ChatGPT and I Discuss: "What is Maga Ideology?"

Paul Dans’ sketches laid out plans for a “conservative LinkedIn,” a database that now includes more than 10,000 candidates to staff federal agencies under a potential second Trump administration. Credit:Photo Illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Obtained by ProPublica and Leigh Vogul/Redux. The Wisconsin Examiner.

article link

* * * * * * * *

Disclaimer

Sometimes I have to discuss the ugly with the remarkable. Today's post is on the ugly. But my next post will be on process-based panexistentialism which I've already started a couple days ago but haven't cleaned up enough yet to publish.

Since America's presidential election is held two days from now on Tuesday of this week I thought I should once again discuss the failure of the church in protecting itself from charlatans, thieves, false prophets, disingenuous preachers and their false doctrine, and gospels of hate and division.

Again, with my apologies, I am compelled to stand once again against maga ideology and Christian dominionism on all levels....

R.E. Slater

November 3, 2024

 

Wikipedia Excerpt

"Make America Great Again" (MAGA, US: /ˈmæɡə/)[1] is an American political slogan and political movement most recently popularized by Donald Trump during his successful 2016 presidential campaign and widely used during his 2024 presidential campaign. "MAGA" is also used to refer to Trump's political base, or to an individual or group of individuals from within that base. The slogan became a pop culture phenomenon, seeing widespread use and spawning numerous variants in the arts, entertainment and politics, being used by both supporters and opponents of Trump's presidency. Originally used by Ronald Reagan as a campaign slogan in his 1980 presidential campaign (Let's Make America Great Again), it has since been described as a loaded phrase. Multiple scholars, journalists, and commentators have called the slogan racist, regarding it as dog-whistle politics and coded language.[6]

 

amazon link

The movement that brought Donald Trump to the White House has better ideas than the old right or the new left. It’s time that the rest of America started listening.

The Tea Party began as a protest for patriots who feared Big Government. President Trump has become a hero for patriots who are against Big Everything. 

Fed up with Silicon Valley, the media, liberal higher education, the military-industrial complex, Twitter mobs, swamp monsters, Big Pharma, out-of-control prosecutors, and gun-grabbing fascists, ordinary Americans miss the days when America cared about rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. Remember when you didn’t feel bombarded on all sides by coastal billionaires and their government stooges? The MAGA Doctrine urges an overdue restoration of self-rule by a populace long taken for granted by its rulers. 

Turning Point USA founder and social media superstar Charlie Kirk explains once and for all why a New York real estate magnate found an audience among young conservatives all over the country. Trump and his allies are working to protect all the small things that both parties dismissed: local businesses, families, churches, and the rights of the individual. Kirk explains why it took a reality TV superstar to see past the sclerotic and power-hungry institutions, from the United Nations and Google to Harvard and Viacom, working to crush real America. The Trump Doctrine is all about giving you a say in the future of America and a hand in making it happen. 

As the mainstream media keep churning out lies about the “real reasons” behind the new conservative agenda, Charlie Kirk’s The MAGA Doctrine is a powerful reminder of the true narrative of freedom and greatness that swept Donald Trump to the presidency.

* * * * * * * *

ChatGPT and I Discuss:

"What is Maga Ideology?"

by R.E. Slater

RES:

Please state as fully as possible maga ideology.

ChatGPT

MAGA, which stands for "Make America Great Again," is a political slogan and ideology primarily associated with Donald Trump and his supporters. It emerged during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and has evolved into a broader movement. Here are the key elements of MAGA ideology:

• Nationalism: A strong emphasis on American nationalism and sovereignty, advocating for policies that prioritize American interests over global or foreign considerations. This includes a focus on immigration control, border security, and a rejection of international agreements perceived to undermine American sovereignty.

• Populism: MAGA promotes a populist approach, positioning itself as a movement for the "ordinary" American against the political elite, establishment, and corporate interests. It claims to represent the voice of the "forgotten" working and middle classes.

• Economic Policy: Advocates for protectionist trade policies, such as tariffs on imports, to protect American manufacturing jobs and industries. There is also a focus on deregulation, tax cuts, and support for small businesses.

• Cultural Conservatism: Emphasizes traditional values, often aligning with conservative positions on social issues such as abortion, gun rights, and religious freedoms. This includes opposition to what is perceived as political correctness and cultural liberalism.

• Law and Order: A strong focus on law enforcement and public safety, advocating for tough-on-crime policies and supporting police forces. This includes a critique of movements like Black Lives Matter and calls for a return to more stringent approaches to crime.

• Anti-Globalism: A skepticism of globalism and international institutions, viewing them as threats to American autonomy. This includes criticism of organizations like the United Nations and agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

• Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation: MAGA ideology often involves belief in various conspiracy theories, particularly those questioning the integrity of electoral processes (e.g., claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election) and other political narratives.

• Media Criticism: A strong distrust of mainstream media, which is often labeled as "fake news." Supporters are encouraged to seek alternative news sources that align with their views.

• Rhetoric and Style: MAGA rhetoric is often characterized by its combative tone, use of social media, and a direct, sometimes confrontational communication style. This includes the use of slogans, chants, and a focus on rallies and direct engagement with supporters.

• Tribalism and Identity Politics: The movement often emphasizes a sense of group identity, promoting a "us versus them" mentality that can polarize political discourse. It appeals to a sense of belonging among its supporters while simultaneously alienating those who do not share its views.

• Rural and Suburban Focus: While MAGA appeals broadly, it has a particular resonance in rural and suburban areas, where residents may feel left behind by urbanization, globalization, and technological changes.

• Emphasis on Loyalty and Personality: Loyalty to Trump as a figure is often seen as paramount, with his personality and brand becoming central to the movement's identity. Supporters frequently express a personal connection to Trump and his message.

Overall, MAGA ideology reflects a complex blend of economic, cultural, and political elements that resonate with a significant segment of the American populace, shaping a distinctive and sometimes divisive political landscape.

RES:

How is MAGA'ism helpful to a democracy?

ChatGPT

The MAGA ideology can be viewed as having both potential benefits and drawbacks for democracy, depending on perspective. Here are several ways in which aspects of MAGA could be seen as helpful to democratic processes, alongside some critical considerations:

Potential Benefits

• Political Engagement: MAGA has mobilized millions of Americans who may have felt disconnected from the political process. This engagement can lead to higher voter turnout and greater participation in democratic activities, which are vital for a healthy democracy.

• Populist Voice: By advocating for the "forgotten" working and middle classes, MAGA provides a platform for voices that might otherwise be ignored in elite political discourse. This can lead to a broader representation of interests in political debates.

• Focus on National Issues: MAGA emphasizes national sovereignty and domestic policy issues, encouraging discussions around immigration, trade, and job creation. This focus can stimulate public debate about the direction of national policy and priorities.

• Challenging the Status Quo: The movement's critique of the political establishment can encourage reform and accountability. By calling out perceived corruption or inefficiency, MAGA can prompt elected officials to respond more directly to constituent concerns.

