sure if that's a clear definition because of how undefined evangelicalism is today, but I hope you get what I mean.

Do these people have the gospel or are they to be called out and separated from?

From my experience, most of them would affirm the true Gospel. So I would broadly count them as brothers and sisters.

 

[MyCrows]

If you're talking about the "prosperity gospel", or name-it-and-claim-it theology, then it's a different gospel.

But yea pretty wide umbrella you got there bud.

 

[Jack K]

“Mainstream evangelicalism” is so broad an umbrella that this question is virtually impossible to answer. I’m not sure what purpose answering this question would serve at this point, anyway.

Agreed. "Mainstream evangelicalism" is too broad a term. To say they don't have the gospel would end up condemning many who might embrace that label but don't fit the description of it that Daniel gives. Most of the people in my church would call themselves "mainstream evangelicals" willingly enough, but they aren't much like the Hillsong crowd.

That said, to answer Daniel, has the gospel largely been abandoned in some self-help, entertainment-worship churches? Yes, I believe many don't really preach the gospel, even if their faith statements are solid enough on the surface. A true believer would have good cause to come out of such a church on the grounds that it does not preach the gospel, and join a gospel-preaching one. Go ahead and tell that pastor, "I'm leaving because you preach self-help instead of Christ's help. I don't hear the gospel here."

Does a problem with self-help teaching necessarily mean we should immediately consider the whole church a false church? Not necessarily. Paul didn't seem to think so in the case of the Galatian churches. But he did address it as a very serious problem.

 

[RamistThomist]

Mainstream evangelicalism in the abstract doesn't exist. Mainstream evangelical churches do. And even then you can only know the answer to your question by interacting with them.

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

And even then you can only know the answer to your question by interacting with them.

Thanks, thats a good point

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

Agreed. "Mainstream evangelicalism" is too broad a term. To say they don't have the gospel would end up condemning many who might embrace that label but don't fit the description of it that Daniel gives. Most of the people in my church would call themselves "mainstream evangelicals" willingly enough, but they aren't much like the Hillsong crowd.

That said, to answer Daniel, has the gospel largely been abandoned in some self-help, entertainment-worship churches? Yes, I believe many don't really preach the gospel, even if their faith statements are solid enough on the surface. A true believer would have good cause to come out of such a church on the grounds that it does not preach the gospel, and join a gospel-preaching one. Go ahead and tell that pastor, "I'm leaving because you preach self-help instead of Christ's help. I don't hear the gospel here."

Does a problem with self-help teaching necessarily mean we should immediately consider the whole church a false church? Not necessarily. Paul didn't seem to think so in the case of the Galatian churches. But he did address it as a very serious problem.

Thanks, I appreciate your answer. I think you are right that even if the church has gone astray, that doesn’t mean every individual has. Just like in the dead church of Sardis, there were some who were still pure (Rev 3:4)

 

[Before]

I'm not sure if "mainstream evangelicalism" is the best term,

Perhaps "Pop Evangelicalism" would be appropriate?