From Roger E. Olson —
My experience over at least 40 years of paying attention to evangelicalism is that MOST Churches of Christ/Independent Christian Church people and churches DO NOT want to be included among the American evangelical movement. For example, historically they have not supported Billy Graham crusades or joined the National Association of Evangelicals (although one small offshoot of the Stone-Campbell Movement is among the NAE member denominations). Generally speaking these churches have stood apart and even criticized evangelical churches and organizations as inferior to them spiritually, theologically and ecclesiastically. They have often actively evangelized among evangelicals.
True? Are the Churches of Christ evangelical? Do we want to be?
This will be an interesting discussion – for it it we must not only understand what defines who “we” are, we must also have an understanding of what defines an evangelical.
Much of what evangelicals believe, most of the fellowship of the churches of Christ believe. Yet, there are some differences other than IM and baptism for the remission of sins. Hopefully, this discussion will clarify some of these things for me – for I confess that I do not know what the evangelicals hold as essential doctrine, nor how exclusive they are in how they hold it. I suspect that “they” are a lot like “us” – all over the map with only a few crucial things they deem essential. And the more we focus on the crucial things, I suspect the closer we will find ourselves in agreement – BICBW.
As I said, this should be an interesting discussion.
Determining whether or not the church is evangelical is like asking whether or not I was a human when I was born. The great commission of Matt. 28 tells us that we are to evangelize, therefor, we are evangelical. Whether we practice the methods on the appropriate “target” shown us by Jesus is another subject and question.
When discussing whether one meets the criteria of being “x”, you have an obligation to use the definition that is commonly referenced when describing “x”.
Well, first being evangelical and being a member of NAE are different things. Since we have no central authority, and most local congregations don’t think about things like the NAE. It’s no surprise that the C of C has little presence in the NAE.
However, generally speaking, with lots of individual exceptions, churches of Christ are not very evangelistic. On the whole, we’d rather argue about doctrine than interact with the lost. In general, we focus internally rather than externally.
Disclaimer: I repeat, there are lots of individual exceptions, but the general pattern is that our congregations are not evangelistic.
When this question was brought up at one of the classes at an ACU Lectureship back several years ago, one of the panel members was a Baptist professor from Hardin-Simmons. His answer was “NO, and you shouldn’t be worried about it!” He went on to talk about some of the things that make Churches of Christ unique (he was pretty neutral on whether some of those things were good/bad/right/wrong/etc.) and how they contrasted with American evangelicalism. I got the impression he didn’t think of evangelicalism as something to aspire to, and likely for the same reasons I wouldn’t (political flag-waving came up, if I recall correctly).
Rick Griffis, that’s true. In the class I just mentioned, the point was brought up that defining “evangelicalism” is even harder at times that defining “typical Church of Christ” these days.
By far most members of the COC were born and raised in the COC.
No, we are not evangelistic.
Borrowed from online dictionary at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evangelical
e·van·gel·i·cal [ee-van-jel-i-kuhl, ev-uhn-] Show IPA adjective
1. Also, e·van·gel·ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, especially of the new testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, especially of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.
5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
____________________________
I found this statement on Wikipedia:
____________________________
Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s[1] and gained popularity in the United States during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century.
Its key commitments are:
– The need for personal conversion (or being “born again”);
– A high regard for biblical authority;
– An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ;[2]
– Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.
David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism noting, “Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism.”[3]
________________________________
Looking at just the definition it is obvious we would fit within it as an Evangelical movement. However my guess is, that like our fear of the word denominationalism, we will deny it due to theological baggage regardless of the actual truth.
Remember, there is a big difference between evangelistic and evangelical. The RCC has evangelized more of the planet over time than all of the evangelical groups put together.
The CoC generally meets the religious criteria of being an evangelical group. But, since the CoC has traditionally held that most of those churches which identify themselves as evangelical are not even saved, this would keep the CoC from identifying with them. So… the CoC is evangelical by faith and practice, but not by association.
One can have a republican point of view on government without belonging to the GOP, just as one can champion democratic principles without being a Democrat. Same logic seems to apply here.
The statement that Churches of Christ have often actively evangelized within the evangelicals struck me right off. From my perspective (3d generation coc) that nails it. In my youth evangelism was stressed. I worked several door knocking campaigns. There was never any emphasis on focusing on the unchurched – after all, everybody else was in the wrong and needed to be taught the truth so we just tried talking to everyone. The “gospel meetings” we promoted were supposed to be evangelical events, not “revivals”, though in my experience revival was the usual outcome. I remember very few responses from outside the coc fellowship – primarily youngsters being baptized for the first time, the occasional re-baptism, and the predominant “restorations”. How that compares to today’s churchs I cannot say, as our little flock no longer sponsors gospel meetings and I have very little interaction with other groups.
