By Chaplain Mike

An interesting piece over at Out of Ur blog by John Ortberg asks the question, “Who speaks for evangelicals today?”

This question reflects the diversity in the movement that exists under evangelicalism’s umbrella today. It wasn’t long ago, Ortberg says, that evangelicals had a sense of “relational interconnectedness” and that it was clear who their main spokespersons were.

This was the “classic evangelicalism” of the post-war era, established and led by such public icons as Billy Graham, Carl Henry, Christianity Today, Wheaton College, and the evangelical schools, faith missions, and publishing houses. But a lot has happened in a couple of generations to cause a multitude of disconnections within the movement, dividing it into various factions.

One reason is that evangelical leaders tend–like our society generally–to be more narrowly niched. Some are leaders of local churches–Bill Hybels and Rick Warren and Andy Stanley. Some work in spiritual formation–Dallas Willard, Eugene Peterson. Some of them are New Calvinists; some head up parachurch organizations (in the 1940s and 50s, this was a disproportionately large part of evangelical leadership–beginning with Billy Graham himself.) Today some are identified more generationally. Scot [McKnight] mentioned the names that his college students are highly aware of and in tune with–including Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, and Donald Miller.

I expect another reason why the ties that bind evangelicals are becoming looser is the change in church/faith landscape. When I was growing up in the 1970s, a large part of evangelical identity was who we were not: we weren’t Catholic and we certainly weren’t mainline, liberal, establishment, pipe-smoking, sherry-drinking, hush-puppy wearers.

But those distinctions are no longer quite so clear. Some Catholics are quite evangelical. And the mainline is no longer the adversary it used to be.

As we move past the first decade of the 21st century, is it more proper to speak of evangelical “movements” rather than a “movement”? Evangelicalism has always tolerated its share of diversity, but now it seems that the various factions have moved out from under the big tent to go their own entrepreneurial way, and when they do communicate, they spend more time debating one another than they do with speaking into American society with a common voice that represents a united mission.

Of course, this factionalism has been accelerated by advances in technology, which exercises a relentless centrifugal force on unity and community of all kinds. Anyone can start a blog now and with enough followers, a new element of theological diversity emerges. And any spark of disagreement quickly gets blown into a wildfire. The recent blogosphere buzz over John Piper inviting Rick Warren to speak a a conference is but one example.

Perhaps the work of someone like John H. Armstrong and his book, Your Church Is Too Small, which calls for relational and missional unity around a credal orthodoxy is needed more than ever in our day. Can the Gospel-believing church ever hope to meet the challenges of fulfilling the Missio Dei in today’s world if we aren’t:

...of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose; do[ing] nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard[ing] one another as more important than [ourselves]; looking out not merely for [our] own personal interests, but also for the interests of others? (Philippians 2:2-4)

Unity in faith and mission may well be the greatest challenge of this century for followers of Christ. Otherwise it may come down to every man for himself. And who will speak for Christ to a lost and dying world?