• Civic Identity and National Pride: By promoting a sense of American identity and pride, MAGA can foster community and civic engagement. This can encourage individuals to take an active role in their communities and government.

Critical Considerations

• Polarization: The strong "us versus them" mentality inherent in MAGA can contribute to political polarization, making compromise and bipartisanship more difficult. A divided electorate can hinder effective governance and erode democratic norms.

• Misinformation: The promotion of conspiracy theories and mistrust in mainstream media can undermine informed decision-making among voters. A well-functioning democracy relies on a well-informed electorate, and misinformation can distort public perception and policy.

• Exclusionary Practices: Some aspects of MAGA ideology may promote exclusionary or xenophobic sentiments, which can alienate minority groups and undermine the democratic principle of equality. This can lead to social unrest and conflict.

• Focus on Personality: The emphasis on loyalty to a single leader (Trump) over policies can diminish democratic accountability. In a healthy democracy, political decisions should be based on policies and principles rather than the personal attributes of individual leaders.

• Distrust in Institutions: MAGA's skepticism towards government institutions and media can weaken public trust, which is essential for the functioning of democracy. Trust in institutions helps facilitate cooperation and consensus-building among citizens.

Conclusion

While elements of MAGA ideology may invigorate certain democratic processes by promoting engagement and representation, they can also pose significant challenges, particularly regarding polarization, misinformation, and the erosion of trust in democratic institutions. The impact of such movements on democracy ultimately depends on how they evolve and how societies respond to the challenges they present. Balancing the beneficial aspects of political engagement with the need for a unified and informed electorate is crucial for sustaining a healthy democracy.

RES:

Is Maga closer to democratic, neofascist, or neomarxist values?

ChatGPT

The MAGA (Make America Great Again) ideology exhibits elements that can be associated with various political frameworks, but it is most closely aligned with aspects of national populism, which can sometimes intersect with neofascist tendencies rather than democratic or neomarxist values. Here’s a breakdown of how MAGA compares to these ideologies:

Closer to Neofascism

• Nationalism: MAGA places a strong emphasis on American nationalism, prioritizing national sovereignty and often expressing hostility towards immigration and multiculturalism. This aligns with neofascist ideals that emphasize ethnic or national identity above all.

• Populist Rhetoric: The movement utilizes populist rhetoric that pits the “common people” against the political elite. Neofascist movements often adopt similar language to mobilize support by portraying themselves as defenders of the common citizen against corrupt elites.

• Authoritarian Tendencies: Some aspects of MAGA can be seen as endorsing authoritarian governance, particularly in the rejection of checks and balances, support for aggressive law enforcement, and hostility towards dissenting opinions. This is reminiscent of neofascist approaches to governance.

• Anti-Democratic Rhetoric: While MAGA operates within a democratic framework, its critique of democratic institutions (labeling them as corrupt or illegitimate) and its embrace of conspiracy theories can undermine democratic norms, echoing neofascist sentiments that reject liberal democratic principles.

Not Closely Aligned with Democratic Values

• Populism Over Pluralism: Although MAGA claims to represent the voice of the people, its approach often seeks to exclude or marginalize certain groups (e.g., immigrants, minorities). This contrasts with democratic ideals of inclusion and pluralism.

• Concentration of Power: The emphasis on a strong leader (Trump) and loyalty to that leader can undermine democratic accountability and checks and balances, which are essential for a healthy democracy.

Not Neomarxist

• Economic Policies: Neomarxism focuses on class struggle and the redistribution of wealth, whereas MAGA tends to prioritize nationalism and protectionism without a fundamental challenge to capitalist structures. Its economic policies are more aligned with traditional conservative economics, favoring tax cuts and deregulation rather than advocating for socialist principles.

• Cultural Conservatism: Neomarxism often critiques traditional values and institutions, while MAGA embraces cultural conservatism, aligning more closely with traditional right-wing values rather than revolutionary leftist thought.

Conclusion

In summary, MAGA is more closely associated with neofascist values than with democratic or neomarxist principles. Its strong nationalist and populist elements, combined with authoritarian tendencies and a critique of liberal democratic norms, align it more with the neofascist spectrum. However, it operates within a democratic context and does not fully embody the tenets of classical fascism or communism. Understanding MAGA requires a nuanced view that considers its unique position in the contemporary political landscape.

RES:

How is Maga'ism helped, or not, by Christian dominionism or reconstructed hyper-evangelicalism?

ChatGPT

The relationship between MAGA ideology and movements like Christian dominionism or reconstructed hyper-evangelicalism is complex and multifaceted. Here’s an overview of how MAGA-ism can be influenced by or intersect with these religious ideologies, as well as how they may conflict or diverge.

How MAGA is Helped by Christian Dominionism and Reconstructed Hyper-Evangelicalism

• Cultural Alignment: Both MAGA and dominionist beliefs share a vision of a society that reflects Christian values and moral teachings. This cultural alignment can create a strong coalition among evangelical Christians who support MAGA, seeing it as a vehicle for advancing their religious agenda.

• Mobilization of Voter Base: Christian dominionism emphasizes the need for Christians to take control of societal institutions, including government. MAGA capitalizes on this by energizing evangelical voters, encouraging them to participate in politics as a means of fulfilling their religious duty to influence the nation.

• Rhetoric of Restoration: Both ideologies often utilize similar rhetoric about restoring America to a perceived past of greatness or godliness. This narrative resonates with evangelicals who feel that contemporary society has drifted away from its Christian foundations, fostering a sense of urgency and purpose.

• Anti-Establishment Sentiment: MAGA’s anti-establishment rhetoric aligns with the suspicions many dominionists have towards secular institutions and liberal governance. Both movements can cultivate a shared distrust of elites and institutions that they believe undermine Christian values.

• Shared Enemies: MAGA and dominionist groups often identify common adversaries, such as secularism, progressive social movements, and policies perceived as anti-Christian. This shared sense of battle can create solidarity and joint action among these groups.

How MAGA is Not Helped by Christian Dominionism and Reconstructed Hyper-Evangelicalism

• Focus on Politics Over Spirituality: Some traditional evangelicals may criticize MAGA for prioritizing political power over spiritual growth and the core tenets of Christianity. This tension can create divisions within evangelical circles, as not all adherents agree with the political approach taken by MAGA.

• Sectarian Divisions: Within evangelicalism, there are various factions with differing views on how to engage with politics. Some more moderate or mainline evangelical groups may reject MAGA’s divisive rhetoric and policies, leading to potential fractures within the broader evangelical community.

• Moral Compromise: The alignment of MAGA with certain political figures and their associated controversies (such as moral failings, divisive speech, etc.) can create a conflict for evangelicals who value moral integrity. This can lead to disillusionment among some evangelical voters who feel that MAGA compromises their moral and ethical standards.

