Doug Wilson has an interesting take. I’m not sure that I agree with it without qualifications, but I am sympathetic to its sentiments.
Of course, modern evangelicalism and liberalism are not identical. They have differing histories, traditions, customs, and so forth. As movements, they have compromised with worldliness in very different ways, and oddly enough, that particular difference reveals their internal similarities. Whatever the external distinctions, compromise driven by unbelief always ends up looking and smelling the same.
But first a few words about the word evangelical. In the Reformation, it was frequently a synonym for Protestants, and since that time historic or classical evangelicalism has had an honored position within the stream of historic orthodoxy. But within the last century or so, the situation has drastically altered. For various reasons, our evangelical institutions, magazines, colleges, seminaries, denominations, etc. have deteriorated into what I call modern evangelicalism, or modev for short.
Consider it this way. What form of theology emphasizes experience and sentiment over doctrine? What emphasizes feeling good over feeling right? What emphasizes God as one of us? What emphasizes a realm of experience that is neutral and can be employed however men decide it should be employed? What emphasizes the authority of the seeker over the authority of God?
Blogging exhausts me, because points which should be made in books are relegated to 100 word editorials. I see Doug’s point, but I do also think that evangelicalism got some things right. A nuanced view is not helped by a form of media that only allows 100 words…