Deep Creek Anglican Church Blog

Chapter Two: My Journey to Catholicity Begins

Chapter Three: Searching for the Elusive Truth

John Armstrong in your church is too small describes his journey towards a big view of the church and his passion for unity.

John was brought up in a “very conservative home and church” in the American South.  He was positively impacted by fellowship with other Christians during his university years; during his twenty years in pastoral ministry grew concerned by the suspicions between Catholics and Protestants and the long list of “internal evangelical debates.”  In the mid 1990s, during corporate worship while saying the Apostles’ Creed, John recalls being led by the Holy Spirit to the prayer of Jesus in John 17:20-23.  In response, he took two practical steps:

• he went back to the primary sources of the three different historic Christian churches – Catholic, Protestant to discover the core truths shared by all Christians
• he deliberately set out to meet with Christians “who were different from me.”

John was positively impacted by visiting with a group of Catholic monks but was battling inner fears about the course he was on and increasingly came under criticism by those believing he was falling into “doctrinal error.”  His refocussed ministry, now called ACT3, sponsored a church renewal conference with representatives from across the church.  He grew to love the Catholic community (which he had once feared) and benefited from new friendships with Orthodox brothers and sisters.

In the apostolic and post-apostolic church, there was deep commitment among the leaders to preserve the church as one family with Christ at the centre, notwithstanding doctrinal differences.  But down through the centuries, divisions grew large.  John laments that today the “spirit of devisiveness” has spread like a pandemic from America.  This sectarianism and subsequently small view of the church harms the mission of Christ – that’s John’s big point.

Ed Stetzer is a prolific writer on mission, President of LifeWay Research and a frequent conference speaker for a wide variety of churches.  He recently spoke at Dwell London.  Ed gave a seminar for cross-cultural workers to help them understand the current evangelical movement.  Adrian Warnock has helpfully posted some of what Ed said here, including:

“Ed spoke about what he called the pragmatic evangelical movement …Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. Big global influence. Saddleback is probably the most influential church in the world. …Many think pragmatic is a bad word. But it just means determining what works. …

Traditional evangelicals …would have conferences about for example creationism vs evolution. Must prove these things to be true… Rick Warren is a very conservative evangelical on almost all issues but he says “what people really want to know is how God can change their life or marriage”. Many traditional evangelicals rushed into pragmatic evangelicalism as they were so fed up of dry dead theology.

A decade ago, Purpose Driven was the most influential Christian movement in the world. Very broad reaching. In the the USA, these movements are still influential, but not like they were ten years ago…. Willow Creek originally spoke about being seeker driven. Stage driven. Take into account the local expressions of music and drama. Willow Creek was also influential but less globally. The seeker paradigm of ministry has declined in influence, and Willow itself has changed their own paradigm. When they realized they needed to change their way to disciple, and announced that they were changing, many people went after them in a nasty way, especially online.

Younger evangelicals …are building on or charting new directions. Younger evangelicals can be found among a number of different groups: 1. Hyper-contemporary . Desire for “in your face,” eg series on sex with aggressive titles that get complaints. Gets media attention and they like it….The idea is that in the modern world it is harder to get peoples attention. So the desire is to cut through the noise and get people to notice. In an all consuming passion to reach the unchurched they often offend the Christians. In a way they are a continuation of the seeker movement but “louder.”

2. Emerging Church.  These should be considered as several different groups:Relevants A lot of this is just about being relevant. Appropriate to the culture. Same understanding of the gospel but engage in a different way.  Reconstructionists want to change the way we do church. They believe in the gospel. Believe in conversion. But believe that much of what had been done in church harms the gospel. So we see, House Church, Missional,  incarnational models. The reality is indeed that many churches do need to change.  Revisionists like Maclaren want to rethink the gospel want a bigger gospel, more societal. Some want to ditch the idea of gospel as a transaction altogether.

3 New reformed. These respond to society by wanting to go deeper. Time magazine thinks that this idea is one of the most influential ideas (including secular ones)  in modern America. Different varieties eg charismatic reformed. John Macarthur and Driscoll are very different for example. A lot of younger reformed evangelicals became reformed in response to more vague churches they grew up in.  There is much to rejoice about, but much to be anxious about also. There is a level of anger in some that is so concerning that they are nick-named the “TR” =truly reformed. Fortunately there are also the “WR” =winsomely reformed. Many in more traditional forms criticize. Actually the new reformed have something in common with the emerging in that they want to correct the common gospel, in this case they want a bloodier one with more emphasis on cross and resurrection. There is a growing evidence of dissatisfaction with evangelicalism. People feel that they are not seeing the results that they thought they would. There is much experimentation that is going on, and coming up with new expressions of church. Stetzer calls this Evangelical angst.People are seeking a model. Unsure about who they are. There is a drive to reclaim the centre, because the edges are fuzzy. We live in a time of Tumult. Many are dissatisfied with the results so far, unsure what the future holds.”

Are evangelicals more fractured and polarised than any time in history? I’m not sure. 21st century travel and digital communications certainly makes dissemination of new trends, movements, theologies and practices quite different to any prior times.  But we are certainly living in an era of what Ed calls ‘evangelical angst’ and struggling with our expression of Jesus’ words in John 17:20-21.  That’s why John Armstrong’s call in your church is too small: why unity in Christ’s mission is vital to the future of the Church is so vital – for those both within ‘evangelicalism’ and right across Christ’s Church.  We will blog through this book in the near future.

