 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Introduction:
Not Of This World
Derek Poole
Comment:
Is You Is or Is You Ain't?
Joyce Greenaway
Truth
to Live
David Hewitt
Evangelicalism
at its Best
Patrick Mitchel
Not
of this World...A Personal Reflection
Glenn Jordan
Review
1: An Exercise in Self-Reflection
Derek Tidball
How
Often Should We Forgive?
Alan Wilson
Review
2: An Exercise in Propaganda
Wallace Thompson
Review
3: I am not an Evangelical...
Malachi O'Doherty
Faith
and Practice - Maurice Kinkead
Ruth Hutchinson
EVANGELICALISM
AT ITS BEST
John Stott argues that evangelical christianity, founded on the teaching
of Jesus himself, is ‘authentic christianity, true, original and pure.’1
The purpose of this article is to explore the basis for this high claim
by looking at evangelicalism ‘at its best’. In other words, what is the
appeal of a movement that is now perhaps the most dynamic and fastest
growing stream of christianity in the world?
Evangelicalism is far from flawless and has no shortage of stern critics. External commentators have pejoratively dismissed it as fundamentalist, fanatical, arrogant, superficial and divisive. Internal critics are all too aware of evangelical shortcomings. At times, when living in a christian community used to test her sanctification, a patient godly lady I know used to joke, “To live above with the saints you love, that will be glory. To live below with the saints you know, well, that’s another story!” Authors on evangelicalism acknowledge the reality of the movement’s ‘dark side’. Alister McGrath notes evangelicalism’s predilection for guilt trips, burn-outs, intolerance and authoritarian leadership. After over sixty years of christian service, John Stott continues ‘to be profoundly grieved by our evangelical tendency to fragment.’3 Derek Tidball asks the question, "Would Jesus be an evangelical today?” and concludes, “Sadly the answer cannot be an unequivocal ‘yes’.” Jesus would affirm many evangelical priorities. However, a reading of the Gospels suggests that … he would not be at home in today’s evangelical subculture with its emphasis on external behaviour and unimportant matters. He would burst through the bonds of humanly-created evangelical traditions as he did the humanly-created Jewish traditions of his own day. In view of his forthright criticisms of the scribes and Pharisees one cannot help but feel he would voice similar criticisms of much that goes on within contemporary evangelicalism. Its pride, arrogance, sense that evangelicals have it right whilst others do not, its acceptance of people on the basis of their spiritual achievements, rather than out of grace, would all merit his censure. His wide embrace of others, his identification with the rejects, his association with the immoral, his willingness to be entertained by the suspect, breathe a different atmosphere from much contemporary evangelicalism. There was, in him, none of the rigidity and defensiveness that one can encounter in the evangelical ghetto.4 Many readers will be all too aware of the accuracy of Tidball’s criticisms. As a movement propelled by imperfect people, evangelicalism is marred by sin. Therefore, as we move to a consideration of evangelicalism’s ‘best’ qualities, we need to do so with humility. Evangelicals have a double motivation for practising humility. First, we have much to repent of and be humble about. Second, the nature of the gospel of grace destroys any basis for human pride (Gal 6:14). The Appeal of Evangelicalism: Historic Orthodoxy
What then is so attractive about evangelical faith? At least four different themes can be identified. As the opening quotation makes plain, evangelicalism claims to be nothing else but original, historic, orthodox christianity. Evangelicals wholeheartedly affirm all the great ecumenical creeds (like the Creed of Nicea, the Apostle’s Creed, Chalcedon etc.) that define the fundamental truths of the christian faith. An examination of a standard evangelical ‘statement of faith’ should substantiate this point. As James Packer puts it: Evangelicalism is not just one ‘ism’ among many that our age has bred.’5 It is later diversions, such as Catholicism and Liberal Protestantism, which are ‘eccentricities and novelties’. Historically the term ‘evangelical’ can be traced backwards from its widespread use in the nineteenth century, an era of unparalleled evangelical influence. In the eighteenth century the term was used to refer to the ‘evangelical revival’ led by men like John Wesley and George Whitefield. In the previous century, it had been applied to the Puritans in England and the Pietists in Germany. Sixteenth century reformers like Luther adopted the designation evangelici, short for evangelici viri (evangelical men). As early as the fifteenth century, the precursor of the Reformation, John Wycliffe, had been called Doctor Evangelicus. Modern evangelicals claim as ‘proto-evangelicals’ earlier figures who accepted the twin pillars of evangelical belief, namely the absolute authority of scripture and salvation in Christ alone. For