• Theological Conflicts: While dominionism asserts that Christians should take control of all areas of life, including government, not all evangelicals agree with this theological perspective. Some may prefer a model of engagement that emphasizes personal piety and community service over political dominion.

Conclusion

MAGA ideology and movements like Christian dominionism and reconstructed hyper-evangelicalism share some common ground in terms of cultural values, political mobilization, and a sense of restoration. However, they also face tensions and potential conflicts over priorities, approaches to engagement, and the role of morality in politics. The relationship is not uniformly beneficial or detrimental; instead, it is shaped by the dynamics of political alignment, theological beliefs, and the evolving landscape of American evangelicalism. Understanding this relationship requires careful consideration of the diverse perspectives within both MAGA and evangelical communities.

RES:

How is the Christian element of magaism hypocritical, judgmental, and exclusionary?

ChatGPT

The Christian element of MAGA-ism can be perceived as hypocritical, judgmental, and exclusionary in several ways, especially when examined through the lens of traditional Christian teachings and values. Here are some key points that illustrate these contradictions:

1. Hypocrisy in Moral Standards

• Contradictory Values: Many supporters of MAGA identify strongly as Christians and advocate for values such as honesty, integrity, and compassion. However, the movement has often aligned itself with figures and actions that contradict these values, such as instances of dishonesty, personal immorality, or divisive rhetoric. This can create a perception of hypocrisy among those who observe a disconnect between proclaimed beliefs and actual behaviors.

• Selective Scripture Interpretation: Supporters may cherry-pick Bible verses to justify political stances (e.g., regarding immigration or nationalism) while ignoring broader biblical teachings about love, compassion, and social justice. This selective interpretation can lead to accusations of using Christianity as a tool for political gain rather than as a guide for ethical living.

2. Judgmental Attitudes

• Condemnation of Others: The MAGA movement often promotes a narrative of moral superiority, where those who disagree with its ideology are labeled as "un-American," "liberals," or "socialists." This judgmental approach can alienate individuals who hold different views and contradicts the Christian call to love one's neighbor and extend grace to others.

• Focus on Sin: MAGA supporters may focus heavily on certain social issues (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights, abortion) as moral failings while overlooking or downplaying other areas where Christian teachings call for humility and self-examination. This can create an environment of judgment rather than one of reconciliation and understanding.

3. Exclusionary Practices

• Us vs. Them Mentality: The MAGA movement often promotes a divisive "us versus them" narrative that excludes those who do not conform to its ideological beliefs. This can manifest in exclusionary attitudes towards immigrants, religious minorities, and even other Christians who hold different interpretations of faith or politics.

• Racial and Ethnic Exclusion: Some MAGA supporters may exhibit xenophobic or racist attitudes, which can be in direct opposition to the Christian principles of inclusion and equality. This exclusionary behavior can be particularly problematic in a faith tradition that teaches the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

• Economic and Class Exclusion: The movement's populist rhetoric may focus on the struggles of certain demographics while neglecting or vilifying the marginalized, including the poor, those without healthcare, or those reliant on social safety nets. This exclusion contradicts the Christian call to care for the least among us.

4. Manipulation of Faith for Political Gain

• Religious Rhetoric as a Political Tool: The use of Christian rhetoric to mobilize support for political agendas can be seen as exploiting faith for political ends. This manipulation can diminish the authenticity of the Christian message and lead to disillusionment among believers who see their faith being used for partisan politics.

• Fostering Division Within Christianity: The alignment of MAGA with certain interpretations of Christianity can create divisions within the broader Christian community, pitting conservative evangelicals against more progressive or moderate Christians. This division can hinder the Christian call for unity and love among believers.

Conclusion

While many MAGA supporters genuinely seek to express their Christian faith through their political engagement, the movement's alignment with hypocrisy, judgmental attitudes, and exclusionary practices raises significant concerns. These contradictions can undermine the core teachings of Christianity and create a perception that the movement is more about political power and cultural dominance than about living out genuine Christian values. This dissonance can lead to criticism both from within the Christian community and from broader society, as it challenges the authenticity and integrity of the Christian witness.

RES:

Were the prophets in the Bible supportive of regional cultures?

*This is assuming that contemporary regional cultures are wicked and not civilly just and good... which is a big assumption by many church cultures and doctrines which seem far less just and good than the societies they inhabit.

ChatGPT

The role of the prophets in the Bible and their relationship to regional cultures is a nuanced topic. While the prophets were primarily messengers of God who called Israel (and sometimes other nations) to repentance and fidelity to God's covenant, their attitudes toward regional cultures can be understood in several key ways:

1. Critique of [Religious] Israel’s Cultural Practices

• Covenantal Fidelity: Many of the prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, critiqued Israelite society for adopting practices from surrounding cultures that were contrary to their covenant with God. They condemned idolatry, social injustice, and moral corruption, often pointing out how these behaviors reflected a departure from their unique cultural and religious identity as God’s chosen people.

• Calls for Repentance: The prophets frequently called Israel to repent from cultural practices influenced by neighboring nations, emphasizing a return to their distinct covenantal obligations. This reflects a clear stance against assimilating cultural practices that undermined their faith.

2. Recognition of God’s Sovereignty Over Nations

• Prophets and Foreign Nations: Some prophets, like Jonah and Nahum, spoke directly to or about foreign nations. Jonah's story highlights God's concern for the city of Nineveh, a non-Israelite culture, and ultimately shows that God's mercy extends beyond Israel. Similarly, other prophets acknowledged God's sovereignty over all nations, proclaiming that God could use them for His purposes (e.g., Babylon in Jeremiah).

• Universalism in Prophetic Messages: Several prophetic texts include visions of a future where all nations would acknowledge God (e.g., Isaiah 2:2-4, where nations stream to the mountain of the Lord). This suggests an acknowledgment of regional cultures while promoting the idea that all should ultimately recognize and submit to God.

3. Cultural Contextualization

• Use of Cultural Symbols: Prophets often used culturally relevant symbols, metaphors, and language to communicate their messages effectively. They spoke to their audiences in ways that made sense within their cultural contexts, which suggests an understanding of and engagement with regional cultures.

• Adoption of Local Practices: Some prophets adapted local customs to convey their messages. For example, prophetic acts (such as symbolic actions or parables) often drew upon everyday life and customs familiar to their audiences, illustrating that they were engaged with the cultural realities around them.

4. Cultural Redemption Vision of Restoration

• Many prophetic messages include visions of restoration that encompass not just Israel but also the broader creation and other nations. This eschatological vision recognizes the diversity of cultures and the ultimate plan for all peoples to be redeemed and united under God (e.g., the prophecies in the Book of Revelation).

Conclusion

The prophets in the Bible were primarily focused on calling Israel to faithfulness to God and critiquing cultural practices that deviated from their covenantal identity. While they were often critical of regional cultures, especially when it came to idolatry and injustice, they also recognized God’s sovereignty over all nations and included visions of universal redemption that encompassed diverse cultures. Their engagement with local customs and their messages to foreign nations indicate a complex relationship where they affirmed the importance of cultural context while holding firmly to their distinct religious convictions. Thus, the prophets can be seen as both critics of and participants in the cultural landscapes of their time, advocating for a faith that transcends and transforms cultures rather than merely supporting them.