Scot McKnight identifies four characteristics of evanglicalism: the centrality of the Bible, the cross as atoning, the necessity of personal conversion and the personal active faith of the Christian.

Scot’s contention is that universalism erodes the very core of evangelicalism: universalism suggests personal conversion is not finally necessary, it calls into question the importance and even necessity of evangelism as a form of Christian activism, and it weakens the atoning significance of the death of Jesus if it is understood as that which separates the believer from the non-believer.

And universalism is on the rise in America.  Read more here.

Do you consider that:

• most every doctrine is essential (Theological Maximalist)? or
• most every doctrine is non-essential (Theological Minimalist)? or
• it’s best to “meet in the middle” (Theological Centrist)? or
• it’s best to meet around the central issues of the faith and give liberty in other areas (Theological Centralist)?

That’s the topic that C Michael Patton addresses here.  He provides examples of the four categories as follows:

• Theological Maximalist – Historic Roman Catholicism, some Eastern Orthodox, and Fundamentalists
• Theological Minimalist – pop Evangelicalism church
• Theological Centrist – more liberal Churches
• Theological Centralist – Most Evangelicals and some Eastern Orthodox

Patton expands on the Theological Maximalist:

“One who seeks unity only with those with whom there is maximal agreement. There is quite a separationist mentality in this group. They are ready to fight for every crumb, believing it to be in honor of the Lord. If it is the word of the Lord, it is the word of the Lord. How can one regulate its importance? All issues are equal, or at least close to it.”

My observation of many ‘evangelical pronouncements’, especially in the last decade or so – across all forms of media – would suggest that the contention that ‘most evangelicals’ are in the Theological Centralist category is somewhat of an overstatement.  In fact, it often strikes me that one of the characteristics of some evangelicals, whether in Melbourne/Sydney or North America, would seem to be a strident annunciation of the absolute correctness of their position on a great raft of doctrines (including ‘women in ministry’, particular atonement, amongst many others).  The flavour is certainly more like ‘Theological Maximalist.’

I appreciate that there will always be debate as to what is core and what is secondary, but evangelical witness across the western world would be greatly enhanced through living out the Lord’s command:

“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”  John 13:35

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.  Rom 12:10

C Michael Patton posts a useful article on the differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.  He looks at the origins of Fundamentalism in the late nineteenth century as a reaction to Liberalism.  And then traces the increasing legalistic flavour of Fundamentalism since the 1930s.  He continues:

“With leaders such as Ockenga, Billy Graham, and Carl F. Henry, Evangelicals represented a “third way” (tertium quid) between liberals and fundamentalists. They were committed to traditional doctrine and practice, but allowed for much more freedom and diversity in the areas that were biblically debatable and/or less important. Evangelicals sought to reengage the intellect and encourage Christians to reenter society and gain what was lost in the market of ideas.

From this, one can see that there is a great chasm that exists between Evangelicals and fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are not Evangelicals and Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Of course, within Evangelicalism you find those that are more traditional (such as David Wells, John Piper, and John MacArthur) but you also have those who would be more “progressive” (such as Roger Olson, Stanley Grenz,  and N.T. Wright). The progressives are more willing to push the envelope either in areas of doctrine or practice, while the traditionalists are about maintaining the traditions as they have received them. It is hard to maintain ground as an Evangelical. There is always the temptation to slip back into fundamentalism or to progress too far toward Liberalism. But there are those who could be seen as maintaining the middle ground (such as Billy Graham, Chuck Swindoll, J.I. Packer, and Chuck Colson).

Either way, the common Evangelical credo (though not originating with modern Evangelicalism) is, “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” The fundamentalist movement, as it became, would not like this credo because there is no such thing as “non-essentials.” To the Liberal, all things were gray. To the fundamentalist, all things were black and white. To the Evangelical, there is black, white, and gray.

Another way to put it: Evangelicalism has a center (anchor), not boundaries; fundamentalism attempts to create a center by the creation of multiple boundaries….

Both fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, however, share a devotion to the absolute and final authority of Scripture. Both share in their belief that the Reformation was a good and necessary thing. Evangelicals are more prone to follow the principle of semper reformanda (”always reforming”) since they are not so dogmatic about all areas of theology and practice.

Fundamentalism has all but lost its association with the early years of the movement. It is now a term that is used in just about every discipline to describe those who are radically and, often, militantly committed to their cause. It is associated with narrow mindedness with an obscurantist mentality….

I don’t know what Piper meant when he said, in essence, that if you don’t want to be a Fundamentalist, you are weak. In my mind, fundamentalism and  legalism is weakness. It is an attempt make sure that you have everything figured out and a list of do’s and don’ts. I think that it takes much more strength to be a true Evangelical than it does to be either a liberal or a fundamentalist.”

Category definitions can often be very divisive (in all directions!)  If I have to be categorised using the above terms, then I’m in the Evangelical paddock.  But I’d much prefer to be in the paddock described as “a follower of Jesus Christ, who understands the Bible to be authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.”