example, John Stott includes Augustine in this category. Irish Evangelicals happily endorse St. Patrick (amongst other early Irish christians like Columba and Columbanus) as an example of a christian informed by scripture and motivated to mission by his deep awareness of God’s grace. From these early christians it is but a short step back to Jesus and the Bible, the ultimate source of authority for contemporary evangelicalism. The significance of this long historical legacy is that evangelicalism ‘at its best’ is firmly rooted in the theological essentials of the Apostolic Gospel. It is noteworthy that during the recent global resurgence of evangelicalism there has been a significant decline of liberalism. Emptied of the supernatural, shaped to suit fickle modern trends and lacking conviction, clarity and purpose, liberal christianity had become simply an insipid reflection of secular society. As Alister McGrath remarks, it had managed to turn wine into water. A vital element, therefore, of evangelicalism’s attractiveness is a continued commitment to its theological essentials. Anchored in scripture and focused on the gospel of the cross of Christ, evangelicalism will continue to offer the ancient yet radical message of the christian faith to each generation. If, as some fear, it ever loses touch with its historic confessional core, it will be in grave danger of following liberalism’s demise. Good News
A second feature of evangelicalism’s appeal is its focus on the evangel – the Good News (Luke 4:17-21). Not surprisingly, a defining characteristic of evangelicalism is evangelism (there is something amiss when the two become divorced in the life of a church or an individual). Evangelicals are people motivated to communicate a message. Given a great commission by their Lord (Mt. 28:18-20) to make and teach disciples in all nations, evangelicals are committed to the truth and life-changing power of the gospel. Towards the end of his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul reminds them of the basic facts of the gospel (1Cor 15:1-5a). It is by this gospel alone that they experienced salvation. The gospel is of ‘first importance’ and is based on real historical events. It depends on the substitutionary death of Jesus ‘for our sins’. It hinges on the fact that ‘he was raised on the third day’, an event witnessed by the Apostles and others. Therefore, at the very centre of evangelical faith is a profound awareness of the astonishing and inspiring nature of the gospel. It is a movement sustained by a sense of worship, thankfulness, love and obedience to a God who ‘so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.’ Evangelicals engage in evangelism not to manipulate people to ‘join their group’, but because they are convinced of the eternal significance and attractiveness of the message they have to share. It is a cold, rationalistic evangelical faith that believes merely in a set of abstract doctrines. At the heart of the movement is a shared experience, shaped by a shared theology. Donald Bloesch captures this balance well. An evangelical is … one who affirms the centrality and cruciality of Christ’s work of reconciliation and redemption as declared in the scriptures; the necessity to appropriate the fruits of this work in one’s own life and experience; and the urgency to bring the good news of this unmerited grace to a lost and dying world. It is not enough to believe in the cross and resurrection of Christ. We must personally be crucified and buried with Christ and rise with Christ to new life in the Spirit … we must also be fired by a burning zeal to share this salvation with others. To be evangelical therefore means to be evangelistic.6 Relevance
Authentic evangelicalism believes it is relevant because it is right. This is not arrogance. As we have noted, evangelicalism must remain faithful to the truth of the evangel regardless of the changing cultural context in which it exists. The evangelistic task, however, is to communicate the historic gospel in an intelligible way to the modern world. Evangelicalism ‘at its best’ will be able to tread a middle path between compromise with the secular agenda of the world on the one hand (liberalism) and withdrawal from the world on the other hand. This is where it becomes necessary to distinguish evangelicalism from fundamentalism. Evangelicalism stands between liberalism and fundamentalism (although closer to the latter than the former). Fundamentalism is a child of the early twentieth century, born out of a reaction against the over-confident claims of modernism. Despite unity on the ‘fundamentals’ of the christian faith, evangelicalism and fundamentalism soon parted ways. An important factor in the severance of the two movements was that of how to relate the gospel to the modern world. Historically, three symptoms of fundamentalist and evangelical differences on this question are respectively: Separatism from both the world and other christians, as opposed to association with other christians; Cultural criticism rather than cultural