Evangelicalism in One Simple Chart

We are rooted in the past, finding identification with those who have gone before us, but we are not stuck in a rut of irrelevancy. This is a very hard balance to keep.

What’s an example of being stuck in a rut of irrelevance? What used to be relevant, but now is not?

Liturgy in a language that no one understands. Requiring people read only from KJV. Not allowing for changes is music. Failing to know the difference between form and function. Functions stay the same but the form is elastic.

I would certainly agree with the language thing. What do you mean by not allowing changes in music? Are you saying that music becomes irrelevant with time?

And what examples do you have about form and function?

Allowing for wholistic learning through, say, integration of technological function and seeing advancements as a gift.

One church I know of will not allow the music to be placed on PowerPoint slides. Another does not know allow any instruments to be electronic. Some don’t allow Sat services. The function in each of these is worship or the gathering together of believers. The form is the how when and where which Evangelicalism does not see intrinsically tied to the Gospel message. It is very elastic and can house a variety of traditions and methods so long as the form of such things does not become dogmatized.

Also, “personal” refers to the need for a personal relationship with Christ (i.e. faith does not get inherited from your family or church). One has to know Christ and establish a relationship with him.

But… Surely you’re not saying that if a church simply does not want overhead slides or instruments it is therefore somehow becoming irrelevant. Why are instruments better than no instruments ipso facto?

No. Not at all. It is simply if they have a philosophical or theological allergy toward such things, they are not representative of this aspect of evangelicalism.

Lets say I have a philosophical objection to instruments because people become too dependent on them, and worship can’t take place unless you have a massive pipe organ, or a whole amp and sound system set up, and all the musicians who can operate it, whereas using voice only music means worship can take place without a special quorum of elite musicians turning up. Does that philosophical objection make one non-evangelical?

Well, it depends on how essential it is to them. If it is their opinion and they see it adiapha, then no issue. One can be Evangelical and believe that certain forms are better than others so long as they are not “dogmatized.”

adiaphora

And how would you be able to recognize when it is dogmatised? I mean, take one of these big rock band style evangelical denominations. I picture myself as part of the leadership committee suggesting we hold a service without instruments, and it having about zero chance of getting up. I’d imagine part of the discussion would sound like this “the people have come to expect this type of music, and won’t accept or want what you propose”.

Whenever you separate and lose unity from another church denomination or tradition based on an adiaphora is when it has been dogmatized to the degree that one loses the evangelical distinction (at least in this particular area).

How do you recognize this loss of unity?

It can be subtle or explicit. Some outright claim that other churches are not true churches or call call their salvation or spirituality into question. More subtly, some just snub other fellowships and don’t invited them to lunch. I know of some traditions and denominations that have churches right next to each other and the pastors have never met!

So… The Regulatory Principle of the Reformed churches, that holds that it is wrong to use musical instruments… are the reformed churches non evangelical, or are they evangelical as long they invite each other to lunch and don’t question the salvation of other denominations? It is ok to have theological objections to instruments or not? It would be interesting of you say reformed churches are non evangelical.

John,

i believe you are arguing against a non-essential point regarding orthodoxy. That is quite different than dogmatism, which stresses non essentials over orthodoxy, believed by a certain group, like what translation of the Bible to use, or what type of music to perform, or the hyper-charismatic fringe. Folks can take their choices in those instances but we cannot dismiss orthodoxy because of what they believe. I certainly don’t think that was what Michael was trying to say.

Michael: “Well, I don’t think they accept the evangelical distinction but so long as they don’t ostracize other churches or denominations I would qualify as such (so long as the meet the other distinctives). ”

Interesting that the mother ship of Protestantism, the reformed churches and Westminster confession et al is contrary to the evangelical distinctives.

So… My Orthodox priest recently attended an Anglican Church service. Does it mean I am an evangelical?

John.

You said:

“Interesting that the mother ship of Protestantism, the reformed churches and Westminster confession et al is contrary to the evangelical distinctives).”

How so specifically? It is one thing to say that but another to produce proof, other than fringe dogmaticism.

mbaker: not sure what you’re saying. Michael conceded that the reformed churches don’t accept an evangelical distinctive by holding to the Regulatory Principle. What part of that you take issue with isn’t clear.

So long as you meet all the distinctives in the Chart. There is a lot of freedom in Orthodoxy to go to maximalism or essentialism. Maximalist of any denomination would obviously not qualify.

Remember the Ruperdus Milendes creed: “In essentials unity…”

I consider Bradley Nassif to be evangelical even though I asked him one day if he considered himself to be and he said he could not as a distinctive he saw was identity with Protestantism. I understood his point but I think he missed the bigger picture of what evangelicalism is all about.

John,

Wlth all due respect, I think you are making some accusations but dodging the real question. What it is that you are specifically disagreeing with here?

mbaker, I don’t know that my aim is to “disagree”. I’m just observing that Michael has defined the Reformed churches as lacking evangelical distinctives, and has defined Eastern Orthodox ( or at least most of them) to be evangelical.

I might also observe that RCs with their “separated brethren” theology would also seem to now be evangelicals. I guess almost everyone is now evangelicals.

Mike, John, mbaker, I would be interested in how or where any of you might fasten the term “relevant” that is often used to describe or justify what we do today within the Evangelical Church and where it might appear on the Wheel?

