• On Educating New Christians
• Why Are Christians So Divided? Brief Reflections on Denominations
• How Theologically Diverse Should Your Church Be?
• Postmodernism: How to disarm a suspicious culture
• “How People Become Evangelists of Unbelief” or Leaving (Christ)ianity – An Evangelical Epidemic

Click on image to enlarge

Similar Posts:

• Great Chart on Denonminations
• Complete List of Mega-Churches in America
• Two New Charts
• Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up? Part 1
• Why I am Proud to be a Protestant

This first one shows denominations according to a breakdown.

click on image to enlarge

Similar Posts:

• Mega Churches in America Chart
• Why I am Proud to be a Protestant
• Why Are Christians So Divided? Brief Reflections on Denominations
• Essentials and Non-Essentials: How to Choose Your Battles Carefully
• Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up? Part 1

To this day the question “What is an Evangelical?” still gives me pause. Not so much because I don’t know how to define it, but because I don’t know who I am defining it to. You see, claiming to be an Evangelical can go a long way in molding someone’s thoughts about you, for good or ill. While most definitions of ”Evangelical” that people assume have a bit of truth to them, they all have one characteristic over another as their primary point of reference. Some assume that “Evangelical” is a simple way to say “Christian fanatic.” There is some truth to that. Others believe that it means “far right-winged Republican” (the old “Republican-party-at-prayer” definition). In some cases, this is true too. I know some who would equate Evangelicalism with Bible worship. I understand where they get this.  Others believe it is merely a synonym for “fundamentalist.” In this, Evangelicals are judgmental. Again, a bit of truth has to be conceded. Still, on the other side of the conservative Christian fence, many think of Evangelicals as compromisers and ecumenicists who are one step away from full-blown liberalism. I think we do compromise in some areas (and this may be a good thing). So, check again. Many think that Evangelicals are simply out to convert them to their faith—to “evangelize” them. Rightly understood, this is fair. Finally, to many inside the Evangelical fold,  Evangelicalism has become nothing more than the skin of cooperate America over the bones of infant breeding Christian leadership (at best).

Associations abound not only with ideas, but with representative leaders and scholars. Put Billy Graham, George Bush, Joel Osteen, Francis Collins, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, Benny Hinn, Ken Ham, Jerry Farwell, Kirk Cameron, Mel Gibson, Roger Olson, Denzel Washington, The Fray, Daniel B. Wallace, John MacArthur, and William Lane Craig in a room together and you will have run the gamut on people’s thoughts of association. But try to assign a marriage counselor to this group and you will need to send him to a psychiatrist shortly after he pulls his hair out and recommends class-action divorce. The only thing many of them would have in common is the name “Evangelical.” Beyond that, their messages will represent an ever broadening rift of people’s thoughts on the mission and doctrine of the Church. With so many people claiming to be Evangelical, it makes one wonder whether Evangelicalism is beyond the possibility of defining. To put it another way: If Evangelicalism can mean so many things, doesn’t it cease to mean anything at all?

This difficulty in defining Evangelicalism should not surprise us. All movements are difficult to define, especially when their is no dictatorship which holds all the cards in their hands. Even when it comes to institutions such as the Roman Catholic church, one finds that there is hardly unanimity on what the Catholic church is and what it is supposed to be doing. If the Pope tries to clarify things, the church endlessly debates what the true meaning of what the Pope said! Try to define liberalism, conservatism, or the “idea” of America, and you will find the same issues. However, in each of these, like with Evangelicalism, history has narrowed the playing field to where some definite boundaries can be found. There is hope.

Lots of Evangelicals are ready to jump ship for due to the variety of associations. They are looking for cleaner waters to wade in. Not only are they dissatisfied with the ship, but they believe it is sinking and there is no reason to fight to keep it afloat. Some, both inside and outside the Christian faith, have even been predicting the demise of Evangelicalism in the next decade or so. “Emerging” and post-evangelical variations have been attempting to tag the hand of Evangelicalism for nearly two decades, but have yet to have much success. Evangelicalism simply won’t get out of the ring.

