This is a brilliant assessment and places what I have been seeing for a while in the perfect categories. It also explains why Christians, even those who used to be ministry partners, talk past each other. Thanks for an incredibly clarifying and insightful analysis.
I just recently read an article criticizing Tim Keller for his "third way" approach to dialogue and how it may have used to work but it no longer does as we are in a post liberal world. As I was reading the article, it became clear that this author was criticizing Tim Keller for his approach to the culture war. The problem with his assessment, though, was that Tim was not a Battle Field Evangelical but a Mission Field Evangelical. He wasn't thinking in terms of "winning" the approval of elites. He was thinking in terms of winning the opportunity to share the gospel with the men and women who were unbelievers and skeptics sitting in his church every Sunday.
There is one thing I would add to your piece about Battlefield Christians. From my read on things, it seems to me that most Battlefield Christians do not see the enemy as defined by scripture (i.e. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Eph. 6:12). It seems to me that the "enemy" are the "libs" and anyone who may even look like they are compromising with them. I think there is something we could appreciate and learn from Battlefield Christians if they defined their enemies properly. But since most don't, I don't think I want to take up arms with them.
The best part of the article is probably your discussion on Wheat Field Christians. I wish all of us very online Christians would remember them and be more like them.
This is a wonderful article. When I consider your words I realize that I am more comfortable with The Mission Field Vision because it's where we live. Love is an action word. Our efforts to be more like Christ start with our families and neighbors.
Valuable insight into the roots of the division that has developed in an arena where unity should be the rule.
Amen.
As a fellow sojourner, I found this adding some clarity to my own confusion on the current landscape.
Thanks, Sean. I’m glad it was helpful 🙏🏼
This is a brilliant assessment and places what I have been seeing for a while in the perfect categories. It also explains why Christians, even those who used to be ministry partners, talk past each other. Thanks for an incredibly clarifying and insightful analysis.
I just recently read an article criticizing Tim Keller for his "third way" approach to dialogue and how it may have used to work but it no longer does as we are in a post liberal world. As I was reading the article, it became clear that this author was criticizing Tim Keller for his approach to the culture war. The problem with his assessment, though, was that Tim was not a Battle Field Evangelical but a Mission Field Evangelical. He wasn't thinking in terms of "winning" the approval of elites. He was thinking in terms of winning the opportunity to share the gospel with the men and women who were unbelievers and skeptics sitting in his church every Sunday.
There is one thing I would add to your piece about Battlefield Christians. From my read on things, it seems to me that most Battlefield Christians do not see the enemy as defined by scripture (i.e. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Eph. 6:12). It seems to me that the "enemy" are the "libs" and anyone who may even look like they are compromising with them. I think there is something we could appreciate and learn from Battlefield Christians if they defined their enemies properly. But since most don't, I don't think I want to take up arms with them.
The best part of the article is probably your discussion on Wheat Field Christians. I wish all of us very online Christians would remember them and be more like them.
I agree about the dangers of the Battle Field vision, which is the reason I resonate with Mission Field vision more.
The Wheat Field idea was one of my own “Aha” moments, as it helped me realize why the simplistic “two sides” idea never has sat well with me.
Thank you for sharing your insight.
This is a wonderful article. When I consider your words I realize that I am more comfortable with The Mission Field Vision because it's where we live. Love is an action word. Our efforts to be more like Christ start with our families and neighbors.
Amen 🙏🏼
Fantastic breakdown.
Glad it was helpful!
I feel a little lost. What book are you talking about?