Scot McKnight of North Park University delivered the Parchman Lectures at Baylor University’s Truett Seminary this year. He covered the subjects of evangelicalism, universalism, the gospel, and atonement. You can access the audio through McKnight’s blog here.
I have listened to the first and second and I am listening to the third. The first lecture was great. He provided many fantastic insights into the current state of evangelicalism. The second lecture is well done also. He asks why evangelicals responded so strongly against Rob Bell while ignoring recent works by the likes of Miraslov Volf. I am about to listen to the third, which I assume will say a lot of what I read in his recent book The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. The fourth will probably be based on A Community Called Atonement.
If you get a chance to listen to these lectures I think you will find them insightful and challenging.
the archives near Emmaus 
As always, when I hear things on what evangelicalism is or isn’t, I leave confused.
It is so interesting that I personally draw so much out of ALL of these guys! I love a lot of things from Piper, Carson and Keller… .AND McKnight, Wright, Greg Boyd, etc.
Why are so bent on drawing these lines and then firing away?
@Dan: That is actually the argument that McKnight makes. He is saying that evangelicalism is much, much larger than those who would seek to co-opt it. Many have an evangelicalism that is essential Neo-Reformed (or as McKnight says, Neo-Puritan), but that removes Methodist, Pentecostals, and a slew of evangelicals from the definition of “evangelical”.
I don’t know if you’ve listened to the lecture yet, but I think you’ll appreciate it.
I did listen to it, which is why I made the comments. He just flattens Piper, Carson, etc. He does what he accuses the other guys of doing. There isn’t any good he pulls from them.
But I understand his premise. However, to me, it’s like someone preaching tolerance being very INtolerant of intolerant people. Again, I GET his point! We need to be much broader. I wish we were, and I wish he had been.
I’m into the early part of universalism and think he gets Volf wrong, then labels evangelicalism’s issue with Bell too broadly. It again comes down to the “new reformed” or “neo-Puritans” and their issues.
This is good stuff, so don’t get me wrong. We need to get our eyes up. I like this guy… and Piper… and Wright… and Carson… (I just get the feeling HE doesn’t like some of those guys so much… lol )
@Dan: I admit that I found McKnight’s rebuke helpful. It may be because I am surrounded by people influenced by Piper, Driscoll, Grudem, et al., so I’ve seen what their influence can do. It is not wrong to be intolerant of intolerant people. I am intolerant of racist. I am intolerant of excessively violent people. I am intolerant of those who take advantage of the poor. And I think it is OK to be intolerant of those who are sectarian in this manner.
I’ve gained a lot from people like Carson and Keller (not so much Piper, Driscoll, and others), so I see where your warning is important, but I think it misses the point with McKnight.
You need to hang around some other people! LOL
McKnight is so frustrating to me. I agree with his (somewhat hypocritical) critique of the “neo-puritans,” and appreciate his depth of insight on matters pertaining to evangelicals, but when it comes to advancing his own views he always strikes me as a more incoherent and less interesting version of N. T. Wright.
@Dan: I try, I try!
@NW: Ouch.