RES:

Can church culture become more pagan, condemning and judgmental

than just-and-fair civil democracies?

ChatGPT

Yes, church culture can, at times, exhibit tendencies that are more condemnatory, judgmental, and exclusionary than the ideals of justice and fairness often found in democratic civil societies. This can occur for several reasons:

1. Legalism and Judgmentalism

• Emphasis on Rules Over Grace: Some church cultures can prioritize legalistic interpretations of faith, focusing heavily on rules and regulations rather than grace and compassion. This can lead to a judgmental atmosphere where individuals feel condemned for failing to meet certain standards, rather than being embraced and supported in their struggles.

• Outward Appearances: Church communities may emphasize outward conformity to specific behaviors or beliefs, fostering a culture of judgment rather than one of understanding and acceptance. This can mirror societal structures that focus on performance and status, creating an environment where individuals feel pressured to hide their shortcomings.

2. Exclusionary Practices

• In-Group Mentality: Church cultures can develop an insular mentality, viewing outsiders or those who do not conform to specific beliefs as inferior or sinful. This can lead to a lack of engagement with broader societal issues, fostering division and hostility rather than promoting inclusion and dialogue.

• Condemnation of Alternative Lifestyles: Certain church cultures may be particularly vocal in condemning lifestyles or beliefs that diverge from their teachings. This often involves a focus on morality that can overshadow calls for love, compassion, and justice, creating an environment of fear and exclusion.

3. Power Dynamics and Authority

• Hierarchical Structures: Some church cultures can be marked by authoritarian leadership structures that discourage dissent and critical engagement. This can lead to abuses of power, where leaders may exert control over members in ways that are unjust or harmful, potentially creating a culture of fear and repression.

• Cultural Imperialism: In certain contexts, church cultures may seek to impose their values on broader society, reflecting a desire for control rather than fostering mutual understanding and respect. This can result in cultural clashes that exacerbate divisions rather than promote dialogue and coexistence.

4. Failure to Reflect Core Values

• Neglecting Justice and Mercy: While many religious traditions emphasize justice, mercy, and compassion, some church cultures may prioritize doctrine or tradition over these values. This can lead to a situation where the community becomes more focused on maintaining their own identity and purity than on serving the marginalized and seeking justice in society.

• Cultural Blindness: Church cultures may sometimes fail to recognize or engage with the social, economic, and political realities faced by their communities. This can lead to a disconnect between the church and broader societal concerns, creating a culture that is more insular and judgmental.

5. Comparison with Civil Democracies

• Democratic Ideals: Civil democracies often emphasize principles like equality, justice, and the protection of individual rights, which can foster a more inclusive and fair society. In contrast, church cultures that become overly judgmental may lose sight of these ideals, leading to practices that are less just and fair.

• Engagement with Diverse Perspectives: Democracies typically engage with a diversity of perspectives and values, allowing for dialogue and negotiation. In contrast, certain church cultures may reject or marginalize alternative viewpoints, leading to an environment that lacks the openness and inclusivity found in a more just civil society.

Conclusion

While many churches strive to embody justice, compassion, and love, there are instances where church culture can become more condemnatory and judgmental than the ideals of fairness and justice promoted in democratic societies. Factors such as legalism, exclusionary practices, power dynamics, and a failure to reflect core values can contribute to this phenomenon. It is essential for faith communities to engage in self-reflection and to seek to align their practices with the principles of justice, mercy, and compassion that are central to many religious teachings, fostering an environment that embodies love and inclusion rather than judgment and exclusion.

RES:

How are sacrosanct church cultures harmful to their message of God?

ChatGPT

Sacro-sanct church cultures—those that view their practices, beliefs, or traditions as untouchable or beyond criticism—can be harmful to the broader message of God in several significant ways:

1. Hypocrisy and Lack of Authenticity

• Discrepancy Between Beliefs and Actions: When church cultures become sacro-sanct, they may uphold high moral standards in teaching while failing to live out those values within the community. This discrepancy can lead to hypocrisy, causing members and outsiders to question the authenticity of the faith being professed.

• Failure to Acknowledge Imperfection: If church cultures prioritize an image of perfection or righteousness, they may discourage honest conversations about struggles and failures. This lack of authenticity can alienate individuals who feel they cannot measure up, undermining the church's message of grace and redemption.

2. Judgmental Attitudes

• Condemnation of Others: A sacro-sanct mindset can foster a judgmental culture where those who do not conform to specific beliefs or behaviors are marginalized or condemned. This attitude runs counter to the message of love and acceptance that is central to many religious teachings.

• Exclusion of Diverse Voices: When a church culture becomes rigid in its beliefs, it may exclude diverse perspectives and voices, including those within the congregation who may hold different interpretations of faith. This exclusion can stifle healthy dialogue and growth, leading to a narrow understanding of God’s message.

3. Resistance to Change and Growth

• Inflexibility in Interpretation: Sacro-sanct church cultures may resist new understandings or interpretations of scripture, creating an environment where questions and exploration are discouraged. This inflexibility can prevent the church from adapting to changing social and cultural contexts, limiting its relevance and impact.

• Stagnation of Spiritual Growth: When traditions and practices are held as sacrosanct, it can stifle innovation and spiritual growth within the community. Members may become complacent, feeling that they have fully grasped their faith rather than continuing to explore and deepen their understanding.

4. Divisiveness and Conflict

• Internal Division: A culture that prioritizes certain beliefs or practices as sacred can lead to internal conflicts when members challenge or question those beliefs. This can create divisions within the church community, undermining unity and fellowship.

• Outward Hostility: The emphasis on sacro-sanct beliefs can foster an "us vs. them" mentality, where the church perceives itself in opposition to the outside world. This can create a hostile attitude toward those who do not share their beliefs, harming the church's ability to engage with the broader community.

5. Misrepresentation of God’s Character

• Distorted Image of God: When church cultures emphasize judgment, exclusion, or rigidity, they can create a distorted image of God that is inconsistent with the message of love, grace, and mercy found in many religious texts. This misrepresentation can turn individuals away from the faith rather than drawing them closer to God.

• Focus on Legalism Over Love: Sacro-sanct cultures may prioritize legalistic interpretations of faith, emphasizing rules and behaviors over the relational aspect of faith. This focus can diminish the transformative power of God’s love and grace, making it harder for individuals to experience true connection with God.

Conclusion

Sacro-sanct church cultures can be harmful to the message of God by fostering hypocrisy, judgmental attitudes, inflexibility, divisiveness, and a distorted understanding of God’s character. By prioritizing tradition or specific beliefs as untouchable, these cultures can hinder authentic engagement with faith and the broader community, ultimately undermining the core principles of love, grace, and acceptance that are central to many religious teachings. It is essential for faith communities to cultivate an environment that values humility, openness, and compassion, allowing for a more authentic expression of their beliefs and a more accurate reflection of God’s message.

