In a recent post to his blog (“Bait and Switch” at “Uncommon
God; Common Good” found here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/uncommongodcommongood/2012/05/bait-and-switch/),
Paul Louis Metzger responds to those who would assume that any commitment by
Evangelical Christians toward other persons is merely a function of their
desire for recognition on account of their success in evangelism.
To be an Evangelical means to do...what? |
I would add another factor in the equation. Some with whom I
am acquainted seem desperate to validate their own beliefs by convincing others
of their perspective on the truth. Failing to convince others, those engaging
in these attempts will then turn to those, they believe, are already convinced.
Thus we often seek to “evangelize” those who are already Evangelicals. It’s
called “preaching to the choir,” a reference to pastors who punctuate their
sermons by turning to the loft behind them and asking, “Can I get an Amen?!”
Sadly, what has frequently become strident argumentation with others has been
replayed to me by otherwise kind and compassionate Christians, ridiculing the
beliefs of those who disagree, even with minor doctrines, even from within our
own Christian traditions. It is sometimes as though I, as a pastor, must ally
myself with a particular position in order to reassure the reporter of their
relational security with Jesus Christ.
In those conversations, as well as those with others outside
my particular heritage and tradition, and especially with those outside the
Christian faith, I confess that my interests are not only those of mere curiosity
and/or diplomatic dialogue. My concern for other persons is always framed by my
desire to see the very best for them in their current circumstances, their continuing
development, and their eternal destiny. As with Dr. Metzger, this is part of
what makes me “an Evangelical.” (Note: that term, for me, carries implications
of both “guilt-by-association” and “pride-of-ownership”—depending upon one’s
definition of “Evangelical”—which point I belabor in the first post in this
series, found here: http://deathpastor.blogspot.com/2014/11/when-you-say-evangelical-youve-said-lot.html)
Whatever you do is likely to be criticized. (It belongs on the counter.) |
I would hold that an Evangelical is responsible to carefully
study scripture as the basis for the discussions I would qualify as “doing theology
in community.” That discussion must include the depths of twenty centuries from
our historical community as well as a breadth of sources within the faith
today. In order to communicate as clearly as possible, the current cultural and
social realities of our day must also be as fully understood as possible. This
requires dialogue with those outside the ranks of Christians, and certainly
beyond the narrower designation of Evangelicals—and I can understand why they
may not wish to talk as openly with me as I would prefer.
There will always be, for me, two key components to these
conversations. First, I need to understand others’ perspectives in order to
more clearly communicate (and even refine, as necessary) my own positions.
Second, I seek to more clearly communicate my perspective so that others may
have opportunity to accept or reject an accurate representation of the beliefs
and behaviors of Christ’s gospel, instead of the accretions and adulterations
that the gospel regularly attracts, even in my own presentation of it.
Again, this view is influenced by my deep dissatisfaction
with so much of the misrepresentation of the gospel, especially by those who
seek to abscond with the term Evangelical as a label for their socio-political
manipulation, exploitation, and oppression—but even in that, I would hope to
persuade you of my position’s accuracy. Why? Well, you’ll have to read about
that in the next post.
2 comments:
Hmmm... what is an evangelical? Can an evangelical who takes the gospel seriously--the gospel which gives offense because of its exclusivity and particularity--not be offensive? Where would the Gentile church be if Paul had decided to be less offensive? I think the question I wrestle with is: how do I communicate a potentially offensive gospel without being personally offensive in my manner, lack of grace, or insensitivity to crafting the gospel message in language which will communicate clearly and truthfully to my listener? I respect Franklin Graham for treading this line as carefully as possible, but not ducking the hard questions or issues. The woman who stood up in the midst of the prayer service in the National Cathedral did us a favor... she pointed to Jesus and the cross. Either He matters, and the cross was necessary, or not. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/15/us-usa-muslim-prayer-idUSKCN0IY2JJ20141115 --Chris.
Exactly, Chris! That's the dilemma I face and am trying to navigate through as a function of speaking the truth in love. I long to communicate the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...but my own words and deeds are less than adequately ensured to do so, even in those areas where I am entirely convinced of my perspective, definition, application, and formulation of the Gospel (and there are a number of things of which I am very confident, and only perhaps correct). Among the areas that covers, of course, are the questions raised regarding how to identify and/or confront heresy. In that regard, thanks for the link. Would I hope to encourage the kinds of inter-faith gatherings that lead to understand and mutual participation in common goals? Yes, I have, and will likely continue to. But would I allow it to be cast as a worship service in which diverse beliefs are represented? I do that every Sunday at the independent, non-denominational community church that allows me the privilege of serving as their pastor. Like any pastor, I have a healthy uncertainty regarding my parishioners, and I would not be surprised if some were praying to a god that does not fully reflect the attributes, character, nature, and/or communication that has been revealed to us in and through Jesus Christ. But would I allow unchallenged, much less speak myself, the heresy that whatever you call "god" is the same God? Certainly not. While I think the line between my position and the rector of The National Cathedral is fairly broad, I can also sense that some on my side and hers would prefer we take a few steps back away from that line, just in case. Hence, my admiration for the courage of Franklin Graham and others who are willing to take the risk of being biblical, despite the potential for misunderstanding, if not outright misrepresentation by others. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Post a Comment