Though an incredibly large majority of Americans identify themselves as Evangelicals (some reports have as many as 92 million, but it is probably closer to 78 million), most outsiders do not have a favorable estimation of Evangelicals. From a Barna study from a few years ago, Evangelicals ranked tenth out of eleven in terms of positive impressions. Who did Evangelicals out-rank? Prostitutes. But we came behind Lesbians, Lawyers, Republicans, Democrats, and “born-again Christians.” You might ask what is the difference between a “born-again Christian” and an Evangelical? Important question and we will get to that, but for now it is important to see that the outside world believes there is a difference and Evangelicals are definitely behind in popularity. Only twenty-two percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable view of Evangelicalism while twenty-three percent were definitely unfavorable.

More importantly, most of seventy million plus who identify themselves as Evangelicals would not be able to truly define it any more than self-identified capitalists would be able to define capitalism. “I don’t know what it is. But whatever it is, I’m one them.” This ignorance is used as a dangerous broad sword by those who wish to manipulate religion, politics, and society at the deepest level. And it often works.

Evangelicalism is both broader and narrower than people think. There is simply no singular characteristic or belief that qualifies one to take the title. Rather, as we shall see, Evangelicalism is a mix of many different essential characteristics and beliefs. 

It has already been said obscurely, but it is important to emphasize clearly: there is no body, group, or leader of Evangelicalism. There is no office, building, or home church which serves as the Evangelical headquarters. It is an adjective that serves to describe characteristics in a diverse body of Christianity. It is “transdemoninational” in its scope. One can be an Evangelical Baptist, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, or the like. One does not even, strictly speaking, have to go to church to be an Evangelical. As well, contrary to popular belief, there are many characteristics that people think belong to Evangelicals which Evangelicalism carries no stock in.

• Many Evangelicals are Republican. But not all Evangelicals are Republican any more than all Republicans are Evangelicals.
• Many Evangelicals are Premillenialists (believing the Christ is going to set up a future kingdom here on the earth for a thousand years). But not all Evangelicals are Premillenialists any more than all Premillenialists are Evangelicals.
• Many Evangelicals are young-earth creationists. But not all Evangelicals are young-earth creationists any more than all young-earth creationists are Evangelicals.
• Many Evangelicals are complementarians (believing that only males should be in spiritual authority in the church). But not all Evangelicals are complementarians any more than all complementarians are Evangelical.
• Many Evangelicals believe in inerrancy . . . I will save this one for later.

So what is an Evangelical? What is Evangelicalism? How broad is it? What are the lines that cannot be crossed? What is the center? Is Evangelicalism worth holding on to? For goodness sake, would the real Evangelical please stand up!

I am an Evangelical. I believe very strongly in Evangelicalism. While I don’t think only Evangelicals can be good Christians, nor do I believe that Evangelicalism is perfect by any means, I do believe that Evangelicalism is the best representative tradition in Christianity that is the closest to the Biblical ideal. But this assumes a proper definition.

That is why I am going to spend some time attempting to define what Evangelicalism truly is.

And yes, I have charts coming!

Here is another peek at it.

click to enlarge

Similar Posts:

• What has Become of Evangelicalism? An Evangelical’s Lament
• Why the Evangelical Manifesto Did Not "Work"
• Evangelicalism: Your Turn
• "I am not Wimpy" or What is the Difference Between an Evangelical and A Fundamentalist
• Will the real evangelical please stand up?

I remember hearing a pastor once say concerning doctrine, “You are either one-hundred percent right or one-hundred percent wrong. There is no in-between and there are no gray areas. God is not confused or unsure. Why should we be?” While this might be true concerning God, for us things are different. For now, we see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12).

As well, Paul spoke about those things that are “of first  importance [protois]” (emphasis mine). Christ spoke about straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:24) and the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23).

This is one of the things that (should) distinguish us as Evangelicals. We are those who unite around those things that we believe are the weightiest, the things that are the most important, the essentials, while we (should) give liberty in the non-essentials. I often tell people that there are some things that I believe that I would die for; there are some things that I believe that I would lose an arm for; there are some things that I believe that I would lose a finger for; and then there are some things that I believe that I would not even get a manicure for.

Like in all areas of life, we need to learn to choose our battles carefully. But in order to do this, we must first come to know the difference between essentials and non-essentials.

But (as the criticism goes) it is not that easy to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. I have written on this before. More importantly for now, many Evangelicals have simply never been exposed to this and therefore practice their theology in a much more legalistic way, believing every conviction that they have to be representative of a hill upon which they should die.

