Readers' Forum: What Are We For?
The president of the NAE argues that a new day has arrived for the movement
Kevin W. Mannoia | posted 5/21/2001 12:00AM
Recently a young man sat in my office enthusiastically telling me how God had called him to a new level of ministry in a well-known evangelical denomination. In recalling his journey, he said, "I was raised to know well what I was against, but really never knew what I was for." This discovery was for him a moment of freedom when he experienced God's maturing work in his life.
Clearly this is not everyone's experience. Too many evangelical organizations have been defined by a negative mindset that was forged at its birth when the rallying point was to "oppose" or "correct" the extremes of another group, creating an environment in which we define ourselves against the faulty beliefs or behaviors of "the other guy." As a result, our identity has too often been shaped by the position of others rather than by the center of biblical revelation.
Recently the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) decided to alter its longstanding position that a denomination could not be a member of both the NAE and the National Council of Churches (NCC). This decision, we believe, marks a milestone in the development of the evangelical movement and demonstrates the commitment to be a strong evangelical witness that stands on its own.
In American culture, the evangelical movement in general and the NAE in particular have served the church well with their clarion call to a soundly scriptural witness. Yet as the culture and organizations change, the points of reference also change. While the NAE was formed largely in response to the theologically liberal NCC, the landscape today is different. Likewise, the evangelical movement has matured. Not only have we grown in the confidence of our scriptural identity and witness, but the groups against which we pitted ourselves are crumbling. To continue defining ourselves in opposition to the liberal groups not only validates their importance but ties our identity to a dying cause.
Instead of defining what we are not, we must focus on what we are. We can draw a circle and define ourselves by the perimeter (by exclusion) or by the centerpoint (by declaration). In both there are exclusions, since those not consistent with our centerpoint are naturally and automatically excluded. But the difference is where we place our energy.
Not long ago, as I helped my daughter learn to drive, we took particular care in navigating the cloverleaf ramps to get on and off the freeways. I told her, "If you look at the outside edge of the curve and try to stay away from it, you'll always be jerking the wheel to keep away. But you can focus your eyes on the inside of the curve and decide to stay near it. The natural result is not only a smooth curve, but you'll find that staying away from the outside edge is the natural result."
In a postmodern and relativistic era, the absolutes of what we stand for are more important than ever. We dare not, will not abandon biblical truth. But our neighbors are not as interested in how we oppose liberal, oldline Protestantism as they are in the compelling and transformational message of Christ. We must be known as the people who are so committed to the transcendence of God, the centrality of Jesus Christ, the power of his Holy Spirit, and the full authority of biblical revelation that anything contrary is by definition excluded. At the same time, people will be drawn to the beauty of God's message conveyed through his church. The force that drives us, then, is centripetal, drawing us to be "center-seeking," focused on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
May 21 2001, Vol. 45, No. 7
1 of 2
E-mail
Print
Post
Subscribe to Christianity Today magazine today!