I think Scot McKnight would argue that at the core of evangelicals is not the gospel, but salvation – that evangelicals are a salvation culture/movement rather than a gospel culture/movement. If this is at their core and a leading characteristic then at the very minimum we share a core. Why? We too have been far less a gospel culture and more of a salvation culture. “What must I do to be saved? Here, Believe, Repent, Confess, and Be Baptized. O, and for bonus points, Live Faithfully.”
” In my youth evangelism was stressed. I worked several door knocking campaigns. There was never any emphasis on focusing on the unchurched – after all, everybody else was in the wrong and needed to be taught the truth so we just tried talking to everyone.”
This is why our evangelistic outreach is stuck in such a deep rut the last couple decades. If you look at all our evangelistic materials, Bible studies, videos, training workshops, they are all focused on recruiting from “the denominations.” Rarely is it ever aimed at reaching people who are atheist/agnostic/secular-without-really-much-of-an-opinion–all of which together make up the majority up here in the Northeast. Far too often, we (collectively) don’t even remember how to speak to non-Christians about our faith.
While I agree that the CoC has tried to “evangelize the evangelicals” for just the reason Emmit notes, this phenomenon is not exclusive to the CoC. In fact, it is the most disappointing part of the “church planting” movement we see among many religious groups today. Most of these “church plants”, especially in the U.S., are not exclusively focused on the unsaved, or even on the “unchurched”, but on expanding a current religious franchise into a new territory. Who comes in is not of great moment, as long as there are enough of them to create a critical mass that can pay the rent and the staff salaries and start saving up to build a building. If every single person a “church plant” brings in is from another active group, no problem! Swapping sheep is just as good as saving souls. It is better, in fact, because we get trained Christians who can quickly take on the unpaid ministry tasks from the church plant team, accelerating the process.
What is happening in these “church plants” is not really evangelism, but a scratch-start franchise location hoping to carve out a viable piece of market share among local consumers of religious thought. If successful, we have established a new location of our own franchise, with our own brand on the door and on the customers. The “planters” become the franchise managers, which is the other unspoken goal of the exercise: to create salaried ministry positions.
Those who would truly evangelize their neighbors will bring them to Jesus, not just to “our church”. The evangelizer will be equally happy if that neighbor is born again and goes to church at Brand X. Those who would truly “plant churches” will be interested in the unsaved, not just new parishioners, and will look forward to the day when they can leave that city with a healthy body of believers in place, with no brand connection at all, and begin again elsewhere.
The isolationist and sectarian past of the Churches of Christ largely has excluded us from evangelical circles. As a minister within the Churches of Christ (and outside the Bible belt) the implications of not being “Evangelical” are particularly evident. We have had a tendency towards not cooperating with inter-denominational activities and endeavors (ie. Billy Graham) de facto separating us from Evangelical (and other) Christian circles.
Theologically, Restoration folks would find very little problem with Evangelical affirmations; though the responses in this post illustrate the ignorance we’ve had of what evangelicalism comprises (I’m in the ignorant camp as well). Generally speaking evangelicalism espouses: a very high view of the Bible (inerrancy), a personal salvation experience, and some concern with the moral direction of the culture at-large.
It’s my belief that as (some in!) the Churches of Christ have moved beyond the sectarian nature of previous generations, they have been drawn to the conservative spectrum of Evangelicalism due, in part to theological similarities, but, I think, largely due to sympathy toward the political trajectory of Evangelicalism and its involvement in the political Right.
Ironically, the Churches of Christ’s interest in Evangelicalism has come just as Evangelicalism is in turmoil. Our willingness to embrace a broader family of faith has kept alot of us younger folks around. However, it is taking us awhile to figure out how to navigate this new theological practice of doctrinal humility.
I do not consider myself an evangelical – though I embrace them as sisters and brothers; just as I do a great number of other people who bear the name of Christ. I can embrace them without becoming one of them. Having spent time at Lipscomb and in interacting with others, it seems as though many of the emerging leaders in the Churches of Christ espouse a post-evangelical theology. See Stanley Grenz’s book Renewing the Center and Roger Olson’s book Reformed and Always Reforming. Most of the textbooks I was given to read, and most of the interaction I see taking place in this conversation Olson labels “post-evangelical.”
David Fitch released a book last year titled The End of Evangelicalism. It resonates well with the position the Churches of Christ find themselves in regards to this issue. We have much to offer in some of our distinct history; we have an important place at the theological discussion table – we just have to be willing to show up.