Here I want to elaborate upon and expand the discussion a little bit. While we need to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, we also need to recognize that there are different types of essentials. Along with this goes my belief that there are different ways to “break fellowship” based on our beliefs. In other words, not all essentials are equal. Some are essential to the very foundation of Christianity, but some are only essential to a particular denomination or expression. This will require different types of breaks in fellowship.

Let me start with a chart, then I will briefly break it down:

click on chart to enlarge

Essential for salvation: These are the most essential doctrines of all essentials. This includes what every Christian should always be willing to die for. In essence, if someone does not believe the doctrines that are “essential for salvation,” they are not saved.

What I include:

• Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)
  All issues pertaining to the person and work of Christ:
• Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
• Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
• Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave (1 Cor 15:3-4)
• Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

As with all of them, I am sure that there are some ancillary matters that could be included, but this gives you the key doctrines.

Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy: These include beliefs “essential for salvation” but are broader in that they express what has been believed by the historic Christian church for the last two thousand years, no matter what tradition. This is expressed by the Vincentian Canon, “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” (The exception of fringe movements does not count). Not only must the church have belief in it, but it must also explicitly have confessed its centrality (e.g., belief that Matthew wrote the book of Matthew does not, I believe, qualify here).

Some of what I include:

• The doctrine of the Trinity as expressed at Nicea
• The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully man and fully God) as expressed at Chalcedon
• The belief in the future second coming of Christ
• A belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture
• A belief in eternal punishment for the wicked
• A belief in God’s timeless existence
• Christ is the only way to salvation

Essential for traditional orthodoxy: Again, these will necessarily include all of those from the two previous categories, but add some distinctives of their own. Essentials here will include all of those that are foundational to one of the three main Christian traditions: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism. These are beliefs that distinguish one tradition from the next, but are not absolutely essential from the broader Christian worldview expressed above.

Some Protestant distinctives would include:

• General belief in the major pronouncements of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
• Belief in the necessity for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ 
• Belief that justification is through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
• Belief that Scripture alone has ultimate authority on all matters of faith and practice
• The canon of Scripture made up of 66 books (excluding the Deuterocanonical books)

Some Roman Catholic distinctives that would include:

• Belief in transubstantiation (the bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Christ)
• Belief that justification is through faith and works
• Belief that both Scripture and unwritten tradition have ultimate authority as they are interpreted by the Magisterium
• Belief in the authority of twenty-one ecumenical councils
• Belief that the Pope is the infallible vicar of Christ
• Belief in the Marian dogmas
• Belief that the canon includes the Deuterocanonical books

Some Eastern Orthodox distinctives that would include:

• Belief in the infallibility of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
• Belief that the liturgy of the Church is part of the Gospel
• Rejection of substitutionary atonement and the imputation of Adam’s sin 
• Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him (Theosis) 
• Traditional inclusion of the Deuterocanonical book (although there is some debate about this)

Essential for denominational orthodoxy: This will be similar to the above, but one step down in importance, dealing as it does with the particular and peculiar denominational expressions by the various Protestant traditions.

Some examples:

• Credo-baptism, i.e., Baptism is only for believers (Baptists)
• Infant baptism (Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans)
• Unconditional election (Reformed and Presbyterians)
• Arminian theology (Methodists, Nazarenes)
• Belief in the continuation of the Charismatic gifts (Pentecostals, Church of God)

Important but not essential: These are those beliefs that do not describe any particular tradition necessarily. They are important, but not that important.

Some examples:

• Beliefs about particulars in the creation debate
• Belief whether the books of Jonah and Job are historical accounts
• Beliefs about the inerrancy of Scripture
• Beliefs about the authorship of 2 Peter
• Belief about particular end-time schemes (i.e. premillennial, amillennial, post-millennial)
• The order of books in the canon
• Which translation of the Bible to use from the pulpit
• Which Gospel was written first
• How often one should celebrate the Lord’s supper
• Whether or not Christ taught in Greek or Aramaic

Not Important: These are beliefs that people have concerning Christian doctrine that are not important for any expression and do not affect Christian devotion or spirituality.

Some examples

• The date of Christ’s birth (Christmas)
• What kind of music to play at church
• Whether to use real wine or grape juice at communion
• Whether to hold Saturday night services
• Whether or not John the Baptist was an Essene

Pure speculation: That is just what these are—speculation. We just don’t know one way or another, nor does it matter.

