When we started Collierville Bible Church almost twenty years ago, one of our first challenges was finding an appropriate name for the new work. The church was sponsored by First Evangelical Church of Memphis and the assumption was that the new work would have the word "evangelical" in its name as a hallmark of this lineage. But we ran into a snag. We discovered that the meaning of the word "evangelical" was fuzzy. When we tested out "Collierville Evangelical Church," it left most people wondering, "So what are you?" They couldn't tell you what an "evangelical" is - but they did understand the word "Bible." We figured, "Honoring, learning, and applying the Bible is what we're about - why not make it our middle name?"
This name choice was not a departure from being evangelical, however. Here's an excerpt from the notes for the CBC New Members class:
Collierville Bible Church could be described as an evangelical, doctrinally conservative church. CBC is an independent congregation – it is not part of a larger organization nor a representative of a particular denomination. When we say it’s “evangelical,” that word describes lots of different kinds of churches who share a common vision: They proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and believe it is essential to do so. To say that CBC is doctrinally conservative means that we’re not interested in innovation, novelty, or creativity when it comes to interpreting the Bible. We strive to be faithful to the timeless truths taught in God’s word.
The words in bold capture our basic summary of what it means to be evangelical. It seems fairly straight-forward. But cultural and political trends have messed with my tidy definition. The meaning of "Evangelical" has become even fuzzier than it was twenty years ago. The term has come to be bandied about, often as a slam against those who are attempting to rally Christians toward political conservatism. Evangelicals are depicted as those who coerce or impose their beliefs on others. Here's what happened at a church in Michigan last weekend - just to give you some appreciation for the problem.
In an attempt to deflect some of the criticism, a group of evangelical heavyweights has drafted An Evangelical Manifesto. Here is a very handy summary that is also available at their website. I can commend both documents but I am not sure if their strategy will prove effective. Here is the logic behind it - these are my words, not theirs:
People are mad at evangelicals. But they are mad for reasons that are unfounded. If they just understood what we believe, they would see that much of their criticism is based on misrepresentations. If they would just read our manifesto and get to know us, we could all be friends.
I am glad for their efforts to jettison some baggage and clarify what we believe. And I will be delighted with whatever benefits this effort imparts to the debate in the public square. But even if we were called "those nice evangelicals," the clash between world-views will remain both real and fierce.
Some men and women will never submit to Jesus, no matter how clear their understanding of His gospel. But I think there are many who would choose to serve Christ if they really understood what that meant.
When Jesus said of the fruit of the Spirit, "against such things there is no law," I think he was saying more than merely that such attributes were good in the sight of God. He seems also to have been saying that they are good in the sight of Man, as well. In other words, even fallen man can appreciate the virtue of the fruit of the Spirit-provided his perception of it is not undermined or perverted.
How many people do you think inwardly burn for significance, or with regret, with feeling unfulfilled, with listless, down-trodden hearts, or with endless guilt they can never outrun? Why then do they reject the single greatest answer to each of these deep, abiding problems: Jesus?
My point is this: I think some, perhaps even many, of those who don't embrace Jesus Christ don't fail to do so because they find the Gospel un-palatable. They do so because they never "find" the Gospel at all. They know "Christians" too well for picket lines, self-help fluff, and hypocrisy to bother asking if their "beliefs" are authentic.
And as long as hypocrisy, caricature, political ideology, and ESPECIALLY sloppy doctrine take precedence in Christendom over faithfully upholding the Gospel, we may expect to continue missing opportunities and muddying the path to salvation. Therefore, I applaud these men and women's drive to give mankind's skeptical-but-searching members a fighting chance at finding real Christianity for the first time.
That said, while I believe these men and women can do something of ETERNAL significance through this effort, I neither believe in nor support such an undertaking merely to placate POLITICAL opposition. For, such would be both to participate in futility and to cheapen the true power of Christ's message: Political opposition will never die, and the gospel is far more than a plank in a dingy political platform.
Posted by: Austin | November 15, 2008 at 03:23 PM