What is an Evangelical?
Something that has been stewing awhile...
A few weeks ago I attended the Friday morning Bible study with some men from church. We spent the majority of the time discussing a section from David Wells' Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology. We talked about how modern evangelicalism is so vastly different from that which characterized those evangelicals of the 16th and 17th centuries, a modern evangelical being one who makes t-shirts to make it clear that he neither drinks beer nor attendeds rated R movies. But are modern evangelicals so different from their earlier counterparts? Not in one sense, it seems to me. That sense is in stressing the individual's personal relationship with Jesus over and above the individual's personal relationship with the Church. It seemed to me, at least in our leader's characterization of Wells' argument, that what gave rise to evangelicalism (at least in part) in the first place was a disatisfaction with the institutional church. Apparently, these churches had become a place that everyone went regardless of their sincerity in doing so. The church was the central building in town and everyone attended church because it was what everyone did but very few seemed to care or bother with coming to terms with why they were going. So, evangelicals (through the Great Awakenings) began to stress a personal relationship with Jesus. The result (intended or not) was a jettisoning of the individual believer from the local institutional church. Modern evangelicals, then, are simply the great grandchildren of such thinking. Manifestly, today's evangelicals are more preoccupied with personal evangelism and piety than with the Church. Church membership is eskewed. It doesn't matter where you go to church as long as (1) you love Jesus and (2) the church you attend helps you maintain that love. This consequence was reinforced the other day when I was discussing this with some friends from school. One remarked that an evangelical leader described an evangelical as one who is (in part) puritanical and pietistic. Asking what was meant by 'pietistic' I was told that it was the stressing of personal acts of holiness (i.e., reading your Bible and praying, etc.). What struck me (again, as the same phenomenon occured in the attempt to describe an evangelical at the friday morning Bible study) is that, in describing an evangelical, no mention is made of the Church. Apparently, then, an evangelical is one who has very little to do with the Church. It's just God, him and his Bible (and t-shirt).
But this seems backwards. What should be primary is one's relationship with the Church and one only has a relationship with the Church, when one has a relationship with a church, that is, a local institutional body of believers. After all, that is where two of the means of grace are found, namely, the Word and the Sacraments.
A few weeks ago I attended the Friday morning Bible study with some men from church. We spent the majority of the time discussing a section from David Wells' Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology. We talked about how modern evangelicalism is so vastly different from that which characterized those evangelicals of the 16th and 17th centuries, a modern evangelical being one who makes t-shirts to make it clear that he neither drinks beer nor attendeds rated R movies. But are modern evangelicals so different from their earlier counterparts? Not in one sense, it seems to me. That sense is in stressing the individual's personal relationship with Jesus over and above the individual's personal relationship with the Church. It seemed to me, at least in our leader's characterization of Wells' argument, that what gave rise to evangelicalism (at least in part) in the first place was a disatisfaction with the institutional church. Apparently, these churches had become a place that everyone went regardless of their sincerity in doing so. The church was the central building in town and everyone attended church because it was what everyone did but very few seemed to care or bother with coming to terms with why they were going. So, evangelicals (through the Great Awakenings) began to stress a personal relationship with Jesus. The result (intended or not) was a jettisoning of the individual believer from the local institutional church. Modern evangelicals, then, are simply the great grandchildren of such thinking. Manifestly, today's evangelicals are more preoccupied with personal evangelism and piety than with the Church. Church membership is eskewed. It doesn't matter where you go to church as long as (1) you love Jesus and (2) the church you attend helps you maintain that love. This consequence was reinforced the other day when I was discussing this with some friends from school. One remarked that an evangelical leader described an evangelical as one who is (in part) puritanical and pietistic. Asking what was meant by 'pietistic' I was told that it was the stressing of personal acts of holiness (i.e., reading your Bible and praying, etc.). What struck me (again, as the same phenomenon occured in the attempt to describe an evangelical at the friday morning Bible study) is that, in describing an evangelical, no mention is made of the Church. Apparently, then, an evangelical is one who has very little to do with the Church. It's just God, him and his Bible (and t-shirt).
But this seems backwards. What should be primary is one's relationship with the Church and one only has a relationship with the Church, when one has a relationship with a church, that is, a local institutional body of believers. After all, that is where two of the means of grace are found, namely, the Word and the Sacraments.
posted by Josh at 7:59 PM
4 Comments:
Josh-
These things may be true, and I think you are right; but how in the world am I going to get the Lord's Supper onto a bumper sticker? Or maybe we should make up our own stickers and t-shirts, like, "my already baptized baby can beat up your honors student while reciting catechism."
Did Jesus have a church?
Josh, let me start by saying I agree with you. But, what do you think about the point my teacher, Dr. Fears, seems to make when discussing Jesus; namely, that one of the main differences between the teaching and ministry of Jesus and that of the Pharisees, Saducees and other religious leaders was that he taught individual salvation in the midst of a rather communally minded society? He does not speak negatively of the church, but only points out that Jesus taught people to be concerned about their souls on an individual level. He talked to them as inidividuals. (Again, I am not agreeing but reciting some of his arguments, however, he is a rather convincing rhetorician.)
Also, do you think that part of the reason piety today has little to do with the church (in most people's minds) is because the church is less active. Yes I know that there are always programs going on (which in many baptistic/non-denom. churches are a part of piety, although they don't use those "Catholic" words) but we do not have the daily or 3-4 times a week services that churches once did. Although I love the church I will admit that it is hard to feel like a family when you are only all assembled together for worship and covenant renewal once a week.
By the way, to Jason, Yes. Jesus spent a great deal of time in the temple and synagogues, which were the churches of the Old Covenant. That is where he did a lot of teaching as well as learning, and before he died he made it clear to the disciples that they were to found the New Covenant ekklesia.
You would enjoy Lesslie Newbigin's writings...
Post a Comment
<< Home