Some examples

• Did Adam have a belly-button
• Belief in the eternal destiny of pets (except I know my dog Rocky is going to heaven)
• What was God doing “before” creation
• Will there be meat to eat in heaven (we can all hope)
• Will there be sex in heaven (we can all hope more)

In conclusion to this rather long post, my purpose has been to stimulate a deeper level of thought about the difference between essentials and non-essentials. I know that there are a lot of unanswered questions that might have been stimulated, such as, “Can someone be saved without believing in the exclusivity of Christ or the doctrine of the Trinity, as expressed at Nicea?” Or, “What about homosexuality and the ordaining of women?” I will leave some of these for the discussion to follow. I hope that, at the very least, some of my Calvinist and Baptist friends will see that some of the things that are held most dear in their traditions, while important, are not really defining factors in historic Christianity.

I am not an ecumenicist, but I don’t think that we should have ill-will or break fellowship with people unnecessarily. I hope that thinking through these things will make both our unity and diversity more meaningful and less reactionary.

What say you?

(If this has peaked your interest, I would encourage you to read my post on four tests for determining whether a doctrine is essential.)Similar Posts:

• Evangelicals: We Can and Must Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials Better
• Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell
• What are the essentials to Christianity? Four Criteria
• More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession
• A Matter of Perspective

Protestantism is not perfect. No informed Protestant would claim such. Evangelicalism has major problems. This is nothing new. But Protestants have always thought the strengths of Protestantism outweigh the weaknesses. Otherwise, we would not be Protestant!

While I often write about the weaknesses of our system, sometimes complaining about Evangelical shames, I want to do something different here. I am going to give a short list of what I believe to be the major strengths of Protestantism:

1. Celebration of diversity: Protestants can appreciate and celebrate the diversity in the Christian faith unlike any other tradition. Whether it be in worship style or liturgy, house churches or mega churches, Protestant recognize that all people are not alike in their subjective preferences. Protestantism, as a movement, cannot dogmatize the way people should be in areas that are based in non-essential personal preferences. We can recognize that God has created people differently—and this was intentionally. If people have a personality that does not respond well to one style of worship, they are free to celebrate their diversity without feeling the obligation of adapting their style to some traditional norm. Therefore, to be Protestant is to be able to celebrate diversity.

2. Promotion of true belief: Protestantism is built upon a distrust of one man’s or one institution’s ability to infallibly dogmatize truth to the exclusion of one’s personal convictions. In other words, Protestants hold to the position that belief cannot be outsourced to any human authority or tradition. Protestants believe that truth must be “adduced” by the individual before it can be truly believed. It is not that Protestants don’t recognize or respect authorities other than themselves, but that they understand that belief is ultimately an internal act of an individual’s will which requires true personal conviction. Protestants recognize the risk of “putting a Bible in everyone’s hands.” We recognize that in doing so we are allowing for the possibility of error and heresy. But we also recognize that the possibility of true conviction necessitates the possibility of error. In this, it is worth the risk. The personal conviction, however, should be fueled and feed from trusted outside sources, but, in the end, those outside sources cannot make the decisions for the us. Therefore, in my opinion, Protestantism allows for true belief more than any other Christian tradition.

3. Allowance of true scholarship: Closely connected to the second is the allowance of true scholarship. In other words, Protestants are not under a necessary mandate to conform to a traditional system. The scholarship produced in biblical studies and theology is not an exercise in confirming an established tradition of dogma. If one were simply to enter scholarship to prove what a tradition mandates they prove, scholarship becomes and exercise in confirming prejudice. This is not true scholarship. Protestants are free to question, search, deny, confirm, doubt, and change in a way that other dogmatic traditions are not. Again, this is risky, but, in the end, it does not mandate a certain conclusion and can evaluate the evidence more objectively. In other words, Protestants don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but they are investigators of truth. They can be critical scholars. Whether or not we always practice this is a different matter. But the issue is one of allowance. Protestants can be critical scholars who are willing to let the evidence take them wherever it leads, not simply to a predetermined destination. Therefore, I believe Protestants can practice true scholarship to a degree that other traditions cannot.

I think that all of these provide the basis for why I believe Protestantism will always remain strong even in the midst of our weaknesses. Please understand that I respect other Christian traditions. I love the faith and stance of all those who, traditionally or not, are Christocentric, believing Christ—the God-man—is the center of all things. But everyone must understand that I am Protestant for a reason. I simply believe that it offers strengths that are stronger than the strengths of other tradition. I also believe that its weaknesses are not as weak as the weaknesses of other traditions.

