Which Magnet Draws Evangelicals Together?

Which Magnet Draws Evangelicals Together?

The wrong one deflects, the right one aligns.

Evangelicalism today is decaying at the edges. There is nothing new about this—but neither is it necessarily bad.

The situation is not new because every human institution is imperfect and liable to decay. Even our Lord experienced an 8 percent loss among the original 12 apostles, and the New Testament warns repeatedly of those like Hymenaeus, Demas, Alexander the coppersmith, and a host of other antiheroes who deserted the faith. The first church had to reckon with its divisions in the body of Christ—each zealously protecting its own new converts (“I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” 1 Cor. 1:12).

In part, this corrosion in our own day is the product of a second generation of church people, children of fundamentalist fathers who fought valiantly against the overpowering sweep of liberalism in the early part of this century. But these people have not inherited their fathers’ faith.

Still, there is a positive way to view this decay at the edges, for in large measure it illustrates the Constantinian effect that plagued the ancient church. Then, new converts were being born into a growing movement who were converted emotionally, but only “half-converted” in terms of their apprehension of what it means to think biblically about Christian life and action. So although this decay is not new, and though it is often a direct result of the very success of evangelicalism, it is regrettable, and it ought to be a cause of deep concern to every true evangelical.

Unfortunately, the reasons for this decay are all too often viewed overly simplisticly, as when focus is directed to a single problem area, picking out issues on which evangelicals fine up left, right, and center. For example, the biblical scholar may see all issues in the light of inerrancy; the churchman sees them in terms of denominational loyalty; the liberation theologian in terms of social and political involvement in behalf of the poor. Too often it is assumed that evangelicals can be identified if they are located at the correct spot on a single band.

But the single issue model leads to inadequate understanding of evangelicalism and of the nature of the problems. Evangelicalism is just far too complex to yield to any simplistic analysis that seeks definition in terms of any single issue, or even two or three isolated and unrelated issues. And, of course, if we cannot define evangelicalism and its problems, we are in no position to offer effective remedies for those problems.

A better model to use in interpreting contemporary evangelicalism would be a confederation of independent nations that are bound together by a common purpose. Usually this is a common enemy. For evangelicalism, liberalism long served as that enemy, forcing together evangelicalism’s widely divergent elements. But today liberalism is in disarray and in full retreat. It can no longer function as the centripetal force that holds all of evangelicalism together. Some evangelicals are seeking to cast secular humanism as a new common enemy that will unite evangelicalism and halt the decay at its edges.

But neither the liberalism of a former day nor the secular humanism of the present day was ever intended to serve such a unifying role for biblical Christianity. For a full century, evangelicalism has suffered because its identity was based to too great an extent on its opposition to liberalism. In making this mistake, evangelicalism, quite unconsciously, contributed to the erosion of its structure. In fact, fundamentalism in much of its modern form could well be defined as evangelicalism shaped by its battle against liberalism.

Early liberalism tended to be rationalistic. Even today, evangelicalism is torn by those who accepted the challenge of rationalistic liberalism and sought to battle against it on its own turf. This led to a kind of evangelical rationalism, but also, on the other hand, it gave rise to those who reacted so sharply against rationalistic liberalism that they became virtual ‘fideists’ (faith must not be supported in any way by reason or evidences). If some liberals dissolved the holiness of God in emotional love, some evangelicals hardened his love into a rigorous holiness. When liberals turned to the social gospel, there were evangelicals who repudiated the social implications of the gospel. Thus, liberalism, while serving as a unifying factor to pull together the divergent strands of evangelicalism, at the same time also eroded evangelicalism to a degree that even now evangelicals are only beginning to discover, and to correct.

The true centripetal force to unite properly biblical evangelicalism is neither liberalism nor secular humanism—nor any other pressures from the world about it. The true unifying power is instead common commitment to Jesus Christ and the instructions he has given to his church in the written Word of inspired Scripture. It is extremely important that we discover this to be the true force that provides cohesiveness for evangelicalism, in spite of all its diversity.