engagement; Social withdrawal as opposed to social action. Another way of putting this is to use the theologian Richard Niebhur’s model. Evangelicalism believes in Christ transforming culture whereas fundamentalism adheres to Christ against culture. Evangelicals believe that fundamentalism is seriously flawed on this and other issues (James Packer once described fundamentalism as … 'evangelicalism at something less than its best'). Evangelicalism ‘at its best’ seeks to reflect the graciousness of God’s acceptance of sinners in Christ in its relationships with other christians (see Rom.15:7 'Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you'). It believes that it is being biblically faithful in proclaiming the apostolic gospel in ways that engage with contemporary culture (witness Paul’s evangelistic address in the Greek Areopagus in Acts 17). Such contextualistation of the gospel is not compromise, but amounts to responsible christian apologetics. Contemporary Evangelicalism has also ‘rediscovered’ the place of social action alongside evangelism. Nineteenth century Evangelicals in particular had an outstanding record on social action. This emphasis was lost for much of the twentieth century due to evangelical reaction against liberalism’s ‘social gospel’. The highly significant evangelical Lausanne Covenant of 1974 expressed … 'penitence both for our neglect of our christian social responsibility and for our naïve polarization in having sometimes regarded evangelism and social action as mutually exclusive'.7 It went on to affirm that christian social duty finds its biblical foundation in four doctrines, namely the doctrines of God, man, salvation and the kingdom. Radicalism
Two key tenets of evangelicalism, derived from the Reformation, are ‘Scripture alone’ and ‘Christ alone’. Evangelicals recognise no higher authority than that of Scripture. They reject that salvation lies anywhere else but in personal faith in Christ. As the Reformation showed, these beliefs have radical implications. Evangelicalism ‘at its best’ therefore has a questioning, sceptical attitude to institutional religion. No human tradition, whether a church or system of doctrine, is exempt from the probing searchlight of Scripture. The individual does not need any third party through whom to approach God. Evangelicalism, not being a denomination itself, transcends denominational boundaries and interests. This is at once practically empowering and immensely liberating. It is practically empowering, in that evangelicalism is enormously adaptable to changing social contexts. David Bebbington concludes, towards the end of his masterly study, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, that ‘nothing could be further from the truth than the common image of evangelicalism being ever the same.’8 While the movement’s core characteristics may have remained constant, during this period evangelicalism was transformed, both outwardly in terms of social composition and political attitudes, and inwardly in terms of theology and behaviour. Such flexibility is appealing. Evangelicalism is a dynamic, not an ‘establishment’, faith. At its best, it enjoys continual reformation and renewal. Historically, if trapped within an institutional straitjacket it inevitably breaks free, whether through a ‘Great Awakening’ or some other means. It is liberating, in that evangelicalism’s fluid and open nature reflects something of the radical boundary breaking message of the New Testament. In his embrace of ‘sinners’, lepers, Gentiles, women, tax collectors, Samaritans, prostitutes, the weak, the sick and the powerless, Jesus undermined the social, religious and cultural barriers of his day. Paul was only echoing the example of his Lord when he declared that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28). Evangelicalism is right to give priority to individual faith and to emphasise the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Individuals matter to God, regardless of their identity. Evangelicalism’s egalitarianism is immensely appealing. It offers a radical counter culture to the values of a world obsessed with status, achievement and identity.
1 J. R. W. Stott, Christ the Controversialist (London: Tyndale, 1970) 13. 2 For further discussion see Alywn Thomson’s excellent article in Lion and Lamb, No.14, Autumn 1997. 3 J. R. W. Stott, Evangelical Truth (Leicester: IVP, 1999) 9. 4 D. J. Tidball, Who are the Evangelicals? (London: Marshall Pickering, 1994) 239. 5 J. I. Packer, ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God (London: IVF, 1958) 38. 6 D. G. Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity: A Call for Unity Amid Diversity (New York: Doubleday, 1983) 17. 7 J. R. W. Stott, Lausanne Occasional Papers: No. 3 The Lausanne Covenant - an Exposition and Commentary by John Stott (Charlotte, North Carolina: Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, 1975) 15-16. 8 D. W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989) 271. Patrick Mitchel is Director of Studies at the Irish Bible Institute.
 |
||
 |
 |
|