Also be aware that I understand that the traditional answers for “Why I am Protestant”—”because it is biblical,” “because it provides personal assurance,” “because I believe in salvation by faith alone,” or “because I don’t believe in the Pope”—are not unimportant in my mind. However, these reasons are primarily methodological rather than theological. They provide the basis for our theological stance, which, indeed, is of ultimate importance.

It is because of this, I am proud to be a Protestant.Similar Posts:

• Why Evangelicalism is Still the Best Option
• Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• Essential Differences Between Catholics and Protestants

Without the infallible authority of the Church, the Church would be hopelessly divided on matters of doctrine and morals. This would not be the Church that Christ started.

The idea here is that when doctrine is left to the “private interpretation” of the individual, this leads to doctrinal anarchy. Catholics and Orthodox alike often appeal to the thousands of Protestant denominations as a witness against the doctrine sola Scriptura.

Answer:

There are a few problems that I see with this argument. I will deal with the first to in brief and spend more time on the last one in the post that follows.

Problem 1: We don’t advocate “private interpretation”

This argument often assumes that sola Scriptura promotes an unbridled “private interpretation” that gives no authority to tradition. This is not the confession of sola Scriptura, but of nuda Scriptura, which I have spoken about previously. Advocates of sola Scriptura do not believe in this sort of private interpretation. We must interpret the Scriptures along with those who have gone before us, even if we might have warrant to question or disagree with their theology from time to time. Those who read the Scripture, as Alexander Campbell once advocated, “As if no one has read them before” are not following in the tradition of the Reformed view of sola Scriptura. Those must be judged on their own merit without association to the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Problem 2: Everyone has divisions.

Protestants disagree about what the Scriptures say, Catholics disagree about what the Church says, and (as the saying goes) the Orthodox don’t say enough to disagree! Simply because one is put under a more definite designative umbrella does not make true unity. I, for example, have witnessed just as many disagreements among Catholics about what the Church means by “outside the Church there is no salvation” as I have among Protestants about any issue. All one has to do is to go spend some time on the Catholic Answers forum and see that they don’t function with much more unity than a Protestant forum. There would seem to be just as many disagreements, differing interpretations, and needless anathmatizing among Catholics as among Protestaants. The point is that simply because one functions under a unified name or confession does not mean that you have a unified belief.

It is agreed, however, that Protestants tend to have more divisions, but I would not say that this is the case with Evangelicals to the same degree as other Protestant traditions.

See this article for more on the overstatement of Protestant divisions.

Problem 3: Division is not always a bad thing

I will save this for a post tomorrow as it will take a little time.Similar Posts:

• Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Seven – What About the Canon?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Two – Martin Luther
• Responding to an Objection About Sola Scriptura

Reason for the Change:

1. Evangelicalism has lost its meaning in most circles today. “Evangelicalism” means both everything and nothing at the same time. It is fast becoming identified as a movement of political agendas, entertainment, health-wealth theology, radical separatists, and white Americans. While there are a great many Evangelicals who should not be identified with these characteristics holding the fort, remodeling is happening from the outside and no one asked for permission. These things happen.

2. The Emerging Church showed some potential and promise, but has, as of late, began to define itself as a movement holding hands with compromise. I understand that there are emergers such as Scot McKnight and Dan Kimball who are not compromising, but, while I admire and respect their continued battle in the emerging church, I don’t think that they can rescue it from irrelevance and heresy.

3. Evangelicalism ironically seems to have lost the ability to reform. It is ironic because Evangelicalism has traditionally found its identification in the roots of the Great Reformation whose principled admonition to the future church was semper reformanda (always reforming). Often to be deep in the theology of Evangelicalism means being deep in an unqualified sixteenth century anti-Catholic (Roman) polemic. This needs to be rethought based upon the current state-of-affairs and a humble recognition that while the Reformation was necessary we should not find all our roots in its soil.

How “Historic Evangelical” looks Evangelical:

Twentieth-century Evangelicalism sought to distance itself from the increasingly radical perception of “Fundamentalism.” Theologically, while Evangelicalism retained the essentials of the Christian faith that Fundamentalism originally defended against liberalism, it was broader in the non-essentials. In other words, Evangelicals could differ with regards to issues such as baptism, eschatology, and election, and remain united in the essential core doctrines of the Christian faith that were identified by our roots in the Reformation and beyond. Among these doctrinal distinctives was Christology (who Christ is and what he did), the sinfulness of man, justification by faith alone, the nature and ultimate authority of Scripture, and theology proper (the Trinity, the eternality of God, etc.).

