As Zoomers try out church, many are looking toward older and more traditional churches. What is behind the growing interest in liturgical and classical churches? What are some helpful tips for choosing an authentic and legitimate church? In this episode, I explore 2 ways to assess the ‘real thing’: learning history and going back to first principles, namely the Bible.
or listen on Apple Podcast
Or on spotify
We live in an age of schisms and divisions, suspicions and attributing the worst of motives on those with whom we disagree. Kindness and gentleness are beyond the pale, and considered conversation is slammed as a betrayal to the pursuit of truth and justice.
Christians and non-Christians alike across the social and political spectrum are frustrated. We see a culture dumping Christian thought and ideals as though it’s nuclear waste. Many feel the need to lob rhetorical grenades across the trenches and snipers sit at the ready to shoot any messenger who dares motion into no man’s land.
Of course, I’m using hyperbolic language…but only just. The tectonic plates of belief and hope are moving and causing major disruptions to every sphere of life. Of the answers being proposed by Christians (in some circles) is one gaining some traction in some areas of American and European Christianity, and it’s finding its way onto Australian shores as well: Christian Nationalism.
It’s not as though Christian Nationalism is brand new; iterations have existed at different points in history, often with long-term disappointment, bloodshed, and Gospel compromise.
I understand why Christians across the United States are concerned and even angry at the some of values and views that have captured hearts. I appreciate why Aussie believers are troubled by various moral agendas that have been normalised in our political and educational institutions. However, frustration and concern with politicians and the political process is not a reason for reactionary theology and poor exegesis.
We don’t fix one problem by adding another one; that way we end up with a bigger mess!
Stephen Mcalpine has begun a series of articles examining, Stephen Wolfe’s The Case For Christian Nationalism’. It’s not that McAlpine is itching to read Wolfe, but he notes how ideas like Wolfe’s are crying loud in both America and Australia, and a sizeable pack of mostly younger Aussies are hearing and repeating these ideas.
I encourage people to read McAlpine on this.
One of the standard bearers of Christian Nationalism in America is a pastor by the name of Doug Wilson. He serves at a church in Moscow (Idaho) and he offers a politico-religious rhetoric that could almost find a home in that other Moscow.
This week a 2021 video with Douglas Wilson has been doing the rounds again on social media. As Wilson exhorts an audience to pray for family and country, he says,
“When God raises up the right stand bearer…now is the time, don’t take the bait, wait until God’s deliverance arrives, and when that happens we will know”
Who is this deliverer Wilson is waiting to arrive and to deliver America from what?
To quote one friend, “Errmmmm. Pretty sure God’s deliverance already arrived about 2000 years ago?”
Grabbing Biblical words may appear strong and compelling but fusing Christological promises and categories with political identities is one bad technique. There is only one Saviour of the world, and his name isn’t Donald Trump or Joe Biden or any world leader. There is one ultimate deliverer, the one whom the Israelites in Egypt waited and for whom the Exiles prayed and who finally came and is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.
This is what happens when we grab OT language and remove it from its context and ignore how the Bible’s own logic tells us that OT promises are pointing to and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. American theology too often falls down on account of weak Biblical Theology. Whether it’s prosperity teaching, Christian nationalism, or even sexual ethics, ignoring the Bible’s big storyline leads to misusing words and categories, and that leads to all manner of problems. Thanks to theologians like Graeme Goldsworthy, Barry Webb, and many others, we ought to know better here in Australia. It’s not that Biblical theology is a new idea, just read Paul in Romans 9-11 for a masterclass in biblical theology. The story of redemption and how the various threads and themes of the Old Testament come to their climax and fulfilment in Christ is all there on the pages of the New Testament. But like its cousin prosperity teaching, Christian Nationalism has the bad habit of taking Old Covenant promises to Israel and misapplying them straight into modern day political systems, as though America is the new Israel (or Australia).