Sorry for the long post, but this issue has become an important one to me. I attend a seminary that is considered evangelical and it has led to much interaction and discussion with me and my classmates as to how “we” fit at this table of discussion. Richard Beck steals my thunder with his post from last year. I think he articulates the situation really, really well:
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/10/churches-of-christ-versus.html
Charles McLean, as a church planter in the NE, I share the frustration. All the reports of “our church grew to a 1,000 in three weeks” are nearly 100% just reshuffling of the deck. Those focusing on new conversions to Christ instead of reallocating members from one group to another are doing the real hard work of reaching the lost, and that usually far out of the lime-light (which is AOK with me, lime-light is way overrated and usually pride-inducing more than kingdom-speading).
The funny thing was, in the last half of the 20th century we thought rebaptizing a Baptist was really reaching the lost. Now that we are having to deal with a society in which huge segments of the population are really and truly and completely outside of Christ we don’t know where to begin the conversation.
James, if one looks at church planting examples such as Paul’s work, he sees a much different thing than we often see today. The following analogy has been helpful to me in understanding this “apostolic” work–
Paul calls himself a layer of foundations, upon which work others will build. If you drive past a new housing development, what you generally see first are the efforts of the framers. But before that, there were diggers, builders of foundations. As they were operating at ground level and below, they are not very visible. When the visible part of the house appears, the foundation crew is already down the street, digging more footings for another house. So, the apostolic work of foundation building tends not to get much notice.
I’ll tell you who really notices: the carpenters. As a carpenter, I have built on the foundations left by others. Some I have cursed almost daily as their unlevel, out-of-square work made all my work harder, trying to offset their errors in order to build a framework that was square and true. Other foundation crews I blessed daily, as my work seemed to fly. I could trust what was under my feet, and it supported and strengthened everything I built upon it. That’s what it’s like for pastors and teachers. Some will be blessed because the foundations you and others have built are square and true to the Corner. If you have built on something less, or without total deference to the Corner, those future leaders are going to struggle.
So, James, be encouraged that even as you lay foundations in your city that nobody much seems to notice, there will be a group who comes after you who blesses you for how you have carried out your mission. If you feel like you spend all your efforts toiling away in a hole, well, that’s where the foundation always is…
Godspeed!
Not only is the CoC at a loss in how to reach the unchurched, but the evangelical world as a whole finds itself challenged to reach the marginalized and oppressed, but not able to break through its own prejudices to actually see them as worth the effort. If they are on welfare or food stamps, have broken english, or cannot speak english at all, if their politics keeps them outside the borders of what many church members call “patriotism”, if they are of another race but do not act “white” enough, then they are not seen as part of the church’s reality.
Maybe a short break from the epistles that deal mostly with church family problems and a good in depth look at the prophets and the gospels will take away the fear of seeing those on the outside as Christ’s little ones.
John, we just had to wake up to that last line in your larger paragraph. We’ve been baptizing a lot of hurting folks who don’t look like us. They came to Christ but we were having fits “Christianizing” them. So Sunday we sent out a member of our congregation who used to hurt like them, though he looks like us, with orders to do whatever it took to help them grow in Christ. Having them in our pews was great, but optional so long as they grew closer to Jesus. We have given him freedom to find their cultural strengths and build upon them for Jesus. He will be our Patrick and through him the Spirit will bring many to Christ right here in Harrisonburg.
Although I’m certain that everyone diligently searched the referenced article to see if I had commented or not, I’ll post here what I commented there when that article first came out:
And I still agree with myself. 🙂
Having “come out” of the Evangelical movement, I canot consider myself an Evangelical any more. But the hint came from a Roman Catholic deacon who said that my understanding of salvation as a process rather than a one-time-event makes me to be more on the side of the historic/ancient faith than onb the evangelical interpretation of scripture.
Strange enough, being just “a Christian” makes it easier for me to converse with Catholics, since I can cherish part of their traditions as well (ECF), while not being bound to evangelical dogmas. There is a kind of freedom in this, if you understand this right …
Alexander
I believe in defining what we are in the coC or any other group is to find some logical place for our methodology. I posted over in experimental theology a couple weeks ago about how many people will die in the next 100 years. It is nearly all the population on the earth now. That staggering number of people either redefines evangelism or it redefines our faith. What we are up against is a spiritual phenomena that makes saving the world impossible. So it doesn’t matter if coC is evangelical or not.
