Dear Editor,
I do not know how much of conservative evangelicalism Glen Scrivener’s criticisms in his article are aimed at. Nor can I comment on ‘Blokes Worth Watching’ (BWW) or how widespread it is.
My main concern is his comments on conservative evangelical beliefs/ doctrine/practice/vision, and his apparent dissatisfaction with them.
My experience with conservative evangelicalism just does not bear out there being ‘little place for deep transformation of character…’ and ‘little place for theology…’. Little place for theology: Oak Hill, Cornhill, Union, London Seminary, Crosslands… ?
Yes, preaching is sometimes said to be explanation of the passage, but I have clearly understood from conservative evangelicalism that it’s also, primarily, proclamation of Christ.
Far from the arid Christ-less picture Glen seems to give, I have found Christ to be central in conservative evangelicalism; that ‘Christ is in all of Scripture’ and that it’s through God’s word we encounter Him and the Holy Spirit works. And the gospel outlines Glen seems to dislike help Christians know the gospel and to share it.
I value what conservative evangelicalism represents: a high view of Scripture, including its sufficiency and supreme authority, it’s contending for truths that are unpopular, and resisting compromise; and Reformed theology. I see a much-needed focus on God’s word especially preaching as the way the Holy Spirit brings salvation and renews Christ’s church, on the ‘simple gospel’ of eternal salvation, and evangelism. Glen Scrivener seems to be advocating a move away from these foci to other things.
And can we accept that the values of conservative evangelicalism are from good motives, such as gratitude for God’s grace shown us sinners in the gospel and in revealing Jesus to us, and a desire to spread the gospel for God’s glory?
Yours sincerely,
Philip Walker Stevenage
