The 50 most influential Christians in the United States today.
-
Copyright
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Where noted, some Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.
All other content, except where indicated, is copyright © 2004-2008 Charles Sebold, Tracey Sebold, and Patrick Chan. All rights reserved. You may aggregate our RSS feed on your own website, provided you do not charge a fee to view it, or sell advertising space on that site.
12 Comments
Sadly, the only person in the top 10 I’d feel comfortable recommending to others is John Piper.
Billy Graham and James Dobson are generally decent men, but I’d have a couple of disagreements with them. They’re true to the gospel, but again, there are some concerns.
Since I don’t really know Leonard Sweets or Rob Bell, I can’t recommend them one way or the other. Hopefully they’re godly men.
The rest are iffy at best, in my opinion.
Among other concerns, Bill Hybels is part of the seeker-sensitive crowd.
Maybe you can get a feel for T.D. Jakes’ Pentecostalism from the title of arguably his most well-known book: Woman, Thou Art Loosed!.
Paul Crouch should be avoided like the plague. Crouch is in my neck of the woods. He’s a co-founder of the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Which, BTW, is right off of the 405 freeway near the South Coast Plaza, if you’re familiar with the area. It’s the building that sucks half the electricity out of Southern California every Christmas, and which says, “Happy Birthday, Jesus!” You can’t miss it.
As for Joyce Meyer, I believe Charlie had quite a bit to say about her way back when.
Moving away from the top 10 now…
Also avoid like the plague Robert Schuller. He’s the minister of the Crystal Cathedral. Which is sadly also in my neck of the woods. Yuck!
However, I’d highly recommend in Joni Eareckson Tada, Al Mohler, and John MacArthur.
I think I’ll stop now; it’s getting way too late.
I heard that he had actually gotten saved. Seen any changes lately?
Regarding Schuller, here’s what I’ve seen lately.
Joyce Meyer is in St. Louis; yet another person who somehow snakes around the order of creation as manifested in the church. But that’s far from her worst quality. She has taught the usual charismatic version of the gospel (Jesus literally became sinful, went to hell, etc.; God wants you to be rich or happy [and not in a John Piper sense] or whatever in this world, and so forth).
Jakes is outside Christianity, being a part of Oneness Pentecostalism. I’m willing to let Hybels slide for the moment but I have huge problems with his ecclesiology at the very least. Crouch… well, apparently his critics are going to hell. Sign me up, I’ll take the chance.
Rob Bell, to continue the name-calling, is Emergent. Billy Graham and his work left sola fide behind a while back as they partner with the RCC, and he’s getting soft on whether people who don’t worship Jesus will be saved. Dobson would be OK if he were just a psychologist instead of a political juggernaut and occasional theological dilettante.
As far as positives go, I concur with Patrick. Piper, Tada, Mohler, and MacArthur rule. I’d like to see some others get up there someday, as long as I’m wishing: Wayne Grudem for his theology and his CBMW work; Frame and Poythress for their theology; Iain Murray for keeping the chain of faith in church history in good repair (and of course Martyn Lloyd-Jones, although he has gone to his reward); I’d be happy to see Packer there, although I don’t get his ECT thing. If I had my druthers, we’d get some stronger BT names in there, like Meredith Klein and Beale. The boys from the White Horse Inn could be part of that as well.
Hm, wow, I hadn’t heard that. I’m not at all sure?
Oh, and I should also note, Erwin McManus, and Mosaic especially, are quite big here. I’ve been to a couple of their weekday services. Very worrisome. Extremely seeker-friendly. I don’t think I heard a word on sin and God’s wrath and judgment against it. If I did, it must’ve been so diluted I hardly remember. The (contemporary) worship music in my experience was much longer than the sermon itself. There was a rotating or traveling pastor, although maybe this isn’t normal. They very much appeal to diversity and multiculturalism, which I suppose can be good, but the way they do it makes it seem like that’s more important than other things (at least in my experience). At best, I’d tag the various Mosaic churches with a church like Saddleback. In a sense, it’s the LA-version of Saddleback on a best reading. Whereas Saddleback is much more for the suburban, Yuppie crowd. (I recently attended a funeral service there for a couple of friends’ father.)
BTW, I really enjoyed Charlie’s “wish list” for Christians he’d like to see on there in the future.
Oh, did you mean Meredith Kline? Or is there a Meredith Klein, too? (I’m not good at keeping up with a lot of this stuff.)
And I recently bought Beale’s Temple and the Church’s Mission on Gene’s recommendation. Looks meaty!
I’d also like to get his commentary on Revelation, but that’ll have to wait until I got some more cash money. Not to mention time to read. (I really shouldn’t be buying as many books as I do, since I hardly find the time to get to them.)
I’m actually surprised someone like N.T. Wright or John Stott isn’t on there. (Although I’d probably much prefer Stott’s theology to Wright’s, esp. given Wright’s NPP.)
Wait a sec. Was this only for Americans? I forget now.It was for the most influential Christians in America. Doh! I even wrote that (above). Although I’d still think N.T. Wright has had a big impact stateside. Anyway.Oops, yeah, that’s what I mean.
There’s a difference between “influential now” and “influential in a way that will impact future generations of the church.” And I’m afraid Wright will be one of the latter for all the wrong (ahem) reasons.
Isn’t Stott the one who gives a free pass to annihilationism?
Oops, I guess I lost a couple on my wish list too, if we’re going to keep this in the US.
Hehe.
If I recall, I believe Phil Johnson gave a sermon or perhaps lecture on him and called it, “What’s Wrong About Wright.” Or something to that effect.
Oh, yikes. You’re right. I had forgotten about his annihilationism.
Although in recent years, it seems like he’s softened his position:
I wonder if that’s changed between c. 2001 and now, though? Kinda weird to me how an evangelical and (if I’m not mistaken) Reformed Christian can take a muted stance on the issue. After all, hasn’t he ever read “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”?
Well, I didn’t say he was an annihilationist, I said he gave it a free pass. I think that the exegesis is clearer than he (or even Bruce) make it out to be, and I also think it opens up a scary slippery slope that we would do well to avoid (although that isn’t my primary problem with the idea).
A lot of people think that they are, in fact, capable of comparing non-existence favorably with existence in some sort of eternal conscious torment, regardless of the meaninglessness of the comparison.