RES:

Can magaism be characterized as sacrosanct church ideology?

*Definitions of sacrosanct.

adjective:
(especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with: "...The individual's right to work has been upheld as sacrosanct."

most sacred or holy : inviolable. 2. : treated as if holy : immune from criticism or violation. politically sacrosanct programs. sacrosanctity.

adjective:treated as if holy and kept free from violation or criticism. synonyms: inviolable, inviolate. sacred.

ChatGPT

Characterizing MAGA-ism as a sacrosanct church ideology involves examining the ways in which certain elements of the movement may exhibit traits typically associated with sacrosanct beliefs in religious contexts. While MAGA-ism is primarily a political movement, it does incorporate elements of religious sentiment, particularly among its supporters who identify as evangelical Christians. Here are several aspects to consider:

1. Emphasis on an Idealized Vision

• Mythologizing the Past: MAGA-ism often promotes a nostalgic view of American history, presenting it as a golden age that needs to be restored. This idealization can parallel how some religious groups may hold certain historical periods or figures as sacrosanct, creating a narrative that emphasizes the need to return to an idealized state.

• Moral Certainty: Supporters of MAGA-ism may adopt a stance of moral superiority, viewing their beliefs and values as the only righteous path. This creates a sense of certainty that can resemble sacrosanct ideologies, where questioning or dissent is discouraged.

2. Judgmental Attitudes

• Exclusionary Practices: Like some sacrosanct church ideologies, MAGA-ism can be characterized by an "us versus them" mentality. Those who do not conform to MAGA beliefs, including many immigrants, liberals, and people of color, may be marginalized or condemned, reflecting a judgmental stance.

• Condemnation of Opponents: The movement often frames political opponents in stark terms, which can foster hostility and division. This mirrors how some religious ideologies may demonize those who do not share their beliefs.

3. Resistance to Change

• Inflexibility in Beliefs: MAGA-ism can exhibit rigidity regarding certain political and cultural beliefs, particularly concerning immigration, social issues, and traditional values. This resistance to change can parallel the inflexibility seen in some religious groups that hold certain doctrines or practices as sacrosanct.

• Rejection of Criticism: Supporters of MAGA-ism may dismiss criticism of the movement or its leaders, viewing such dissent as an attack on their identity and beliefs. This defensiveness can resemble how sacrosanct ideologies often respond to challenges with hostility rather than openness.

4. Integration of Religious Elements

• Religious Rhetoric: MAGA-ism has incorporated religious language and imagery, appealing to evangelical Christians by framing political issues in terms of divine will or moral duty. This can create a sense of religious fervor around political beliefs, blurring the lines between political ideology and religious conviction.

• Political Evangelism: Some MAGA supporters engage in a form of political evangelism, seeking to convert others to their political beliefs with the same zeal that one might see in religious proselytizing. This can foster a culture where the political ideology is treated with the same reverence as religious beliefs.

5. Identity and Community

• Sacred Community: The MAGA movement can foster a sense of community among its supporters, who may view their political identity as integral to their personal and communal identity. This identification can parallel how adherents of sacrosanct religious ideologies see their faith as central to their identity.

• Defensive Posture: The sense of being under threat from societal changes can lead to a defensive posture similar to that seen in some religious groups that believe their beliefs are being attacked. This defensiveness can strengthen group cohesion and commitment to the ideology.

Conclusion

While MAGA-ism is not a church ideology in a traditional sense, it does exhibit characteristics often associated with sacrosanct beliefs in religious contexts, including an idealized vision, judgmental attitudes, resistance to change, and the integration of religious elements. These traits can create a culture where certain beliefs are held with the same fervor and exclusivity as religious convictions, potentially leading to divisiveness and exclusion rather than the open dialogue and compassion that many religious teachings advocate. Understanding these dynamics can provide insight into how MAGA-ism resonates with certain religious sentiments, shaping the political landscape in ways that reflect deeper ideological commitments.

RES:

How can liberalism of the gospel assist against hypocritical church cultures?

ChatGPT

The liberalism of the gospel, often characterized by an emphasis on social justice, inclusivity, and the ethical teachings of Jesus, can play a significant role in addressing and counteracting hypocritical church cultures. Here are several ways this liberal perspective can assist in fostering a more authentic and just church environment:

1. Emphasis on Authenticity and Integrity

• Call for Honest Self-Reflection: The liberal interpretation of the gospel encourages communities to engage in self-examination and acknowledge shortcomings. By fostering an environment where authenticity is valued, congregations can create spaces for vulnerability, helping individuals confront and confess hypocrisy without fear of judgment.

• Living Out [Preached] Values: By emphasizing the ethical teachings of Jesus, particularly love, compassion, and justice, liberal gospel interpretations encourage individuals and communities to live out their beliefs in ways that align with their professed values, reducing the gap between belief and practice.

2. Advocacy for Social Justice

• Addressing Inequities: Liberal interpretations of the gospel often focus on social justice issues, advocating for the marginalized and oppressed. By emphasizing these concerns, church cultures can shift their focus from internal perfectionism to external engagement, fostering a culture of compassion and action that combats hypocrisy.

• Promoting Inclusivity: A liberal gospel perspective promotes inclusivity and acceptance, encouraging churches to welcome individuals from diverse backgrounds and experiences. This inclusivity helps dismantle elitist attitudes and creates a more holistic community that values each member's dignity.

3. Encouragement of Open Dialogue

• Fostering Healthy Conversations: Liberalism in the gospel advocates for open dialogue about faith, doubt, and differing perspectives. By encouraging discussions about difficult topics, church cultures can create an environment where questions and critiques are seen as opportunities for growth rather than threats to the community.

• Challenging Dogmatism: A liberal approach encourages questioning rigid dogmas and interpretations that can lead to hypocrisy. This openness allows for a more nuanced understanding of faith that is responsive to the complexities of human experience.

4. Focus on Grace and Redemption

• Emphasizing Forgiveness: The liberal gospel emphasizes grace and forgiveness, encouraging individuals to extend these concepts not only to others but also to themselves. This understanding can counteract the tendency to judge and condemn, fostering a more gracious community.

• Celebrating Transformation: By focusing on the transformative power of grace, liberal interpretations can help individuals and communities move beyond past failures and hypocrisy. This focus on growth and renewal encourages a culture that values progress over perfection.

5. Commitment to Ethical Living

• Ethical Imperatives: The liberal gospel stresses the importance of living out one’s faith through actions that reflect love, justice, and compassion. This emphasis on ethical living can help challenge behaviors and attitudes that contribute to a hypocritical culture, fostering a community that prioritizes justice and integrity.