As well, Evangelicals distinguished themselves from Fundamentalism as being more culturally “liberal.” Evangelicals sought to engage the culture with the assumption that culture itself is amoral (neither good nor bad). Engaging the culture meant involving oneself in culture in order to incarnate Christ in all places. This meant that Christians should not surrender the universities, politics, science, or market place of ideas over to the world, but instead reclaim them. Evangelicals also distanced themselves from many of taboos of Fundamentalism such as smoking, drinking, dancing,, and the like. Evangelicals saw many of these issues as adiaphora (not spoken of in Scripture) and therefore as matter of conscience rather than precept.

Evangelicalism has a great tradition with regards to the need for every believer to know Scripture. Evangelicalism is a movement based in Scripture and has believed that Scripture is the ultimate authority for the believer. It should therefore be read, taught, and preached with great (even alarming) passion. Historic Evangelicalism would continue with this passion.

Evangelicalism has also been a missional movement. This is vitally connected to the above characteristics. Evangelicals are focused upon bringing the message of God to the lost. Evangelicals seek to make disciples of all nations and believe that this is the primary mandate of the church.

How ”Historic Evangelical” might differ from Evangelical:

Ecclesiology: Evangelicalism retained many of the anti-traditionalistic tendencies of Fundamentalism. This free-church mentality sadly and unnecessarily has evidenced itself as a movement with no ecclesiastical roots. Evangelical churches, for example, look plain and uneventful. In fact the assumption was the more boring the architecture the more biblical the Church. Any traditional liturgy was not only hard to find in an Evangelical church, but looked down upon by many. Of course this produced a liturgy of its own which now bears the weight of its own tradition. Nevertheless, it is often hard to convince Evangelicals of the need and value of tradition and liturgy. I believe that this is both unnecessary and somewhat destructive. Evangelicals should not be anti-tradition since tradition and liturgy, used and evaluated correctly, are powerful means of teaching and worship. To distinguish yourself by a traditional liturgy or magnificent architecture does not need to be equated with cultural irrelevance, but can communicate meaningful ecclesiastical distinction. Every organism is distinct in some way; the church should be the same. Therefore, the Ecclesiology of Historic Evangelicalism would engage all the senses, encouraging tradition and liturgy as a means of teaching and worship.

It should also be recognized that Evangelicalism has many characteristics of the Enlightenment that are not healthy for the Church. The Evangelical modernistic individualism needs to be replaced with a deeper longing and commitment to community. The Body of Christ is a single organism that forms a community of dependent members. Evangelicalism has suffered due to its denominational isolationist mentality and its assumption that a Christian can properly grow outside the larger community.

Bibliology: While I am an advocate of inerrancy (”reasoned inerrancy“), I believe the designation has run its course and no longer is valuable as it might have been. I prefer that we simply say “the Bible is true.” The rest would have to be battled out through hermeneutics (which is where the issue ultimately lies anyway). Therefore, I submit that we no longer identify so closely with the term ”inerrancy” as we once did.

I also believe that Evangelicals come dangerously close to a Bible centered theology (Bibliocentric) rather than a Christ centered theology (Christocentric). As James Sawyer once put it, “Evangelicals have the holy Trinity: the Father, Son, and the Holy Bible.” This needs to be the scandalous exception rather than the glorified norm. While the Bible is the unique voice of God, it is not the end of our pursuits and it is not God.

Discipleship: There would be more emphasis placed upon the need for theological discipleship. While Scripture is our primary source for theology, reading Scripture alone does not necessarily produce good theology. This education emphasis would be based in an irenic method of teaching, helping people to understand all theological positions, historic and contemporary, so that they might make informed and intellectually honest decisions with regard to their beliefs. In the end, the intellectual shallowness that has plagued our ranks for the last century would be replaced with an informed and God-glorifying use of our mind.