The topic of Christian Nationalism is on my radar this week as I’m preaching tomorrow on 2 Chronicles ch.7. It is a sublime passage that features the Temple and sacrifice and the presence of God. It is a chapter that gives both a word of warning and blessing to Israel. 2 Chronicles 7 contains a verse that is often used (or rather misused) as a call to a nation to abide by. 2 Chronicles 7:14 says,
“if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
Russell Moore notes how this verse is sometimes torn from its intended purpose and used by American Nationalists to claim Divine blessing should America wear more Jesus t-shirts and grow bigger beards,
“But the fact is 2 Chronicles 7:14 isn’t talking about America or national identity or some generic sense of “revival.” To apply the verse this way is, whatever one’s political ideology, theological liberalism.”
He’s right. This verse was addressed to God’s covenantal people, Israel. The fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel is found in Christ. The people of God in the new covenant aren’t any given nation, but the church and the church is international. The fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel no longer carries physical terrain and border and a nation’s sovereign political and judicial system. Citizenship is about belonging to the church.
The book of Hebrews wonderfully explores how these themes in 2 Chronicles 7 are made perfect and permanent in Christ. In another place, the Apostle Paul explains what the Gospel accomplishes in redeeming a people for God. The Gospel bursts barriers and borders and builds a church,
“For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”
We may grieve how people in our suburbs and streets are turning their backs on God, but how amazing is it that the Gospel is booming in places like Nigeria and Iran and Korea and Brazil and China. The Gospel’s flavour is multi-ethnic and international and bursts through political barriers and national borders. Praise God!
I’m not saying that Christians in Australia walk away from the public square and sit tight on uncomfortable pews behind stained glasses windows. It’s not that Christians shouldn’t participate in the political process. It’s not that we should ignore social issues and cultural debates. Such things are part of common grace and ways we can love our neighbours. It’s not however the main game. The halls of Parliament and legislative offices are not the places where God is working out his redemptive plans. It’s not just Christian Nationalists who are making that grave mistake, but some of our (theological) liberal friends who see Governmental involvement as the way to tear down sinful structures and build the Kingdom of God. In that sense, both left and right can be guilty of rubbishing due diligence with biblical theology and therefore distorting the gospel itself.
Christian Nationalism is a scourge and it will serve no good for the future of God’s Kingdom. Christian Nationalism ends up making the State into the Church and the church into a political party and turning the Gospel of grace into a weapon to beat down political opponents. Instead of being God’s message of reconciliation, it distorts the gospel into a message of social conservatism and one that sees political progressivism as the great Satan. Social and moral conservatism can be as dangerous to spiritual health in its intentions to create new forms of legalism and allegiances.
The Apostle Paul engaged with the Gospel Governors and doorman, soldiers and businesswomen, intellectuals and slaves. Where he preached, small communities sprung up, called churches. These communities, filled with men and people transformed by God’s gracious gospel, lifted up something beautiful and good, making people envious to see the beauty and grace and goodness of God,
“You will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:15-17)
If you want to impact society, believe the Gospel, serve your local church, and love your neighbour.
When is it time to lay a word to rest? When is it appropriate to find an alternative name?
Stephen McAlpine is among a growing number of Evangelicals who are admitting we have a word problem, an identity problem. The term evangelical has become synonymous with a branch of American politics, and more recently, with a key group of Donald Trump supporters. Yes, there are notable evangelical voices repudiating Donald Trump, and recent polls suggest the majority of evangelicals would no more vote for Trump than they would Kylo Ren, but it is difficult to fight a bushfire with a garden hose.
McAlpine writes,
“The “Evangelical” brand is well on the way to being trashed in the US. Time to think of a new word to describe ourselves I reckon, not just in the US, but across the West.
If it’s true financially that “when America sneezes, the world catches cold.”, the same appears to be true of American evangelicalism. The US arm of the brand has caught a pox from which it may not recover, and that pox is at risk of spreading to us.
