Evangelicals?

What's an Evangelical? Am I one? Do I want to be one?

Soon after I decided to follow Jesus I became embroiled in both the [evangelical] Christian Union at my school and an Evagelical Anglican church near us. I went on houseparties [Americans call these retreats for some reason, but they were noisy, not quiet like a retreat] where Evangelical teaching was the order of the day. Since then I have attended various Evangelical churches around the place.

I find that the word is now confusing. Different people mean different things by it. When I became a follower of Jesus I understood it to mean taking the Bible seriously, so that we believed the Bible more important that the church and that you could experientially know you were 'saved'. I now see that Evangelicals around the world see things differently. For example take the UK Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith and contrast it with the National Evangelical Association of the USA Statement of Faith or the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Statement of Faith or the World Evangelical Association Statment of Faith - there are notable differences.

1. The UK starts off with God as trinity whereas the USA, Canada and the WEA start off with the Bible as the only infallible Word of God, above and before having anything about God!
2. The UK when it deals with the Bible says its the 'divine inspiration and supreme authority', the written Word of God, not the only infallible Word of God that the USA says it is. Canada says 'Holy Scriptures as originally given by God' are infallible... which allows for man to have screwed up in the middle!
3. The USA seems to limit the Holy Spirit 'We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life' compared to the more effusive words from the UK 'The ministry of God the Holy Spirit, who leads us to repentance, unites us with Christ through new birth, empowers our discipleship and enables our witness' and 'The Church, the body of Christ both local and universal, the priesthood of all believers—given life by the Spirit and endowed with the Spirit's gifts to worship God and proclaim the gospel, promoting justice and love.' All seem to have missed the description of 'comforter' that Jesus.

I am wondering of British Evangelicals are really somewhat different to North American Evangelicals. Have they become tied up in 'Father, Son and Holy Bible' as the one time joke goes?

So what is an Evangelical? The UK Evangelical Alliance answers it this way:

Evangelicalism: A Brief Definition Evangelicals often appeal to the derivation of their name from the Greek New Testament word for the ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’ of Jesus Christ. On their own account, they are ‘gospel people’, committed to simple New Testament Christianity and the central tenets of apostolic faith, rather than to later ecclesiastical accretions. As such, they seek to maintain and present the authentic teaching ‘once for all entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3). As the leading Anglican Evangelical John Stott points out, this means that Evangelicalism is neither ‘a recent innovation’ nor ‘a deviation from Christian orthodoxy’.

Interesting definition. It seems to me that many 'later ecclesiastical accretions' actually come from the so called Evangelical church!

As I understand it the 'good news' that Jesus came to bring was that God was interested in a relationship with us and that in order for that to be possible He was going pay the penalty for all our screwups and to die in our place. Furthermore, He is more interested in the reality of that relationship than in the observance of loads and loads of rules and regulations, however good they might be. Not only that, but because we cannot continue in that relationship without screwing up He was going to send the Holy Spirit who will dwell within us and will give us gifts to help us and comfort us. Wow, now that does sound like good news!

If that's what an Evangelicals really believe then count me in... but I cannot really see that written in any of the statements of faith published by the organizations that represent them. They all sound more like stern headmaster type definitions that don't attract me.

[See followup article by Steve Hayes, with discussion comments: http://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/godwordthink-evangelicals/]

Worldview - God in a box?

The vicar of the local church lent my son a copy of Answers, a magazine published by an organization called Answers in Genesis which promotes a belief that the earth was created somewhere around 4000BC in seven literal days.

There is an article in the magazine taken from John MacArthur's book Think Biblically! entitled What's your Worldview?. The article starts by defining worldviews and offers this as a working model for a Christian worldview:

The Christian worldview sees and understands God the Creator and His creation - i.e., man and the world - primarily through the lens of God's special revelation, the Holy Scriptures, and secondarily through God's natural revalation in creation as interpreted by human reason and reconciled by and with Scripture, for the purpose of believing and behaving in accord with God's will and, thereby, glorifying God with one's mind and life, both now and in eternity.

