Richard Rorty, whose inventive work on philosophy, politics, literary theory and more made him one of the world’s most influential contemporary thinkers, died Friday in Palo Alto, Calif. He was 75.

Mr. Rorty’s enormous body of work, which ranged from academic tomes to magazine and newspaper articles, provoked fervent praise, hostility and confusion. But no matter what even his severest critics thought of it, they could not ignore it.

Mr. Rorty drew on the works of Freud, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Quine and others. Although he argued that “no area of culture, and no period of history gets reality more right than any other,” he did maintain that a liberal democratic society was by far the best because it was the only one that permits competing beliefs to exist while also creating a public community.

See the NYTs Obit here.

David Bebbington, professor of history at the University of Stirling and recent author of The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon And Moody has written an excellent article assessing American Evangelicalism through the lens of five recent books on the subject (see titles below).

In addition to the helpful book reviews, Bebbington notes that, contrary to these volumes, Evangelicalism is not a mere American phenomenon. It relies heavily upon certain British influences including have been swayed by the New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce, the theologian J. I. Packer, and the Christian statesman John Stott, non-evangelical apologist C.S. Lewis, and recently Alpha Course pioneer Nicky Gumble.

Of particular interest is Bebbington’s observation that American evangelicalism is much more political than British evangelicalism. With the shadows of John Owen, William Wilberforce and the like, one wonders if Bebbington is dismissing the political influence in Britain too quickly? Then again, he may be thinking of recent evangelicalism. Regardless, the American brand is perceived as heavily political, and in my opinion, as long as evangelicals to not baptize a political party and are equally good citizens as politicians, that can be very good.

His closing remarks on the 20th century version of American evanglicalism are helpful. Consider all the talk about America being or becoming a post-Christian nation, alongside Bebbington’s following comments:

“It is highly significant that in the 2006 Baylor survey more people in the same mainline denominations embraced the label “Evangelical” than did those regarded by the investigators as belonging to evangelical bodies. The 20th century witnessed far less interruption of the evangelical tradition than the usual emphasis on fundamentalism would suggest.”

“Evangelicalism has been and remains an emphatically global force, with characteristics that outcrop in every land under the sun, and it would be a mistake to suppose that it ever has been uniquely American. Yet its American expression, for all its accommodation to various currents in the modern life of the nation, has been and remains unusually successful.”

America–Evangelical, Christian, or Post-Christian. What are your thoughts?

Monique El-Faizy, God and Country: How Evangelicals have become America’s New Mainstream (Bloomsbury, 2006).

Richard Kyle, Evangelicalism: An Americanized Christianity (Transaction, 2006).

Sam Reimer, Evangelicals and the Continental Divide: The Conservative Protestant Subculture in Canada and the United States (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press, 2003).

Jeffery L. Sheler, Believers: A Journey into Evangelical America (Viking, 2006).

Douglas A. Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement (BakerAcademic, 2005).

The teachings of the Bible are, for some, a repository of moral truths that provide a set of rules–do this, don’t do that. Some of these people go to church to get reminded of what is right and wrong, and when faced with problems they try to do what is right by relying on self-determination, wit, intelligence, beauty, power, money, success, anything in order to avoid the wrong and get by. They pluck certain lines from a very long, very rich, very diverse story in order make ethical decisions. For them there is very little story to the Bible at all.

Postmodern scholar, Jean Francios Lyotard advanced the idea of “incredulity towards metanarratives,” rejecting the idea that there is no single, overarching explanatory story for the way things are and should be. Christians and the Bible claim that there is one Story that makes sense of the world and how it should be–the Story of Redemption.

There are millions of people that are familiar with the content of this Story, of God creating, man sinning, Jesus redeeming, the Spirit perfecting people, cultures, and creation. Many of those people even accept this Story as true without experiencing any kind of transformative life change. The story of the Bible is simply something they tell their children, but certainly not one they would discuss with friends. It’s just a story.

For others, the Biblical story is compelling, intriguing and worth reading and rereading. It offers an authoritative life system, a worldview that makes sense of the world. They tell it to others, insist on its truth, memorize it, and stake their lives on its reliability. But when it comes to being better citizens, locally and globally, all they can do is recite the story. They don’t change in character or contribute to the real world issues of homelessness, poverty, crime, etc. They just parrot the story.

Is the Bible just an inert story, something to tell our children or a worldview to stabilize our psyche and help us make sense of the world? For those that use the Bible as a moral guide, a bedtime story for children, they miss the fact that Jesus tells the little children to come to Him. The story is not about mythical creatures, but a historical person. A man-God who calls all attention to himself, who asks us to know him. Jesus demands that we not brush his miracles and parables off as night-time entertainment or embrace his commands as mere morality.

Jesus died for us to know him. He screams from the cross–look at me; I suffered for you. He insists that we not pay him back for suffering for our sin. Instead, he asks us to receive his forgiveness. He enters into the hardest part of our own stories and suffers for us and with us. He offers hope for a new life and a new world, free from injustice and filled with peace.

As Paul Tripp has written: “We forget that the Bible is not an encyclopedia, but a story of God’s plan to rescue hopeless and helpless humanity. Its a story about people who are rescued from their own self-sufficiency and wisdom and transported to a kingdom where Jesus is central and true hope is alive.” The Bible is not just a story. It is not mere encyclopedia for living; it is a life and heart-altering story about the person of God–Father, Son and Spirit–who are collaborating for the redemption and perfection of this creation project. It is an invitation to choose what part of the story you will experience both now and forever–everlasting joy or never-ending judgment–with or without our Creator-Redeemer.

As N.T. Wright has written: “The Bible is not just an authoritative description of God’s plan…it is part of the story itself.“ The Bible is more than a fable or moral compass; it is a complex, rich, historical, spiritual, personal announcement of God in action in our lives and the entire world. It is not an inert story but a lively reality, an ongoing documentary that calls us to know, enjoy, and worship God as Yahweh, Jesus, and the Helping Spirit as our years unfold. The Bible is no mere story.

Michael Johnson raises the point that many who enter the American church leave shortly thereafter, making momentary converts, not persevering disciples. Why is this? In this article, Johnson critiques generic discipleship and advocates self-generating discipleship in its place.

The material looks interesting and potentially very helpful. I have contacted them to see if the will be offering online previews of First Steps discipleship material.See the article here and the First Steps material here.