William: I think Michael’s view of “relevant” is continually adapting the church to the latest fads, so that the church looks exactly the same as the world, same music, use of technology, etc etc. I think Eastern Orthodox would say this is what makes the church irrelevant. If the church looks exactly like the world, just like a secular rock concert, then why go? There is no sense if the other worldly, no sense that it is different.

ONLY scripture!

Oh, and also: our two favorite catholic creeds.

So, NOT only scripture.

Semper Reformanda!

Except when it comes to the extremely confusing formulas drafted in 325 and 451, by catholic bishops and the emperor, who of course have no special authority. Keep repeating those, or you’re out. And don’t ask too many questions about them. We know that no one will ever come up with a better interpretation of the scriptures than they did.

Sigh.

John,

I still want you to answer my question and stop blaming it upon CMP’s answer, however flawed you may it is.

Please be more specific if you want your own comments to be taken seriously here. I am always ready to listen to both sides of the story as long as they are not ad hominem, without any basis in fact.

Too much included on this chart, IMO. I like your other charts better.

mbaker: I don’t know what you want. You accused me of disagreeing with something, and I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

John,

I am not accusing you of anything except for being more specific in your reasons for objecting to this post.

What objection are you referring to mbaker?

John,

I Catholics cannot be evangelical due to sola Scriptura.

Churches that don’t use instruments would only be non-evangelical I they break fellowship and/or call into question the legitimacy of a church that disagrees. Reformed Churches normally don’t. Do you have any info saying that the Reformed churches break fellowship with those who disagree?

The “semper reformanda” distinctive is very closely tied with “future”. The church is reformed and always reforming give latitude in our ecclesiology. Some people (such as Scott McKnight and Daniel B Wallace) believe that ecclesiology is the weakest part of evangelicalism. But to standardize is for the tradition as a who would break with the founding constitution to some degree. Therefore, we must stick the Alister McGrath who believes that the reason why evangelical Protestantism has fluoride to such a degree is due to it elasticity. I agree but the elasticity does not extend into its distinctives, doctrinal or otherwise.

Stupid I phone. I could not even understand that last comment.

John,

I think you know full well what i am referring to. If you don’t then you are clueless and just commenting here to to make your personal opinions known without any real back-up. So I will ignore your posts until you can do that, without playing the innocent victim.

That simply does not work with me.

Michael: ” I agree but the elasticity does not extend into its distinctives, doctrinal or otherwise.”

But I thought not being dogmatic about stuff like instruments was a distinctive. You conceded reformed churches break that distinctive. Now you seem to be saying if you break a distinctive, you are not evangelical. Why do the reformed get a free ride on this, but Catholics don’t get a free ride on sola scriptura?

Also, why does sola scriptura form a key non negotiable point whereas being dogmatic on instruments does not? After all, sola scriptura is at best, not particularly clear in scripture, and you’ve struggled mightily to state your position on tradition. In fact, if Catholics are out because if tradition, I’m not entirely sure whether you should be out too, since you claim to put a lot of stock in it. It’s a very subtle point to get kicked out on.

mbaker: I’m just asking questions.

John,

Then answer them as well as they are asked of you.

Thanks.

BTW Michael, do you consider Brasley Nassif a sola scripuraist?

mbaker: asking about my objection when I didn’t make one is a “when did you stop beating your wife?” question .

I already said the instruments do not qualify. Ones dogmatism must lead to separation. Catholics don’t qualify. Remember the Pope?

Maggie seems to he’d to SS billing pull themselves in for the.

“Ones dogmatism must lead to separation. Catholics don’t qualify. Remember the Pope?”

Yeah but you defined separation as not going to lunch together and questioning each others salvation. Since Rome talks about “separated brethren” and the pope is seen lunching with even the Dalai Llama, there doesn’t seem to be separation by your definition thereof.

No. You missed it. There is also the saying other churches are not legitimate churches. Rome does not qualify.

Hi CMP,

I’m sure that 99% of Protestant Evangelicals would NOT agree with the original Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

Therefore, I don’t think that it belongs on your chart.

Should I elaborate?

so grateful for “the good news” we have. thanks for the great chart and discussion

we proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. For this purpose we labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within us. Col 1:28-29 for we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Rom 12: 5

Wow, this one’s fun so far. Michael, that’s a pretty fancy chart. New software?

And either you’re (generously) mixing some Bailey’s into your morning latte or your phone’s predictive text is getting the better of you…”Maggie seems to he’d to SS billing pull themselves in for the.”

Regarding relevancy (for those who questioned it), young people, especially, value technology. It’s been integrated into their lives from the first day they watched a Barney show. Most of them have never heard music that wasn’t based around electric/electronic instruments. It’s who they are and all their friends are just like them. So when they see a group of people, say, a church, who reject technology such as electric instruments or PowerPoint, the first thing they think is “These people don’t know anything about who I am, I can’t relate to them, so why should I listen to them?” And the church becomes irrelevant to them.

Regarding the charge that such things make the church looks just like the world, maybe it does. So what? If you look at two people, one a believer, one not, they look pretty much the same. How ’bout that? Believers look just like unbelievers. You’d never tell the difference just by looking because it’s internal. It’s what they believe that makes the difference, not what they look like. Same with churches.

That was weird. It must have been something about Sola Scriptura that Catholics reject and are therefore disqualified.

Pete, its an aspiration.

Oh, the mixed blessings of modern technology! Gotta love it. (Or maybe not.)

I shut my predictive text feature off. It got the best of me too many times.