• Promoting Accountability: By encouraging ethical accountability, liberal gospel perspectives can help hold individuals and leaders responsible for their actions. This accountability can deter hypocrisy and promote a culture where everyone strives to live in alignment with their professed values.

6. Integration of Faith and Action

• Faith in Action: Liberal interpretations of the gospel advocate for the integration of faith and social action. By prioritizing active engagement with social issues, church cultures can move away from self-righteousness and toward a more compassionate expression of faith that aligns with the teachings of Jesus.

• Community Engagement: By focusing on serving the community and addressing social injustices, churches can shift the focus from internal competition and judgment to collective action, fostering a spirit of collaboration and solidarity.

Conclusion

The liberalism of the gospel offers a robust framework for addressing hypocritical church cultures by promoting authenticity, social justice, open dialogue, grace, ethical living, and active faith. By focusing on these principles, church communities can cultivate environments that prioritize love, compassion, and integrity, ultimately reflecting a more accurate representation of the core messages of the gospel. This transformation not only benefits the church community but also enhances its witness and relevance in the broader society.

RES:

Thank you. Pls save under "Critique of Maga Church Culture."

ChatGPT

Memory updated.

You're welcome! The discussion has been saved under "Critique of MAGA Church Culture." If you need anything else, feel free to ask!

* * * * * * * *

Doctor Steven Hassan, world-renowned cult expert and author of "The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control," joins David to discuss his understanding of the MAGA movement through a cult lens.

Cult expert explains the Trump cult

Interview by David Pakman

Why Process Theology is NOT an Evangelical Post-Conservative Theology

amazon link

Postconservative theology may be said to parallel with “postliberal theology” at its best. Orthodox, biblical, but open to new insights about how to interpret Scripture. But the new insights must be faithful as well as fresh. Postconservative theology is not the same as "progressive theology,” which tends to lean toward indeterminant faith expressions, whereas “postconservative” allows for particular faith commitments and expressions but understands that the constructive task of theology is never finished. Authors emphasize various interpretive theological lenses used for doing theology among various postconservative theologians, rather than emphasizing the philosophical background to hermeneutical theory present in other works, such as past influential thinkers (including Gadamer, Grondin, Ricoeur, Heidegger, etc.). This resource could also function as a companion to Evangelical Theological Method: Five Views (2018). This emphasis of the chapters will not be on the nuts and bolts of “how to” interpret, but rather on the theological impulses that govern various lenses (Bible, cultural context, etc.) for doing theology and the way Scripture functions with respect to the practice of interpretation.

CONTENTS

My response: R.E. Slater

A cursory view of the above book seems to say this is a handbook on evangelicalism from a continental view (or more broadly, a global view) claiming it is postconservative in a postmodern sense. Which is all well and good but process-based philosophical theology cannot be said to be a real participant in evangelical post-conservatism. Moreover, Process is also the truer heritage of Open and Relational Theology (ORT) though Thomas Oord has been paring it down to be more palatable for evangelics to accept.

Secondly, the three titles mentioned in the last photo above (Cambridge, Blackwell, Routledge) may hold some interest for those like myself who wish to branch out away from evangelicalism's acclaimed post-conservative look.

And thirdly, I dearly appreciate Roger Olson as he was my way out of Calvinism in the early years of leaving evangelicalism however, Roger stopped short of Whitehead's process-based implications for Christianity back between 2014-2017 when I was following him. Thus my inclusion of Roger's Fall 2018 article further below on "What Is a Post-Conservative Evangelical?" 

* * * * * * *

Why Process Theology is NOT an

Evangelical Post-Conservative Theology

 

by R.E. Slater

The simple answer is that process theology is altogether different from traditional Christianity. It's philosophical basis is different. It's emphasis is different. It's gospel is different. And it's God is different. Let me introduce what I mean in rather ineloquent, if not crude illustrations:

Process' Philosophical Basis

Process philosophy, otherwise described by Whitehead as a "Philosophy of Organism," is organic, relational, experiential, and spiritual. It is more related to the Eastern philosophies than it is to the Western philosophies wherein Christianity was birthed and described by Hellenised Jews.

Alfred North Whitehead was a British scholar who late in life felt Einstein's physics needed a more sufficient basis metaphysically than what he was hearing from the scientists of his day. So he picked up where Hegel had left off a hundred-plus years ago and described cosmology in terms of a living, sentient-like, organism which can only be described in the momentary present. Years later, today's quantum physicists are describing a universe very much like Whitehead was in the early 1900s.

Then theologians like John Cobb came along, picked up Whitehead's metaphysic, and fleshed it out in Christian terms such that there is a God which "organized" the universe into a "becoming" essence from the "static" hot mess that it was; Cobb declared this Creator-God to be "ever-present" in the moment at all times with creation.

And should we go back into antiquity to explore the Semitic cultures such as the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Jewish Israelites we will find many, many, many ancient mystics and religious view expressing something similar about God's creation (the universe) as a living, evolving, hot mess that yearns for freedom, connection, and meaning. In short, this is process philosophy and theology.

Processual Emphasis

We live in a universe which isn't "living" unless it is connected to other processes. As "no man is an island" so too "no man or woman can have any sense of being without finding connection with something." Thus, a process-based cosmogeny is one that is relational. And with relationality comes experiential reaction.

For example, even as an atom or a quark responds to another atom or quark they do so because of their relation to that atom or quark and their consequential act of experience resulting from that relationship. Nothing in the universe can be described without these two metaphysical building blocks... that of relationality and a resulting experience from a relationship.

In Christian terms, God's eternal nature is one that reaches out for connection (relationship), responds to that connection (experience), which then creates new connections for God and for that thing (or soul) interacting with the divine. In Whiteheadian terms, God is the Primary Cause to all Secondary casual effects.

Further, as God is related to all things so all things are related to God. There are two things here:

One, God's Image is not only a part of everything, but deeply integrated, or embedded, into the fabric of creation. I commonly think of this as a panentheistic (not pantheistic) relationship between God and creation where God is God and creation is something other than God.... However, because God is the Primary Cause God's Image or God's DNA is an integral part of creation wherever it is and whatever it is.

In practical terms, tather than describing man theologically as being a sinner born with a sin nature, man was - and is - made in the Image of God wherein there is no sin or sin nature in creation nor humanity. So the question must be ask, "How does sin result?" In process terms, NOT from our presumed "sin nature" (which is a Greek philosophical idea) but from our freewill choices, otherwise known as creaturely "agency".

This "sin nature" then is part of evangelicalism's Western assumptions about man's creation when reading the bible and building a "biblical systematic theology." But there is nothing "biblical" about it... the ancient Semitics didn't posit this but the Greek's did. Process theology therefore is more Semitic than it is Greek. (As an aside, the bible was collected from oral traditions but it's collection was occurring during the Hellenistic Age, hence the Jewish scribes were already being influence by Greek thought even as the NT disciples were many years later. One further observation, Jews don't believe in original sin... so a study of earlier semitic religions might help distinguish this idea a bit further).

