What I was describing is the way in which the evangelical world was reconstituted after the Second World War by people like Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and John Stott and how it has declined in recent decades.  This kind of rhythm—renewal followed by decline, followed by renewal, followed by decline—is, in fact, the story of the Church.  In Scripture, we see this very rhythm working itself out in the Book of Judges. It is always important, though, for people to know where they are in such a cycle.  There is no time when the Church is perfect but there are times when it is better and others when it is worse.  My view is that in important ways we are leaving behind better days, even as being “born again” gains cultural acceptance and as megachurches become more numerous.  It is the deep sense of truth, the truth that God has given us in his Word, that defined the earlier evangelicals and this sense is now fading in comparison to the desire to be culturally relevant.  We should, of course, be engaging culture but not so that that culture defines who we are and what we want and how we go about our church business.  It is “sola Scriptura” not “sola cultura” ! The marketers are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have adopted from the business world all of the tricks of marketing that make corporations successful.  The emergents are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a postmodern mood which imagines that knowing what is true is arrogant, that the way we make connections with Gen Xers. is by being so diffident that we are unsure how true Christianity really is or what its demands actually are.

Focusing on the problems with church marketing strategies, you note that, "The gospel cannot be a product which the church sells because there are no consumers for it.  When we find consumers we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel." If the marketers/seeker-sensitives are not "selling" the gospel, what is it that their consumers are actually buying?

What we seldom understand is that the modernized world in which we live has untold benefits but it also extracts from us deep, inward costs for having those benefits.  That is our paradox.  Never have we had so much --so many products, choices, opportunities, so much knowledge, instant communication, and long life (in 1900, people could anticipate on average 49 years of life in America but today it is in the early 80’s).  But, at the same time, the levels of anxiety have never been higher, or the levels of stress, and the incidents of depression have never been greater and we now have more kids who are more demoralized than ever before.  This is our paradox.  Never have we had so much and never have we had so little.  Living in the American consumer Paradise is....hard!  That is why when people come to church, their minds are full of all of these pressures, anxieties, worries, cares, distractions.  What they are looking for is inward relief, a moment’s therapy, some fun and lightness, some inspiration, a little break from the harshness of the workplace.  That is what they want from their churches.  And that is what the marketers are intent on giving them.

You claim, "There is a line which connects Marshall and Wright to Bell and McLaren.  It is that the authority of God functions separately from the written Scriptures… The common threads across this broad front are that Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its functioning in the life of the Church today.  We are, in fact, autonomous, freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in our own way, in the postmodern world." One might argue that evangelicals have been doing this for some time. For example, many try to find guidance from God through "putting out fleeces", feeling a special peace about a decision, or waiting for some other sign. Would you say that the common thread also extends through these sorts of spiritual practices that appear to water down the authority of Scripture? How would you assess the role Scripture currently plays in the lives of most American evangelicals? 

We all find ourselves in the midst of a world which is sometimes baffling, confusing, and painful.  Like the psalmists of old, we often ask, “where is God in all of this?”  This experience, I suspect, is the common lot of those who know God because we are all being trained to walk by faith and not by sight.  We find this hard.  We want to be supported by evidence—interesting coincidences, miraculous escapes, compelling narratives—and so we do, indeed, often lean to our own understanding as you suggest.  However, this weakness, I believe, is of a different order from those who, in small or large ways, have undermined the full, working authority and truthfulness of Scripture.

You state, "It is important for us to remember that culture does not give the Church its agenda." Given the context of debates over our relationship to the culture, what ought our relationship to culture to be?

Culture is simply the public environment in which we live that has been brought about by the modernization of our world.  Our culture is defined by our urban concentrations, by our consumerism, the fact that technology is interwoven through our lives, by the massive bureaucratic  structures in our society which create its impersonal feel, by our loss of connections to place and family so that loneliness has become epidemic.  This is what explains why our music is as it is and why serious movies are exploring the themes which they are.  So, as in ourselves, so in society which is an extension of who we are, we must make a distinction between what is good from creation and what has been corrupted.  The N.T. understanding of worldliness is that it is everything in our culture which, however pleasant, makes sin look normal and righteousness look strange.  It takes discernment to be able to see what is good in culture and what is not.  The problem here is that discernment is essentially a moral ability and we are now raising a church generation which is simply adrift morally.  That is a fact which I have documented.

A significant criticism in your book is against the autonomous self that has come to define popular culture and even many churches. You argue that we have become self-centered as opposed to God-centered. Isn't there some degree, however, to which we should be aware of ourselves? Some of the great hymns emphasize our wretchedness and our gratitude toward God. How does a healthy view of self differ from the autonomous self?

Yes, we should be aware of ourselves and it is still true that the unexamined life is not worth living.  That, however, was not what I had in mind.  The “autonomous self” is what happens when we have little or no compelling reality outside of ourselves; we have no Scripture that summons us into the presence of God, no God who is indistinguishable from our needs and wants, no community that can help or correct us, no moral world in which right and wrong are enduringly true and out “there.”  There are millions of Americans like this and many are in evangelical churches.