American Evangelicalism in Hypermodernity

The concluding chapter takes stock of what the preceding argument entails for American Evangelicalism today. It begins with evaluations from Evangelical leaders themselves about the state and health, or lack thereof, of Evangelicalism in the United States. It then addresses two frequently asked questions: “What’s new about the New Calvinism?” and “What are the boundaries of the Evangelical field?” Not able to identify any definitive boundaries, the chapter moves on to an exploration of what Evangelicalism in the United States centers on (the Bible? Jesus? The Gospel? Mission? Politics?). As with boundaries, it is argued this religious tradition lacks any coherent, agreed-upon, substantive center. American Evangelicalism is increasingly fragmented and incoherent. The chapter—and the book—ends by suggesting a new vision of secularization not as declining belief or practice but as dissolution or “cultural entropy,” a process by which an entire religious cultural system falls apart.

Conclusions

On the basis of the preceding argument, the author posits that the emergence of a new emergent virtual understanding of the individual, has brought us to the absolute limit of the normalizing complex. This vision of the subject as a virtual entity indicates a growing awareness of the presence of an existential uniqueness, or Otherness (born out of normalization’s inherent allusion to the Other as what lies beyond the norms), in everyone’s life that challenges the attempts at conceiving the social body in terms of normality. This has implications that are as yet undefined for our current legal system that has developed thus far in relation to the dynamics of normalization. Faced with the expansion of Otherness in our society, the author intimates that we may be forced to rethink the structure of our legal discourse, and imagine new foundations for the future of democracy and politics.

The Epistle of Barnabas and the Two Ways of Teaching Authority

Although much attention has been given to the literary development of the Two Ways form of paraenesis within theEpistle of Barnabas, comparatively little analysis of its function within the letter’s argument has been undertaken. This lacuna in scholarship is addressed by (i) analyzing the function of Two Ways imagery in chs. 1-17 and (ii) investigating the relationship between the Two Ways form in chs. 18-21 and the preceding argument. The Two Ways imagery throughout the letter aims to strengthen the communal identity of the audience by fostering a strong sense of in-group awareness. That is, it sharpens the contrast between those who accept the author’s negation of Jewish identity through scripture and those who do not. The Two Ways form found at the end of the letter (chs. 18-21) both recapitulates this imagery and seeks to orient the audience’s identity around the author’s teaching authority.

Plato, Republic 421B

єί μέƲ ο$$v$$Ʋ ήμєȋς μέƲ ϕƲλακЃκ ώς άληθῶς ποіοῶμєƲ, ἥкіστα КαКоύρϒονς Τῆςs πóλєѡς, ό δ' ὲκєîƲo גέγѡƲ γєѡργούς τιƲɑς καì ὥσπєρ έƲ παƲƞΥύρєі άλλ' οὐ᧻ ÉƲ πόλєі έσΤιάΤορας єύδαίµοƲας, ȁλιƲ ȁƲ ΤΙ ἥ πóλιƲ λέλoi.‘More simply expressed,’ write Jowett and Campbell, ‘the sense is as follows: “If the idea of a state requires the citizens to be guardians, he who converts them into rustic holiday-workers will mean something that is not a state.“’ This rendering, which seems to be necessary if the traditional text is retained, is difficult to reconcile with the preceding argument. Although this note will suggest an emendation, its chief purpose is to indicate the connexion of this passage with the argument of which it is the closing sentence.