Two, evangelicalism teaches that in Jesus the idea of redemption became "fully understood" as it was related to the Old Testament's evolving teaching on the motif of atonement. Examples: God was Abraham's own atonement when walking between the sacrifices indicating covenant. Moses rehearsed atonement time-and-again throughout Israel's Wilderness experience. The Kingdom Era gave solidarity to the Atoning/Redeeming God by purity of worship to the one-and-only God. And the New Testament book of Hebrews proclaimed Jesus as Israel's High Priest and Redeeming Lamb of the world.

Process theology agrees with these observations but goes many more steps farther when asserting that these mercy-based forgiveness-and-rectifying events were every bit as personal as they are today in Jesus (my old teacher Leon Wood had said that once). Moreover, the history of the earth is rife with everyday cruciform events from Eden-like respites to salvation from evil.

Each-and-all of these cruciform events find there fulfillment in Jesus... however, in process theology Jesus can also be said to be illustrating the Image of God which is birth throughout all processes of the universe... that is, until creational agency disrupt's God's generosity, benevolence, protection, and generally divine activity of redeeming all things to himself. Point being, Jesus's atonement was part-and-parcel of creation's essence in God; Jesus may have been the signifier but he wasn't the only cruciform event in the universe's history. I like to think of Jesus' atonement as being birthed "from the ground up" in affiliation with, and reconcilement to, creation's own "becoming."

The Gospel is Different

God is not to be feared because of God's anger and wrath... no, the medieval idea of "fear" is that of respect and honor, as one would a "king or potentate". Process theology's central core is that God is love above all other divine attributes. Moreover, those attributes of holiness, mercy, caring, justice, etc, all have their basis in divine love.

That is to say, evangelicalism states - even as traditional Christianity had previously taught in centuries past - that the basis for human interaction with the Creator God was a relationship built on fear of the divine because of God's perchant to judge sinful lives with all kinds of "reaped" terrors and horrors ("...as ye sow so shall ye reap"). Example: the story of Job.

In comparison, process theology declares that God is never evil but at all times loving. That God's love is "an always condition" and how God's relationship to creation acts... this also includes all of mankind.

But, this doesn't mean that our sinful acts don't processually evolve over time into horrible things... it simply means that our sin is on us... including what may evolve from our sinful actions. Hence, as God is love let us love. Not to avoid harm and tragedy... but as being faithful to whom God created us to be as loving creatures willing to love and forgive.

So then, the good news (or gospel) of Christ is that God loves and loving forgives and redeems at all times in our lives. Every horrible situation can be redeemed in some way... even if it can't be stayed from it's culmination... even so, a gospel shoot of redeeming love can be planted for some future day. Thus and thus, the evangelical idea of "propitiation" or "expiation" for our sin is both true and untrue. True in that it declares what was said in the first sentence of this paragraph -  God loves and forgives. But untrue in that we are sinners born with a sin nature... rather, we are sinner's who bear God's Image who can be redeemed.

And, this God is Different

Lastly, traditional Christianity likes to emphasize God's power, dominian, and presence - and yet, God's power isn't immediately obvious, nor his godly dominian, nor God's presence. God , like Santa Clause, is here when we are good, and not here when we are bad.  Yet Process theology says God's power is mitigated upon our circumstances - a tornado cannot necessarily be diverted nor a hungry bear from it's prey.

That is, God helps as God can but creation must lean into God's activity to assist as well. Which places the onus on us. For instance, we might learn how to protect wives and children from abusive husbands but this is more of a process-event thing than a one-time act. Ditto with migrants and refugees fleeing terror.

So we must ask, "What is our responsibility for earthly terror and what can we now do to alleviate it?" We must ask this as politicians and generals... as business and church leaders... as civil servants and environmentalists... what positive roles can we better inhabit than we have done over the years past?

Similarly, process theology states that NO future is ever determined but all futures are open and pregnant with possibility, opportunity, hope, and forgiveness. God has given to us and the universe evolving futures with infinite possibilities from one moment to the next. And because God's Image is embedded in creation we have the additional hope that every event may bear goodness rather than evil.

In Conclusion

In the above paragraphs and illustrations I have shown how process theology differs from Westernized Christian philosophy - however "post-conservative" they wish to describe themselves. Over the years I have elucidated these process motifs by explaining and demonstrating how process can work in social, scientific, political, and ecological situations. It is why I far prefer process-based Christianity over any past traditional Christianities. And it is my hope to take the good of the Christian past and heighten it through process thought. Ditto with all human endeavors in life.

Lastly, I describe my site as being "post-evangelical" and not simply "post-conservative"... I do not wish to any longer build upon any forms of traditional, denominational or evangelical theology. Nor is progressive evangelicalism the same this as progressive process-based Christianity. Rather, I wish to take these past forms of Christianity and fill it with a better language... a (metamodern) processual language.

Peace and Blessings,

R.E. Slater

October 29, 2024

Edited: October 30, 2024

* * * * * * *

amazon link

* * * * * * *

What Is a Postconservative Evangelical?

by Roger E. Olson

October 22, 2018

This is how I describe myself and many others who think in a way similar to my way—about being “evangelical.” For a fuller explanation see my books Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology (BakerAcademic) and How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative (Zondervan).

Not many theologians I know want this label slapped on them. However, N. T. Wright accepted it and named me in his book Justification. I thought I coined the label back in the 1990s in an article for Christian Century entitled “Postconservative Evangelicals Greet the Postmodern Age.” Then I found out Fuller Seminary Professor Jack Rogers actually wanted his book Confessions of a Consevative Evangelical titled Confessions of a Postconservative Evangelical. That would have fit the book better. Also, Clark Pinnock used the word “postconservative” in his book Tracking the Maze, but his use and mine are not identical.

I coined the term (or thought I did) to describe a new breed of evangelicals who do not privilege “the received evangelical tradition” over fresh and faithful biblical scholarship (such as is being done by N. T. Wright and others). The “foil” for postconservative evangelical theology is evangelical theology deeply influenced by Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and the whole Old School Princeton Theology following them (e.g., David Wells, Roger Nicole, Millard Erickson, et al.)

Postconservative evangelical theology is evangelical theology that does not consider the constructive task of theology finished. Conservative evangelical theology is evangelical theology that considers the constructive task of theology finished. These theologians are primarily interested in the critical task of theology—discovering heresy and exposing it. They are also interested, of course, in translating older versions of “the received evangelical tradition” (e.g., Hodge) into contemporary idiom.

Postconservative evangelical theology does not elevate “biblical inerrancy” to the status of an evangelical dogma or (to borrow Carl Henry’s term) the “super badge of evangelicalism.” Postconservative evangelical theology does not privilege epistemological foundationalism and finds some ideas of postmodern epistemology helpful.

Postconservative evangelicals like: Lesslie Newbigin, N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, James McClendon and Nancey Murphy, Stanley Grenz, Clark Pinnock, et al. We mostly stay apart from the Evangelical Theological Society and attend events of the Missio Alliance and Ekklesia Network.

