In “Rethinking Life” I intentionally did not discuss my
understanding of being an Evangelical. Here is a brief effort to remedy that
omission. In response to one of the Facebook responses to “Rethinking Life”, I
noted the National Association of Evangelicals’ web page, in which the NAE uses
Bebbington’s summary of Evangelical distinctives:
·
Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be
transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of
following Jesus.
·
Activism: the expression and demonstration of
the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts.
·
Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to
the Bible as the ultimate authority.
·
Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of
Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity.
I like this shortlist, although one can debate its adequacy.
I see two basic streams to the Evangelical movement. One is represented by the Gospel Coalition and such figures as John Piper and Don Carson. On the web the
first sentence of their “foundation documents” reads: “We are a fellowship of
evangelical churches in the Reformed tradition deeply committed to renewing our
faith in the gospel of Christ and to reforming our ministry practices to
conform fully to the Scriptures.”
One sees in their self-definition a sense that to be
Evangelical is to be Reformed. One sees also the immediate reference to Scripture,
with a strong commitment to “conform fully” to Scripture. My own sense is that
the Reformed stream emphasizes doctrine over experience. The testimony of
someone like Millard Erickson (a prominent theologian within the Reformed
Evangelical stream) reinforces my impression. There is much good in this
stream. The pastoral work of Tim Keller in New York City shows how good it can
be, as does John Piper’s ministry in Minneapolis-Saint Paul.
The second stream comes from the Wesleyan-Holiness movement,
and prioritizes the personal experience of God’s presence. We can see this
priority in the way that the Methodist movement grew in the United States in
the latter part of the 19th Century, and in the way that the great Pentecostal
Revival of 1906 spread from Azusa Street, Los Angeles.
The Wesleyan stream is less organized than the Reformed
stream. The Brethren in Christ (my church family) has been part of the
Christian Holiness Association, which was an expression of this stream, but the
association appears to be dormant. Wesleyanism is best represented by
organizations such as Asbury Theological Seminary (where I did my mission studies).
I can summarize the difference between the two streams by
using Bebbington’s four markers. Wesleyans emphasize the first two: conversion
(that is, experience) and activism (that is, living out one’s faith in concrete
ways). Reformed Evangelicals emphasize the latter two: Biblicism (a strong
commitment to the authority of Scripture) and crucicentrism (the centrality of
the cross).
One can easily overstate the difference. Wesleyans embrace
the cross and rely fully on Scripture; the Reformed movement believes in
conversion and discipleship. One should think, then, of a difference in
emphasis, not of two visions in conflict. The difference in emphasis is,
however, important. Reformed Evangelicals are more likely to insist on stating
things the right way. Wesleyan Evangelicals are more likely to start with a
personal testimony. I am a Wesleyan!
Experience and
Doctrine: Subjective and Objective
One of those who commented on “Rethinking life” made an
important point that holds both sides together, He said, “While I think that ‘stressing
relationship with God over doctrine about God’ sounds good... unless we have a
good understanding of who this God is (doctrine about God) we may all end up
having a relationship with different gods. Just to say that both are rather
important to the Christian mindset.”
He is, of course, right. In response I add that the danger
of a subjective perception that misidentifies God exists for both streams. The
God defined by those who focus on doctrine can be as subjective as the God
defined by those who say, “The Spirit told me.” We interpret Scripture from our
socially constructed lives, which leads to what missiologists call “local theologies”.
Everyone constructs there theology like this. Africans responding to the fear
of witchcraft construct a local theology; Americans worrying about the
influence of secularism construct a local theology. We have to do the hard work
of hearing the Scripture speak for itself in order to hear God’s supracultural
gospel (to use Charles Kraft’s phrase).
Similarly, people who have a spiritual experience may think
that God is at work, when in fact the source of the experience is not God. I
remember a Pentecostal friend in Zimbabwe who critiqued the Toronto Airport
Church for me. He said, “You Americans are funny. You see someone roar like a
lion or engage in holy laughter, and you think it must be the Spirit of God. We
have seen these things in Zimbabwe too, and we know that it is not always God’s
Spirit.” What protects us from our own subjective experience is the objective
reality of God. When one gives oneself fully to the “God who is there”, God
takes care of bringing objective reality into our experience.
So both streams need to heed my friend’s warning. We rely on
Scripture and we give our lives to Christ. We seek to understand and to
experience the cross. We live out our lives fully in light of our commitments
to Christ as we meet him in the Bible.
The Centre and Boundaries
A second observation about Bebbington’s four marks of the
Evangelical movement. The emphasis on doctrine tends to focus on boundary
issues, so those in the Reformed stream are more likely to draw lines that
others cannot cross if they wish to stay in the movement. I prefer to emphasize
the centre and to use these four marks—experience, activism, Scripture, and the
cross—as the common core that Evangelicals share. This emphasis fits better
with my Wesleyan orientation.
The problem with drawing lines that others cannot cross is
that it moves boundary issues to the centre of the Evangelical paradigm. For
example, those in the Reformed stream tend to make complementarian thinking a
line one cannot cross: Women cannot serve in church leadership. In the Wesleyan
Holiness movement women have been leaders for more than one hundred years.
General William Booth’s daughter, for example, became the fourth leader (General)
of the Salvation Army in 1934. Wesleyans tend to be egalitarian on the issue of
women in ministry. Now using the four marks of Evangelicalism looks like a set
of core issues that we can use at the centre of our identity. The role of women
in ministry is a boundary issue—more marginal, and not necessary for an
Evangelical identity.
Another example: Those in the Reformed stream insist on
Penal Substitutionary Atonement as the model Evangelicals must use to understand
the saving work of Christ on the Cross. But surely the precise model is a
marginal issue. Perhaps it can serve as a fuzzy boundary between two branches
of the Christian faith (for example, Roman Catholics, who refer to the
Satisfaction Theory [of which PSA is a subset] and the Eastern Orthodox, who I
think refer to Regeneration or something like that). But we are saved by Christ’s
work on the cross; elevating a theory of how that works to a line that cannot
be crossed moves PSA from the margin to the centre. I don’t think it’s a
helpful way to move forward.
To be clear, I think that the PSA makes sense and is worth
using in our understanding of the atonement, but I don’t think it is nearly as
important as is experiencing the presence of Christ in one’s life. A friend of
mine has observed that N.T. Wright, the English theologian, has been in
significant conflict with the Gospel Coalition over this issue, because they
want to make PSA normative for all Evangelicals. I’d rather be a Wesleyan!