One has to ask the question is God asking us to build a spiritual Ark the method by which some would be saved? If so those lucky enough or smart enough to get on that boat have nothing to worry about. But for the rest of us even many in the coC can not image a God who is hell bent on eternal torture. It seems to me if the end of most people is damnation our friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors we would do all we can to save them. But we don’t. Some how we have to put out of our minds the possibility of such utter failure on our part and Gods to redeem his creation. However one can also scripturally see another side of this most people will be saved. This changes everthing!
Several years ago, I was interviewed by a grad student working on a dissertation, and these were the categories and examples he used:
Based on those groupings, I felt we fit far more in the “evangelical” category. I’ve also liked a lot of what I’ve seen coming from Evamgelicals for Social Action — I think it’s very much in line with Mt 25:35ff. (Caveat: I do not currently have time to follow that organization closely, and may not agree with every thing done / reported there. Or I might. I don’t know. *grin*)
I also believe that we qualify under the definitions quoted by Todd Collier above.
Maybe a better question would be … Is Your Congregation ‘Evangelical’?
Autonomous churches cannot, by definition, actually answer the question as asked about an entire ‘fellowship’ of churches (though one wonders whether it is fair to call this a fellowship when there is so little fellowship between congregations being practiced in any discernible way.). Perhaps we need to revisit what it means to be ‘autonomous’ and whether or not that has ever been God’s plan for Christ’s Body.
With all of that said, I kind of like most of what Tim Archer wrote and then agreed with again when he quoted himself. Yes – ‘kind of’ and ‘most’ were what I meant. If it matters, Tim, I liked your answer best … probably because we have met in person and I have some idea where you are coming from.
BTW, if we have time to spend on this question, is it fair to assume we have already taken time today for actual evangelism? (Now there’s a thought question!)
Blessings,
Grizz
I’ve never known a believer that wasn’t evangelical…they all just differed in what they, by word or deed, knowing or unknowingly, were evangelizing one toward.
My theology tends to be conservative evangelical (affirming the doctines of the trinity and biblical inerrancy, the need for faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved, and the omniscience of God).
Jay,
I could not agree more, and I think that says something about the general COC paradigm. From my perspective as one coming into the COC (like Alexander, though I have a different background) I see a movement of great strengths, but also of weaknesses. The COC seems definable and indefinable in the same instant. I do not believe that the COC meets the standards of Evangelicalism, but it seems very close, like a brother, because the COC follows the “fallen church” paradigm or “counter-church history” paradigm.
Essentially the thought is that the 1st century church was pristine, but then became the whore of Babylon early in the 2nd century. The true gospel and true church were preserved by true Christians (i.e. dissenting groups) until the time of the Reformation (1500s), Radical Reformation (1500s), or Restoration (1828) when the truth was restored to the world. Christians and councils from church history are of little value, and often seen as the antithesis of the Bible alone. Thus, COC and Evangelicalism (among others of this paradigm) seek to convert the world and correct (or save) the corrupted worldly church. As a general rule, I sometimes wonder if the COC knows how to identify itself, then again how do you define a group that rejects being defined?
Roger E. Olson is great; I recommend his book “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Thank you for the post.
I could not agree more (either), HG 🙂
Alexander
Lets re-think the question. The greek for evangelism is eugelion. Which simply means proclaiming the good news. At that time it was proclaiming the good news about Ceasar’ conquests.
Now I take Jay’s question to mean this. Are the majority (51%) of people who regularly attend a church of Christ having discussions with actual unbeleivers in order to lead them to faith in Christ or directly supporting someone who is either locally, domestically, or abroad?
Sadly I would have to say no. There are exceptions but they are that exceptions not the rule.
Now if Jay meant to ask are churches of Christ trying new programs and lots of fads used by our religious friends to attract the best church members then yes churches of Christ are becoming more evangelical.
A similar question was discussed in “THe Heartbeat of the Remnant”:
From The Heartbeat of the Remnant.
Alexander
This discussion reveals that there is a lot of ignorance among CofC’s about what evangelicalism is. This is particularly evident in the basic confusion of the terms evangelical and evangelistic. But I think this only has to do with the non-use of the term “evangelical.”
Most CofC’s, in general, would fit best with the evangelical crowd. Most any CofC (and CofCer) that is using any kind of materials, books, presentations, or personalities that are not specifically of the CofC are generally using such from the evangelical world (as opposed to mainline movements, ecumenical movements, Catholics, etc). CofC’s are evangelical without ever referring to themselves as such.
Mike Casey at Pepperdine wrote a very interesting paper years ago describing the inception and work of the Campus Evangelism movement (from 1967 to 1971) in Churches of Christ and its role in ushering the first major wave of evangelical thought and association into Churches of Christ. The evangelical nature of CofC’s has only grown since.