The definition of the Christian worldview comes from MacArthur's worldview and many Christians would hold a radically different perception. I was kind of horrified as it puts God in a box and I believe He is bigger than that. The constrain God to His written word gives all sorts of logical problems, like what happened before it was a written word, did followers of Jesus have some kind of stunted relationship with God? Then followwers a modernist definition of 'creation interpreted by human reason'.

He then goes on to suggest a purpose for all this of following a works orientation to relationship with God by 'behaving in accord with God's will'. Of course, MacArthur appears to be from the sola scriptura school:

... its is true that the Bible alone contains all that Christians need to know about their spiritual life and glodliness through a knowledge of the one true God, which is the highest and most important level of knowledge

For this he references 2 Peter 1:2-4, which actually says:

(2) Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. (3) His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (4) Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

So in reality MacArthur in interpets Scripture through his worldview to make his statement. Hmmm... doesn't this mean that he really from the prima scriptura school? He does admit:

Also while it does not exhaustively address every field, when Scripture speaks in any subject area, it speaks authoritatively

Yes, agreed, but... how you interpret Scripture speaking authoritatively is the question isn't it!

What he really seems to miss is the the spoken word of God of which the written word of God is a record. Yes, the God speaks through the Bible today but He continues to speak directly to human beings. It's called 'having a relationship' and is what God wanted in the first place!

It was the Pharisees who changed it into a set of written rules. What I see around the church today is that many are reverting to a Pharisee like approach to the Bible. I think Jesus is upset with them today as he was with the Pharisees 2000 years ago.

Freedom means what?

A couple of days back I was discussing God with someone who believes He doesn't exist. The guy's problem with most churches is that they take responsibility away from us for our actions.

It works two ways:

1. Churches are so beset with rules that you cannot decide to take sugar in your coffee without consulting the rule book
2. Everything evil is blamed on Satan [or someone else but certainly not you]
   

What was interesting to me was that I totally agreed with this guy, but had come to totally opposite conclusions. I am tired of churches with rule books the length of your arm or longer. [And before you say all modern churches don't have rule books, try suggesting a traditional liturgical serice in one and see how quickly it gets shouted down!]

I hate the control that so many church leaders, claiming to follow God, in reality become just control freaks. I have just left one church here in this town partly over that. The 'elders' [read geriatrics] are appointed for life. They have hot line to God and woe betide anyone who disagrees. They can do what they like.

And they did. They took the church down a course that was basically another rule book. Good rules. Like reading the Bible, prayer, meeting together, but rules nevertheless. It's called a 'Purpose Driven Life' and has about as much to do with a realtionship with Jesus as sucking a lemon while riding a bicycle up a snowy moutain track. My reading of Scripture is that Jesus came saying 'Guys, you're missing the point, it's not about rules but relationship.' But then at least someone with humour invented the game 'create the church you want the way you want it'.

And that's where the rubber hits the road and why this athiest and I end up agreeing, for God to have a relationship with us we must have freedom to love or reject Him. Love constrained by rules is not love but automatan obedience. None of us would really enjoy a a relationship with a computer we had programmed to say 'I love you' radomly throughout the day. So it is with God, he doesn't want programmed, constrained responses, but a real relationship with us.

Blaming our actions on Satan is part of this lack of resonsibility. Like accountability structures. If you create a structure where you cannot sin, you are not being responsible, you are being a puppet. It's where organizations like 'Promise Keepers' are totally off the rails. God wants us to have a relationship with Him, not follow a set of rules. Even if the rules are great rules.

So, does that mean we can break all the rules? Just taking one verse out of context:

'You say, "Everything is permitted." But not everything is good for us. Again you say, "Everything is permitted." But not everything builds us up.'

That comes from 1 Corinthians chapter 10 verse 23 and the context around it is about our relationship with Jesus.

