2. That the Church worldwide is hanging on a precipice and will soon, if it doesn’t wake up, fall from the faith. Well, if by “worldwide” we mean America and Europe, then yup, I qualify here too. There are a lot of reasons for that, chief of which is the implicit adoption of a secular/naturalist/consumerist mindset.
3. That the solution to this nearly-apocalyptic church situation is to tighten up theological stands and clarify what is most central and most important for the Church today. Close–I am less persuaded about clarifying “what’s most important” for the Church, but fairly convinced that the evangelical church must institutional “tighten up theological stands.” Three for three!!!
4. That the major problems are theological drift, church laxity, and evangelical compromise with either modernity and/or postmodernity. See 1 and 2.
5. That it is “Neo” because it arises within Evangelicalism today and will either break from it or seek its widespread reform — and therefore its particular characteristics are determined by contemporary Evangelicalism. E.g., it isn’t really concerned about dancing and movies and “mixed bathing.” That would be me too. My interest is in reforming evangelicalism (semper reformanda!) because I think it’s the only branch of Christianity with the energy and strength to be reformed. At least of the branches that are in need of reform (see mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Episcopalians–the Orthodox are small, but still, well, orthodox). And I think the evangelical tendency to leave when things go bad is one of those evangelical characteristics in need of reforming!
It’s not a bad list to own, actually. I haven’t read McKnight’s work much (shame on me, I know) so perhaps he explains why these are bad beliefs elsewhere, or maybe it’s forthcoming, but in the interim, I’ll sleep happily tonight knowing that my tiny group (maybe it’s just me!) has a name.