Holy Scripture unequivocally sets forth the only legitimate bond for the people of God: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.… By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments” (1 John 4:10–11; 5:2). The same apostle John also records in his Gospel these words of our Lord: “Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.… I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth … that they may all be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us; … that they may be perfected in unity,” (John 17:17–23).

It is the love of Jesus Christ the Savior that also calls forth from us a love for others, creating a longing to please him by obedience to the Holy Scripture. He has given us the truth for the guidance of our thought and life. Jesus Christ, the Lord of the church, draws the entire body together in a bond of love that enables us to see all issues in their proper relationship to the whole church. Only by subjecting every issue to the Lord of the church can we evaluate its true worth and thereby exclude false issues that may unnecessarily interfere with the desired unity of Christ’s body. At the same time, we can also find guidance for those not altogether rare instances—such as the time Paul withstood the apostle Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11)—when we must boldly take stands that at least temporarily destroy harmony in the church.

It is also important to recognize Christ himself as the true bonding force of evangelicalism. When we do, we can more effectively meet the complex and interrelated issues facing the church. We can observe a dangerous corrosion not only at the edges of the movement, but at each of the traditional fundamentals of the faith. Furthermore, today there are all sorts of new issues projecting themselves onto the evangelical scene: abortion, women’s rights, women’s ordination, divorce and remarriage, the integrity of the family—to name but a few. Each can be set in its rightful place by relating it to the Lord of the church.

Therefore, no position stands in isolated independence. It is always related to Christ and, accordingly, to every other position as well. It is only when we recognize this universal interrelatedness that we are prepared to apply remedies to the problems that trouble the body of Christ.

The situation is not unlike the one in which the United States found itself in the recent Falkland Islands debacle. To help Britain would seem to foster colonialism and antagonize Latin Americans; to side with Argentina would be to favor violent seizure of territory and weaken the Atlantic Alliance. All issues are interrelated, and one cannot be dealt with in isolation from another. For evangelicals to unite by focusing on individual issues or perceived enemies is to distort the church in the very act of trying to pull it together.

At the same time, we do not mean to imply that we cannot solve one problem until we have solved all problems. Every issue we face also serves to bring into focus numerous important aspects of the truth of Scripture. We must not gloss over any of these pieces of truth in the interest of a superficial harmony. Rather, we must extricate the truth and preserve it for the good of the body. The evangelical feminist, for example, will not, and should not, be satisfied until we have given full weight to equal justice for women and to the biblical teaching that women are created in the divine image every bit as much as men.

Those with whom the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy sits uneasily have every right to demand that we safeguard the full humanity of Scripture as the words of finite, sinful prophets and apostles whose writings were imbedded in a particular human culture that can be understood only in the light of what they meant in that historical context. The primacy of evangelistic preaching cannot annul the biblical command to care for the poor. The homogeneous unit principle of evangelism (like witnessing to like) cannot negate the biblical concept of the unity of the body of Christ. Only the lordship of Christ can draw together all evangelicals without distorting the nature of the church as it is mirrored for us in Scripture.

We sometimes forget how effective Christ’s lordship is in holding evangelicalism together. The CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll revealed an amazing fact about the structure of this diffuse movement we call evangelicalism. Evangelicals have a very large core of common commitment that has grown out of their solid allegiance to Christ’s lordship. Divergences abound. But for each set of centrifugal forces tearing evangelicalism apart there is also a centripetal unifying power of much greater strength that provides a center of gravity and holds the body together. On issue after issue this proved true: abortion, divorce, inerrancy—and on through the gamut of issues troubling the body ecclesiastical. On the periphery are 5 to 10 percent who are creating the uproar, but in agreement at the center is the critical mass of those loyal to biblical truth. This critical mass, so decisive for the effective functioning of the church, mounts up to 60 to 80—sometimes as high as 90—percent of the total. On most issues there is a massive consensus at the center of evangelicalism.