Apostolic Succession: This might seem to be my most radical change, but its principled aspirations are nothing new to Evangelicalism. As I have said before (see The Evangelical Epidemic of Theological Accountability), I believe that a major problem in the church today (particularly in evangelicalism) is the lack of accountability. I believe that leadership (especially the office of the pastor) needs to have a requirement of apostolic succession. This involves a more serious and involved ordination process. I don’t believe that this “succession” necessarily needs to be conceived as a succession in person (such as is found in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism), but a succession in teaching. In other words, those who are in leadership need to be ordained into ministry as those who are approved by and held accountable to those who have gone before them. This accountability regulates the teaching of the church, ensuring that the teaching finds its roots in the teaching of the Apostles (the Scriptures). Obviously, this succession in teaching cannot (and should not) be divorced from succession in person, but any attempts to justify a person’s Apostolic authority primarily based upon their ability to trace their lineage through a succession of persons without a succession of teaching is getting the cart before the horse.

Insufficient Names:

Emerging: I believe that this name neither has historic dignity nor pastoral sensitivity (explained below) for the importance of the situation.

Christian: While this would be great, the last two thousand years have made it insufficient to communicate what it aspires to say.

Protestant: No good. Places too much focus on the battle of the sixteenth-century which, while important, does not define everything we are and miscommunicates a highly polemic state of affairs.

Reformed Evangelical: Now, this is a good one! But, alas, this will not work. While I could call myself a Reformed Evangelical, this narrows this tradition unnecessarily to those with a Calvinistic bent.

Christ-Follower: Some in the Emerging Church attempted to use this name, but it is more a description of the word “Christian” which attempts to simplify the tradition. Inevitably it suffers the same fate of obscurity of both Evangelical and Christian.

Missional: To me, this lacks dignity as well as being too focused on one particular distinctive. But I recognize this charge could also be made against “evangelical.”

Post-evangelical: I don’t like this for two reasons: 1) Has no lasting value since “post” is a designation based upon the previous state of affairs (but hey, what do I know, we still call ourselves “Protestant.” 2) It communicates an anti-evangelical stance.

Orthodox Evangelical: While this communicates much of what I would like to communicate, it identifies too closely with the Orthodox Church that has its own rich, yet very distinct, traditions.

Evangelical Catholic: “Catholic” simply means universal. Evangelicals are catholic Christians, but not “Roman” Catholic. It would be nice to reclaim this designation, but it just ain’t going to happen. Too much baggage.

Why “Evangelical”?

It could be that “evangelical” is a word that is spoiled beyond use, but I am not ready to go there for two reasons. 1) I still believe that its usage in the mid-nineteenth century has left the biggest footprint in the field of the principles that are the most important. 2) It is a pastoral approach to change. It is (or should be) a well-known axiom in the field of pastoral ministries that when one pastor replaces or succeeds another pastor he should not immediately set his agenda to clean house through changes that would be perceived as too radical. He needs to be sensitive to the traditions of the congregation and, if change is necessary, take it slowly and adopt methods of change that are as subtle as possible. I think that a name change such as “emergent” or “post-evangelical” that says “We are really different” is unwise. I believe that it discredits those who are still Evangelicals with integrity as well as discrediting the history of the movement. We don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Why “Historical”?

There needs to be more emphasis on the roots of our faith. I believe that while we need to find identification in the Reformation, we need to follow the Reformers’ example and discover that our roots go much deeper. That is why I like to say that our roots are not in the Reformation, but go through the Reformation. We must seek to show Evangelicals how we are part of the historic Christian faith going back to the early church. Each Christian should be able to trace the Christian faith through the successes and failures of those who have gone before us with sensitivity and pride, knowing that God is the God of history and he has never abandoned His church. This will enhance our accountability, broaden our community, and dignify our worship experience as we join hands with the entire Church, both living and dead, local and universal, visible and invisible.

Well, this certainly does not cover everything, but it is a good start. And since this blog has become entirely too long for a blog, I will now leave and wait for the comments. Go easy on me. Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #2
• Can I Just Start a New Tradition?
• Evangelicals: Lets Rethink Apostolic Succession
• More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession
• Evangelicalism in a Nutshell

It is no one’s fault I suppose. These things just happen. “The Coming Evangelical Crisis” came without warning. A lot of warning. It is a crisis indeed.

