I have recently come across an article by David Gibson of the Religious and Theological Studies Fellowship (RTSF) that has some good insight on the current state of evangelicalism (evangelicalism being the section of the Church that claims to be Bible-believing and taking the claims of the gospel seriously).

Gibson claims that there is a general trend from proclaiming in one generation to assuming in the next generation and finally denying in the next. He illustrates it like this…

You may have heard the story of the Mennonite Brethren movement. One particular analysis goes like this: the first generation believed and proclaimed the gospel and thought that there were certain social entailments. The next generation assumed the gospel and advocated the entailments. The third generation denied the gospel and all that were left were the entailments.

He claims, rightly in my opinion, that evangelicalism is in that middle stage…

Assumed evangelicalism believes and signs up to the gospel. It certainly does not deny the gospel. But in terms of priorities, focus, and direction, assumed evangelicalism begins to give gradually increasing energy to concerns other than the gospel and key evangelical distinctives, to gradually elevate secondary issues to a primary level, to be increasingly worried about how it is perceived by others and to allow itself to be increasingly influenced both in content and method by the prevailing culture of the day.

It is relatively straightforward to point to individuals, churches, movements and institutions that are clearly either proclaiming the gospel or denying it. However, it is extremely difficult to spot assumed evangelicalism and to evaluate and critique it. The reason that it is so hard to evaluate and critique is precisely because it is assumed evangelicalism. In other words, it acknowledges all the right things. The theology of assumed evangelicalism could well be faultless and, when asked to do so, is probably able to articulate itself in an exemplary way. The danger of assumed evangelicalism is precisely the fact that it has come from somewhere very distinct and is heading to somewhere very distinct but the in-between-ness of it makes it a lot harder to evaluate clearly. The crossing of boundaries is notoriously hard to see until you have arrived on the other side.

I’ve got more to say from this article in coming days, but I highly recommend that you take a look at the article. I think this is a bigger danger to the Church than the frontal assaults (Openness Theology, the Da Vinci Code, etc.).