By Michael Spencer (iMonk)
Moderators note: Michael has graciously allowed us to repost this article at Eclectic Christian.
Somewhere in the previous orgy of comments I’ve had this week, someone asked me to write about “What do you see as the ideal evangelicalism?”
There is no ideal evangelicalism and there’s not going to be. It’s certainly not going to be ideal if I am the architect. So let’s not get out of hand here. I’m a blogger, which tells you about all you need to know on the subject of my credibility.
But that won’t stop me from answering the question in a slightly different form: “What would make for a much better evangelicalism?”
I promise the answers are going to be short.
1) Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that the Reformation and all subsequent divisions divided the one true church of Christ. None of those divisions created a new church or recreated the one, true church. All of Christianity today is the broken parts of what should be whole and entire.
2) Evangelicalism would be much better if it learned to see its own destructive, polluting entanglement in culture instead of trying to justify that entanglement as evangelism. Evangelicals have to live in culture, and I believe we should influence it, discern it and build admirable contributions to it, but the most essential attitude we should have toward it is to avoid the destructive, parasitic entanglements with culture that have sucked the life, power and distinctiveness from evangelicalism, especially in North America.
3) Evangelicalism would be better if it would admit and address its authority issue. Evangelicalism consists, to a large extent, of groups and individuals waving Bibles and shouting verses at one another. Evangelicals use terms like “Biblical Christianity” as if they could actually produce such a thing if asked. The assumption that our views are “based on the Bible” has produced a cacophony of contradictory, divisive and endless claims, counter-claims and wars. The evolution of evangelicalism seems destined to be toward the opposite poles of abandoning the concept of authority completely to the individual (usually the charismatic pastor) or creating an authoritarian hothouse where complete submission is obligatory to avoid exile or worse. Evangelicals have an authority problem. They will quite possibly never solve it as evangelicals, but they can make the situation considerably better by directly addressing the problems created in Protestantism and evangelicalism by our various approaches to authority and implementing serious measures to bring some coherence to the situation.
4) Evangelicalism would be better if it rid itself of every form of the prosperity Gospel and pursued spiritual formation and an imitation of Jesus that was consistent with what Jesus and the New Testament teach about money.
5) Evangelicalism would be better if it learned to see, in the various divisions of Christianity, the remaining diversity that once adorned the united church: liturgy, missions, evangelism, spiritual formation, theology, Biblical study, the work of the Holy Spirit, the power of the sacraments. Even if these divisions cannot be overcome, the visible remains of the once glorious body of Christ can still be seen and experienced, even in our broken condition. Evangelicalism should determine, like Merton said, to bring together in itself as many different aspects of the holistic church of Jesus as possible. As someone recently said, we are in a time when the basis of Christianity is being eroded in masse, yet we are still debating the issues of the 16th century divisions and ignoring how irrelevant these are to the world at large. I affirm with my own denomination the need for a Great Commission Resurgence, and it must encompass all Christian traditions, but especially evangelicalism.
6) Evangelicalism would be better if thousands of churches die and many thousands more are born via healthy church planting relationships.
7) Evangelicalism would be better if it brought out all of its riches of corporate worship and put them on display, rather than throwing out what seems old, selling out what seems out of fashion and denouncing what isn’t popular. Evangelicals have in the more ancient, broader, deeper, wider Christian tradition all those aspects and elements of worship that can not only end the worship wars, but bring the focus of worship clearly onto Christ being exalted in all things. Evangelicals are starving by the millions for Christ focused worship and gospel dominated spirituality, but at this crucial hour, we are determined to be trendy, innovative and to get more cars in the parking lot. A sad betrayal of all we know for the wisdom of the world. We’ll be very sorry in 20 years.
8. Evangelicals would be much better off if, as a movement, they had a common set of confessional/creedal/catechetical documents. Further, evangelicalism would be much better if it recognized a shared ordained ministry.
9) Evangelicals would be be much better off it they were poor and had to proceed, in every way, without the assumption that they can easily generate millions of dollars to do whatever they want to do. We need to embrace poverty for the sake of Christ, and repent of our idolatry of all things big, successful, wealthy and powerful. In the midst of this, we should repent of and renounce our dreams of political influence.
10) Evangelicals would be much better off if the Charismatic movement were to become a manistream part of every church, renewing and being renewed; giving and being nurtured itself. Christianity is not the dead, dry, dusty movement most of us see. It is alive with power and emotion; with human and divine energy. We should desire the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit and the continual empowering, freeing, healing, humbling work of the Spirit. Charismatic Christianity needs a Biblical/theological rescue, but mainstream evangelicalism desperately needs the spiritual movement that is at the heart of healthy third-wave and charismatic movements.
Michael Bell
Joshua Hearne
Tim Melton
Joel Black
Excellent article!
I’m not exactly sure what “the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit” is.
I’m not so sure anyone else knows either, which could lead us all over the place in the name of Jesus.
I think a better understanding and appreciation of the sacraments would make better Evagelicals. That the whole ‘God project’ would not fall upon the seld and what ‘we do’, but rather a deepening trust of what Christ has done.