What that indicates to me is that God does give us freedom even when we have decided to follow Him we have freedom. Everything is permitted. But not everything is good. That doesn't mean we need rules and constaints. It means we need a greater relationship with Him. The example I use would be of my relationship with my wife. I don't have sex with other girls because it would damage my relationship with her and upset her. So it should be with Jesus, we should not sin because it will damage our relationship with Him and upset Him. But living without freedom doesn't prove a thing.

Its only when we are free to do something but don't that we prove love. We are responsible for our actions. My athiest friend is right. And he's been put off God by churches and christians who understand lots about rules and little about relationship.

We have a saying 'God created man and then man returned the compliment'. Exactly what this friend expressed to me. He felt man had created the concept of God to allow for all these rules. It's funny really, because he understands God better than many people who go to Church, yet he doesn't have any relationship with Him at all.

God's word?

I was brought up in an Anglican church in the UK. Anglican churches come in all varieties, from what is called 'high church' or 'smells and bells' where it would be barely discernably different from many Roman Catholic churches through churches described as 'liberal' or 'the Conservative Party at prayer' through 'evangelical' through 'charismatic' through... through...

About the time I decided that I personally wanted to become a follower of Jesus I embraced the latter two labels 'evangelical' and 'charismatic'. At that time I understood the former to mean that being a 'Christian' or 'saved' was something you could experientially know to be true. The latter being that the Holy Spirit today gives spiritual gifts to followers of Jesus, including the gifts of healing, prophecy, visions, other langauges etc. The term 'evangelical' also included an emphasis on the Bible contrasted with an emphasis on the church. At that time 'charismatics' were generally a subset of 'evangelicals' and most 'evangelicals' in the UK were in some way open to the Holy Spirit.

We lived in the US for a couple of years and were shocked to find charismatics and evangelicals on opposite sides. Most of the evangelicals we met were dispensationalists who appeared to believe the gifts from the Holy Spirit died out in the 'Apostolic era'. They appeared to elevate the Bible to being the sole way that God communicates with us. I felt they almost worshiped a different Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Bible.

In my spiritual walk recently I have come to think more about the Bible and have been thinking about how we see it on two levels: firstly as a historical document and secondly as the written word of God. And it's deliberate that I didn't write the 'written Word of God' as some evangelicals would. The Bible itself refers to Jesus as the Word and not itself! I read in another blog 'The Bible: contains God's word and is how I hear what God wants to tell me' That statement worried me as it implied this was the only way God communicates with people.

A few years back I was sitting in a restaurant on the bank of the Nile in Egypt chatting over a meal with a friend of mine about the possibility of making a series of TV programmes about the parables of Jesus. One of the parables that we discussed was the parable of the wedding feast found in Matthew 22:2-14

This parable is about a king who sends out invitations to a bunch of people to come to the wedding feast of his son. All those who are invited find different reasons why not to come. So the king sends his servants out into the streets to fill up his wedding banquet with everyone they can find.

The parable is normally interpreted as being that the Jews were the people originally invited to the wedding feast but turned away and that the people now invited are the Gentiles [ie non-Jews] who become followers of Jesus. But the parable doesn't end where I finished it above. When everyone is in the feast the king comes through the banqueting hall and finds one person in unacceptable clothes and kicks him out. I always thought this totally unfair, I mean here was someone dragged off the streets and now being complained at for not wearing decent clothes! People then interpret the parable with questions like: How should we dress for Christ's wedding?

Now that brings me on to how we see the Bible as a historical document. The original writers wrote within a context or as I like to put it 'they saw life through a grid'. We as readers of the Bible read within a different context or 'we see life through a grid but a very different grid'. In the example of this parable we don't know one vital part of Middle Eastern custom - something I learnt at that meal on the banks of the Nile - that when an important person throws a wedding banquet they provide new 'wedding clothes' for all the guests to change into when they come into the banquet. So the person thrown out had decided not to accept the gift of clothes from the king! Quite a different slant on the story.