But the main difference between postconservative and conservative evangelicals in theology is attitudes towards the constructive task of theology. For postconservative evangelicals every doctrine is subject to revision in light of fresh and faithful biblical interpretation (not cultural accommodation). The Bible absorbs the world and is our authoritative narrative (but not a “not-yet-systematized systematic theology). Doctrine is important but secondary to Scripture.

The manifesto of postconservative evangelicalism is the late Stanley Grenz’s book Revisioning Evangelical Theology (IVP).

* * * * * * *

The article below is from the conservative evangelical viewpoint

which refuses Dr. Olsen's wisdom for it's own... - R.E. Slater

Reformed and Always Reforming:

The Postconservative Approach

to Evangelical Theology

article link

Written by Roger E. Olson

Reviewed By Adonis Vidu

There seems to be a growing recognition that the evangelical world is deeply fragmented. Some have even gone as far as to say that the word “evangelical” has lost any discriminating force, that it no longer identifies a homogenous movement. Olson agrees with the diagnosis of the fragmentation, but argues that the movement has in fact always been inherently at conflict with itself. The historical root of this specific make-up is the twin inheritance of Puritanism, with its accent on right belief, and Pietism, stressing spiritual experience. The present outgrowth of that tension is reflected in the intense and sometimes unfair debates between conservative and postconservative evangelicals. This book sets out to chart that tension, from the perspective of a postconservative.

Olson’s thesis is that “it is possible to be more evangelical by being less conservative” (p. 7). He does not believe that conservative evangelicals have a monopoly on the essence of evangelical Christianity. In fact, their own manner of asserting a certain cognitive component of Christianity is tributary to a modernistic epistemology. On the other hand, postconservatives, without denying the importance of the cognitive, tend to see the enduring essence of evangelicalism, its contribution to world Christianity in its transformational vision. The latter see Christianity first and foremost as a religion of transformation. If doctrines are important, they are always secondary to the ongoing work of the Spirit, transforming the lives of people into the divine likeness.

The itching point in this conflict is how one conceives of the authority of the Word of God in relation to Scripture and whether theological revision is consistent with being an evangelical. Olson argues that conservatives are actually betraying the authority of Scripture when in practice they hang on to certain “classic” doctrines just because they are part of the “established evangelical position.” Although sometimes they confess that their ultimate authority is Scripture, in practice they show almost no willingness to revise a theological position in light of what might be “fresh” understanding of Scripture, as Olson likes to describe it. On the other hand, postconservatives locate ultimate theological authority in God and the Holy Spirit, who speaks through the Scriptures. Olson is ambiguous on this score, since on the one hand he claims that he is ascribing more authority to Scripture than conservatives, but on the other hand he rejects an “unnuanced equation of Scripture with God’s Word” (p. 108) and prefers to locate authority directly in the continuing work of the Spirit in the contemporary church through Scripture. As a result, the past is binding, but not in the sense that it has to be repeated. Rather, theological construction is free to be creative, to draw on the truth that is found in culture, to use its imagination in order to re-perform (Vanhoozer) the script that is found in Scripture. However, the bottom line for Olson, as for many postconservatives, is that if Scripture is authoritative, it is only by its being included in an ongoing drama of redemption, which began at creation and is presently unfolding towards its eschatological consummation.

Although the essence of evangelicalism is experience rather than right doctrine, orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, Olson insists against popular misconception that doctrine remains important for postconservatives. But doctrine is a second-order reflection upon the experience of the church. Of course, once one puts it like that one must also be ready to explain why this is not Schleiermacherian liberalism. It is common place that Schleiermacher made the starting point of theology a universal human experience. The difference, Olson contends, is that postconservative theology appeals to a particular and supernatural, rather than a universal and natural, experience of being saved and being constituted into a redeemed community by the Holy Spirit.

The reason that it is possible, therefore, to be more evangelical by being less conservative lies precisely in the second-order nature of theology. If theology is subservient to an experience, then what is primary is the authenticity of that experience. What distinguishes evangelicals is not primarily right doctrine, but having one’s life centered on Jesus Christ, experiencing spiritual transformation after his own image through the power of the Spirit. Olson explains this by arguing that evangelicalism is a centered set rather than a bounded set. What defines it is its experience of the risen Christ, rather than boundary-setting right doctrines.

It is hard to do justice to such a wide-ranging book in such a short space. It is even more difficult to properly critique it, since restraint due to space might be mistaken for hurried dismissals. It is rather clear that American evangelicalism is facing years, possibly decades of intense theological debate and perhaps confrontation. This is what I believe will, or should, set the agenda of those conversations.

First, Olson makes a compelling point about the inherently unstable nature of evangelicalism. I am not sure that can be resolved short of a magisterium that legislates what belongs and what does not. I think more work needs to be done on the understanding of the cohesion between Puritanism and Pietism, as well as other influences that have contributed to the development of modern evangelicalism, including modernity and postmodernity. But sociological designators are themselves inherently unstable. There are no universal encyclopedias to tell us what the essence of an evangelical is. At the same time, I found Olson’s identification of the essence of evangelicalism with an experience to be only a partial description of its contribution, as long as no mention was made of justification by faith. If one were to use a classic pair of concepts, Olson does tend to place the emphasis more on sanctification than on justification, when in fact a creative dialectic should be preserved between them.

A second issue that Olson leaves pretty much hanging is the relation between the cognitive-propositional and the transformational aspects of revelation. Although he does acknowledge that there are propositional aspects to revelation, he does not seem willing to allow them to carry through into doctrine so that there might be certain doctrines which are epistemically primary, so to speak. This becomes even more important given his acceptance of holism (not a very nuanced one, for that matter), which in its more extreme forms holds that any belief whatsoever can be abandoned in the face of compelling evidence or for the pragmatic purpose of keeping the balance of the system. But if any belief can be relinquished, in what sense does it continue to speak of the authority of the Holy Spirit that speaks through the Scriptures? Moreover, and this pertains to his set analogy, how is it possible to even identify the center apart from some description of circumference? Unless we speak of circumference, even if we allow variation in distance from the center, what we will have identified is not a center, but simply a dot, a point in space. However, it is analytic to a point being a center that it is in some relation to circumferences.

Finally, Olson’s understanding of the role of tradition is somewhat self-contradictory. On the one hand he does relocate theological authority from the past (Scripture) into the present (continuing work of the Spirit), by circumventing tradition, but he seems not to realize that this present is precisely tomorrow’s tradition! He forgets that Eastern Orthodox Christianity views tradition as precisely the life of the Spirit in the church. So the direction in which I can see more research being done is the relationship between Scripture, the Great Tradition, and the epistemic relevance of the continuing work of the Holy Spirit. Admittedly, much evangelical theology is pneumatologically underdeveloped, but it remains to be seen whether compensating for that weakness should lead precisely in the revisionist direction favored by Olson.