The 1960's Social Movements - Pathways to the Final Apostasy by Philip Alajajian

The cooperation that looked like a gift to conversion-oriented denominations at mid-century undermined the theological rigor of those same denominations, replacing it with a blasé evangelicalism-of-the-public-square possessed of little depth. In this way, cooperative evangelical efforts towards unified social action became a Trojan horse. As political power increased for NAE-type evangelicals in the 1970s and beyond, a return to denominational rigor would have meant the fragmentation of the movement and a loss of cultural and political influence. Throughout its early years, the National Association of Evangelicals rallied denominations around its motto “Cooperation without Compromise.” In practice, the neo-evangelical venture effectively undermined that sentiment, making continuing cooperation contingent on compromise. At the same time, they contributed to the demise of denominational commitment and rigorous tradition-specific theological engagement with social issues by encouraging social efforts borne out of the minimalist theology which held the movement together. In the end, the “new evangelical” efforts towards social engagement accomplished much. The 1960's Social Movements - Pathways to the Final Apostasy Alajajian, Philip ISBN: 9781973150756 Kostenloser Versand fr alle Bcher mit Versand und Verkauf duch Amazon.

That book might be the one that completes my historical journey on this question.Ironically then, the “grand vision”–as my friend Owen Strachan is wont to call it–of neo-evangelical leaders towards a unified, theologically-grounded evangelical social vision and mission undermined the ability for participant denominations to do the same. It triggered some thoughts that led me to discover another book I plan to read next: The 1960's Social Movements - Pathways to the Final Apostasy Though I'm not sure I'll ever answer the 2nd question, or convince others if I think I have an answer, this book filled in an important piece in the puzzle. They saw their reform efforts as an attempt to honor their parents by preserving Puritan moralism in a modern world.įor some time I've been on a journey to understand the question: How did we get here? That's a necessary start to answering the question: What should we do?. * Seen as rebellious by their parents because they fell away from Christianity, Progressives didn't see themselves that way.

* The Progressive agenda, though it had a huge impact on the U.S., was largely a failure. * The Progressives were largely raised in Protestant/Puritan households, and their reform agendas were an attempt to retain religious language and structure without believing in God. The three points most interesting to me have been: But over time the shine has worn off, so this book has been very interesting so far. My grandfather was a die hard supporter of who could be called the last Progressive, FDR. When I was younger, I greatly admired the Progressives. I've been reading an interesting book: Ministers of Reform

The 1960's Social Movements - Pathways to the Final Apostasy by Philip Alajajian