From that one example I often wonder how much of the Bible we miss. I also think how we need to be careful about the principles we draw out from the Bible and how trying to find really strict detail is pretty well impossible.

The Bible is a record of God's dealing with mankind. In that record it shows God speaking and interacting with men and women through the ages. The process of writing changed it from spoken word to written word. In a conversation there is space to ask questions for clarification, space to interact. Interaction with a written document is a one way process.

So coming back to the time I decided to follow Jesus:

'At that time I understood the former to mean that being a 'Christian' or 'saved' was something you could experientially know to be true. The latter being that the Holy Spirit today gives spiritual gifts to followers of Jesus, including the gifts of healing, prophecy, visions, other langauges etc.'

You can see that what I was doing was deciding to follow someone who is very much alive and who very much wants to communicate and interact with me. Not a legalistic set of rules but a relationship.

That has now become my starting point - not to interpret Jesus through the Bible but to interpret the Bible through my relationship with Jesus. OK, so what if I hear wrong? Well, I still treat the Bible as the 'ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice' which probably still makes me an evangelical but the concept of sola scriptura is something that I would now see as relegating God to being subservient to the Bible. God is alive and well and wants to communicate with us and not that 'that Scripture is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals'.

Revelation today

We all want to know the future, it's why people study the stars or tea leaves or whatever to try to know what will happen. 'Will I meet a tall dark stranger?' as the BBC news put it recently, and then commented 'it would probably be a tax man'.

Events in Lebanon this summer have got me wondering about the so called 'end times', the time running up to Jesus return. So I re-read the last book in the Bible a couple of times, trying to see if I could match what I was seeing in the world with what I had read in the Bible.

The more I read Revelation the more it didn't look like a blow by blow schedule of events to come, but a visionary description what will happen on a spiritual level. A friend of mine had been reading Eugene Peterson's book 'Reversed Thunder' which looks it Revelation as a book written by a pastor, poet and theologian. As such Peterson sees John's 'subject is God (not crytographic esoterica) and that his context is is pastoral (not alarmist entertainment)'.

So why do so many people see Revelation is a literal day by day, blow by blow prediction of events to come? Those of us who come from the charismatic or pentecostal sides of the church have a current experience of visions today. In prayer we might see pictures or visions, which reveal something God is trying to communicate with us.

Today I was discussing this with someone who cited an example of a vision that came to someone he knew of the palm trees along the sea front all bending down. People who heard this vision interpreted it spiritually, not literally. Yet many in the charismatic and pentecostal sides of the church read Revelation and try to interpret it literally.

Dispensationalists are people who believe that time is broken up into distrinct chunks and one of those chuncks was the time for God to give spiritual gifts to people, but that He stopped doing that nearly 2000 years ago. Because of their belief that God no longer gives spiritual gifts today they don't believe that He gives pictures or visions to people today. They are therefore ill-equipped to interpret visions as they are alien to their daily life.

It appears to me that dispensationalists are basically cultural modernists, wanting everything to be in neat packages that can mechanistically be understood. As such they are a relatively recent group who reject the conservative understanding of scripture thus interpreting it liberally. Ah, now there's an anomaly, because most dispensationalists would be self-professessed conservatives accusing others of liberal interpretations of scripture.

So why (and I have no answer here) do charistmatics and pentecostals, who reject the basic tenets of dispensationalists then use their technique of systematic theology to analyse a book that is a poetic treatise?

People who analyse Shakespeare often miss the enjoyment of the play. The Daily Star quotes and old joke about William Shakespeare being an Arab - how else, it explains, can you account for the name, Sheikh Zubair. Certainly the playwright's preoccupation with despotic leaders, times of civil unrest and bloodshed fit in perfectly with the tempestuous nature of contemporary Arab politics. Maybe there will be some people who see Othello as prophecy of current events in Cyprus!