I have sat as a spectator of the emerging church. I have agreed with much of their assessment of the current situation of the day. I have agreed with them that the evangelical church is either focusing too much on non-essentials or has no focus at all. I have had hopes that this tradition might morph into something of value and dignity. But as of late it has become increasingly (and painfully) obvious that this tradition has a root of bitterness that is causing it to submerge into the depths of obscurity and irreverence. I have tried to submerge with it in hopes that the anchor of compromise might be losened. But the anchor is connected to the stern and it’s threads are not breaking. I have even been working on a blog in which I was going to argue that the values that birthed the emerging church look identical to the values that birthed 20th century evangelicalism. Come what may of this blog, I believe that the emerging church has sunk and it is beyond rescue. It lays at the bottom of the ocean right next to the once mighty ship of the liberal church. Modern and postmodern at rest together.

Yet, in my mind, all is not lost. There is hope. There is always hope. We may not have a name any longer, but there is the continued and growing presence of an ethos among those who recognize the need for progression and stability in Christianity. This ethos is shared by those who understand the deep roots of evangelicalism which extend through the passions of great Reformation into the committment of the early church. It is shared by those who find themselves in the history of the church and the Scriptures. These desire to pioneer the church into the next generation, not by settling for existing designations that, while rich, lack the ability to move forward, but by a true sense of semper reformanda (always reforming). This is an ethos that reforms by becoming incarnate to the culture without sacraficing doctrine or tradition that makes the church different. Aren’t we supposed to be different? Isn’t light different than darkness?

Can I start a new tradition? Well, not really a new tradition, but a new designation that represents the ethos of so many of those who have gone before us. If I can, I will call this tradition “Historic Evangelicalism.” Yes, it is not really different, but it is really different. The “Historic” qualifies “Evangelical” so that people don’t mistake that this tradition is rooted in history. Not only will this tradition be Gospel-focused and Christ-centered, not only will it be theologically robust and biblically literate, not only will the Scriptures be the final authority and non-essential issues be non-essential, but you will have to traverse the halls of church history to arrive at the lecturn. The “historic” will anchor us as we humbly recognize those who have gone before us upon who’s shoulders we stand. The “evangelical” will push us forward as the Gospel of Christ necessitates Christ’s incarnation through the church into whatever culture we find ourselves. The “historic” will give us permission to recognize the value of tradition as guide and teacher that joins our hands with the saints of the past. The “evangelical” will allow us to develop in our understanding as God’s revelation becomes clearer through the development of doctrine. The “historic” will ensure that we are consulting Augustine. The “evangelical” will ensure that we are conversing with our neighbor.

I am not Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Fundementalist, Evangelical, Baptist, Presbytarian, Lutheran, Anglican, non-denominational, or an emerger. I am a “Historic Evangelical.”

Similar Posts:

• Why the Evangelical Manifesto Did Not "Work"
• What has Become of Evangelicalism? An Evangelical’s Lament
• Why Evangelicalism is Still the Best Option
• “Historic Evangelicalism”: Characteristics of a New Christian Tradition
• Michael Spencer on the Problems of Evangelicalism

Here is a nice statement made by Chris:

The spiritual-life advertised by evangelicals all my life did not work for me. I don;t know if it’s my personality, my education, my experiences, or anything else. I think it’s a combination of all three and more. At least the "more" is what I think I was missing in the evangelical world. That is a consistent, ordered, orthodox feeding on the scriptures and the essential doctrines of our faith. For all of my earliest years in the faith, I was encouraged to set aside a chunk of time, preferably the earliest morning hours, to read scripture and pray and read devotional literature. The Holy Ghost was supposed to do the rest "within me". Of course this is not a bad set-up. But I wasn’t coming away from these devos[9] with the same spiritual-sounding jargon that others did. I felt un-spiritual and I tried harder. At other times I heard some things from people of authority that flatly contradicted the scripture in my mind. So why did they read it differently than me? Was the Holy Ghost the supplier of individual interpretation? Seminary studies only compounded the problem. We got the same true-grit style instruction, "stick to it, boys . . . God is good." How can you deny that God is good?"

But some theology classes seemed to introduce a more balanced approach. I heard more ideas on Christian formation than I care to remember. Any approach that came near legalism just couldn’t fit. One did stick out in my mind. Worship can be a central spiritual tool for the Christian’s growth. In fact, how someone worships pretty much says it all concerning their character and inner life. But up until then, worship for me had been about listening & learning.

Similar Posts:

• “Historic Evangelicalism”: Characteristics of a New Christian Tradition
• Why I am Proud to be a Protestant
• Why Are Christians So Divided? Brief Reflections on Denominations
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• Great Chart on Denonminations