Of course, the mere existence of this large body of agreement at the center does not mean that it always represents the truth. The majority is not always right. And because that is so, it is crucial to the well-being of evangelicalism that the lordship of Christ stand unequivocally as its unifying force. Of course the church has erred, and it will err again in serious, even devastating, fashion. But so long as evangelicals confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and adhere faithfully to Holy Scripture as he instructed, evangelicals have a built-in corrective to the warping and corroding to which they are constantly subject in this world.

If all of this is true, the role of those who lead the church becomes clear. We must seek by persuasive biblical argument and appealing presentation to strengthen and foster extension of Christ’s lordship over this critical mass and prevent the multiple erosion at the edges. The temptation to gloss over problems, or to confront them carelessly without regard for the complexity of the body, may lead to a quick fix and apparent victory. In the end, however, such measures will prove destructive.

The health and growth of the central mass is the decisive issue. If the centripetal force of Christ’s lordship over all and the full authority of his Word are not given their proper weight, then we shall lose the essence of the critical mass that constitutes the evangelical body. This must be preserved and defended at all cost.

But the desired results will not come automatically. We cannot sit on our hands. The unity that holds evangelicalism together is voluntary, and it will not hold unless this truth is continuously expounded and applied at every point. We must adhere faithfully and boldly to our faith in all its angularity. For biblical faith and its teaching are angular when measured by stretching them across the moral and spiritual pattern of twentieth-century man. The shape of a Christian pattern of things, however, is not ours to decide. That is the prerogative of our sovereign Lord through his Word. Our task is to uphold Jesus Christ as Lord and to apply his teaching faithfully to every aspect of human thought and life.

But to present a properly shaped Christian message is not enough. It must also be attractive if it is to move and carry the day for the advancement of the kingdom of God. We must so present the biblical message to our day that by all means we may win some—win many, we may pray. We can be right—a thousand times right—but unless our right is bathed in love, we shall accomplish nothing. The church of our day desperately needs effective, biblically guided, and spiritually appealing leadership for Christ and his kingdom.

A Heavyweight Bout That Hits Below The Belt

Christianity Today doesn’t ordinarily comment on sports events—least of all heavyweight boxing championships. But the recent Larry Holmes-Gerry Cooney title bout dealt the world of sports a harder blow than any that champion Holmes landed on the chin of the defeated challenger. The tragedy warrants a sorrowful note from the editor.

In itself, boxing poses a moral dilemma for any evangelical. It is the one sport in which the aim is to batter the opponent into unconsciousness. The forward linemen in a professional football game may be equally brutal (and their tactics also highly questionable), but their aim, at least, is not to injure the body.

We have no quarrel with sports that demand vigorous bodily contact—even when there is inevitable danger of bodily injury. Rough physical contact teaches lessons that can be learned in no other way in our society. Physical injury is the price we sometimes have to pay to learn these lessons. Where such injuries occur with great frequency—as in professional hockey and in football (high school, college, and professional)—the evangelical Christian must raise hard questions about their moral justification. But in these sports, the aim at least is not to injure. Boxing, on the other hand, brutalizes the spirit because the goal of the sport is to destroy (even if momentarily) the humanity of a being made in the image of God.

But the real tragedy of the Holmes-Cooney bout had nothing to do with any of this. It had to do with the racist overtones conjured up, apparently, by boxing managers and trumpeted widely by the public media. We have no reason to believe that either boxer is personally racist, but their public statements added fuel to the flames and furthered the racial tension. Irrespective of who was ultimately responsible for it, this crass attempt to raise a few more dollars by an appeal to racism is a disgrace to all concerned—not least to the American people as a whole.

Over recent years the sports industry has succeeded better than most in weeding out traces of racial prejudice. Blacks themselves deserve most of the credit for this. By their outstanding performances they have won the right not only to equality but to the warm admiration of every fellow American. We are sorry to observe this blotch upon the world of sports that in other ways deserves the highest praise.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.