I think a better understanding of the Bible, not having to be inerrant, and therefore every verse is given the same weight (leading to a wooden, legalistic, man centered approach to evangelism.
Moving to Christ and what He has done, is doing, and will yet do…and away from ‘us’ and our decisions, our will, our performance, our sincerity…that is what I think would make for a better Evangelical church.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your response. I would encourage you to also post them at internetmonk.com.
A couple words of explanation, and a couple questions for you.
“The full manifestation of the Holy Spirit.” I think too often we try to put God in a box with a line of thinking along the lines of I am okay with what you want to do God, as long as you restrict yourself to X. Our fear of human excess has caused us to miss the blessing of the divine. If it is a true manifestation of the Holy Spirit, then it will only lead in directions that God wants us to go. That is not to say that we should go chasing after every wind that blows, but let ourselves be open to what the Holy Spirit wants to do in our midst. Discernment obviously plays a huge role in this.
“would not fall upon the seld” – Not sure what you mean by this.
Not sure what you meant by your inerrant section. Could you reword it for me?
“Moving to Christ and what He has done…” – Absolutely!
Mike Bell
Hmm…
“1) Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that the Reformation and all subsequent divisions divided the one true church of Christ. None of those divisions created a new church or recreated the one, true church. All of Christianity today is the broken parts of what should be whole and entire.”
Sadly, this is true. From what I understand, the Reformation Movement at large contracted the same deadly virus as the Protestant Movement: people started debating theologies and eventually decided, “You’re wrong and we’re right, so we’re going to go over here and do what we feel should be done and teach our children how right we are and how wrong you are.”
However, I don’t want to miss this point: doctrine is important. 1 Timothy 4:16 says to “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” However, from what I see, doctrine is oftentimes placed in front of people, and thereby people are wounded by people in a church and fail to differentiate between the Church as a whole and the God that we worship.
Hmm…one of the things that frustrates me is the menial things that churches divide over anymore. I’m heard of a church that divided over how many cups to use for their Communion; I’ve also heard of a church that divided over the carpet color. I think that this problem is reinforced by a recent statistic I heard about people’s attitude toward the church. From what I heard, about 9 in 10 people who attend church, when asked what the Church’s purpose was, answered, “To meet my needs.” That’s a rough statistic, but you get the idea.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need a major shift back to God and away from defending our own theologies, tearing others’ down, or simply demanding that every little thing be absolutely perfect. I think I shift toward God also includes a shift back to the helping of the poor; Jesus spent his whole ministry helping the poor, and I think that a lot of churches today focus more on satisfying the thoughts and expectations of the people within the walls of a building than they encourage their church (referring to the people in the Church; I don’t think a Church is a masonry building) to reach out to the lost and poor. I’ll gladly admit that there are some facets of giving and helping the poor that I’m in the process of figuring out, but I think that once we have giving at the center of the Church, when serving God by serving the poor and lost are again the central goal of the Church at large, then I think it will be much safer to consider what sorts of doctrine to accept and promote. Also, to prevent arguments over the menial things, one only need read 2 Corinthians 24: “No one should seek his own good, but the good of the other person.”
There hasn’t been a unified body of Christ since Pentecost. no creed could be so broad as to include every one and one so broad wouldn’t be accepted by quite a few denominations and congregations. If you think women wearing pants is a diabolical sin, then you would no more want to share communion with such wicked people than I with a church that mugged people at gun point for the building fund. The best thing for the Body of Christ is to avoid force as method of achieving conformity. In the middle ages everyone wanted a prince to lock away all those “perverting” the gospel. We can only hope to use good arguments and examples to bring people around. Jesus’ words “whoever isn’t against me is with me” is true in this case. for all the many faults of the medieval church, it preserved the gospels. The Gospels form the basis of what we know of Jesus. Who would go though the trouble of preaching Jesus if they did not revere the Gospels? And even if what they preach is false the Gospels provide an insight to what should be done. It’s self correcting so long as people can openly discuss it.
Mike,
It think that the early christian creeds are broad enough that they include pretty much everyone who is Christian. I agree that there are going to be those at the fringes who would not want have communion with most other Christians, but then that was Michael Spencers’ first point, that we need Christians who are more willing to share and interact with each other. Indeed it is part of the vision of Eclectic Christian.
Good and challenging article. I think you and iMonk should write together.
Thanks for the compliment Scott. I feel priviledged that iMonk lets me post his stuff here when requested. The stuff that he is able to write just blows me away at times. It has helped me so much just to be able to read it and interact with it.
Yes, he definitely has some poignant thoughts for evangelicals. Yet, at times, I feel we have to be careful that an overly negative tone does not pervade our thoughts and words too much. I too long for much, much change. But we are still the Bride and Christ is still the head of His church.
I am 100% with you on the negative thought aspect of things. One reason why I like to read, http://www.parchmentandpen.com. Theologically we are at quite different places, but he keeps it very much on the positive side.
Yeah, I read Michael’s blog as well.
Thanks for the interaction.
I hope I can visit this blog regularly.