It’s actually worse than a pox. It’s gangrene. It has the whiff of death about it. Exxon, Union Carbide, Enron, Lehman Brothers. Perhaps we can add the “Evangelical” brand to that sorry pile. Time perhaps to cut ourselves off from the descriptor before we start to smell. Time for a new word
As he laters explains, the problem didn’t start with the rise of Donald Trump, it goes back to the 1980s when Christians hitched their wagon with the Republican movement.
The issue is even broader than North America. In Europe many denominations continue to use evangelical, as a eulogy to the past, although their theology often bares little resemble to that of their forefathers.
In Australia, evangelical has had branding kudos, at least in Christian circles, so much so that even many anti-evangelicals embraced the word: ’we don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ but the label works for us.’ To be fair, those who were slightly more ingenuous inserted adjectives, such as ‘broad’ or ‘progressive’, as a hint of their not so evangelical beliefs. This mass branding has not helped.
Language is situational, or least in part. When I describe my Christian faith in the community I refer to myself as a Christian, and sometimes I add that rarified name, Baptist! Rarely do I use words like evangelical or reformed, not because the words are getting a bad press, but because they hold little meaning to most Australians. Within ecclesiastical conversations I am happy to speak of my evangelical and reformed convictions, as they often help to build bridges of understanding, and at other times they clarify differences. But the reality is, when I’m chatting with my neighbours, evangelical doesn’t add anything.
If using the word inside churches is sometime confusing, McAlpine is right; outside of churches and theological institutions, identifying as an evangelical is becoming a herculean challenge, largely because our media lacks nuance. While it’s been trashed in the USA, at least American media acknowledge alternative evangelical viewpoints. Here in Australia, he only time evangelicals are mentioned is when there is a sniff of hydrogen sulphide in the air. For example, our news outlets have not been reporting Al Mohler on CNN or Russell Moore in the Washington Post, as they speak out against Donald Trump.
Has evangelical become unusable in Australia?
The Age newspaper now contains dozens of references to evangelicals, and almost without exception they associate these people with right wing American politics, or with ‘extreme’ Christian ideology in Australia.
ABC’s program, Planet America, regularly refer to the evangelical vote, and especially of their alleged support for Donald Trump.
It is clear that evangelical has become a by-word for religious right wing politics. While the media are responsible for selective reporting, they can hardly be blamed for tying at least some evangelicals with Donald Trump. After all, millions of Americans identify with evangelical and with the Republican movement.
There is an important lesson for us to learn, and that is, we must not bypass theology. We must resist making our identity a political ideology or social cause, we must begin with the Gospel and work out from there.
In 1989 David Bebbington first offered his now famous quadrilateral definition of evangelical. He understands evangelicals as holding four main qualities: biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, activism. There is much to like about his quadrilateral, however I also agree with Don Carson’s reservations (read “The Gagging of God”). Carson notes that even a Jesuit priest could put his hand up to this quadrilateral definition. As such, Bebbington has perhaps done evangelicals a disservice.
To be evangelical is nothing less than being someone who holds to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The the very word from which we get evangelical is euangelion, which means Gospel.
I agree with Carson, who in turn follows John Stott, in taking us to 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. This is far from the only Scriptural place that explicates the gospel , but it does give us one of the fullest treatments of the Gospel, and we can’t overlook Paul’s introductory remark,
“Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:”
What is the euangelion?
“that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
Both Stott and Carson summarise 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 with these 6 points: the Gospel is Christological, Biblical, Historical, theological, apostolic, and personal.
The problem is of course, people are no longer defining evangelical by the Gospel.
While I’m in large agreement with McAlpine, I’m not giving up on evangelical just yet, because rightly understood it is a word we should cherish and defend. But should the waves of malcontent persist, and an alternative is necessary, I think I’ll begin follow in Russell Moore’s footsteps and refer to myself a Gospel Christian.
Gospel Christian has the same meaning as evangelical Christian, but without the unhealthy socio-political connotations. Interestingly, both in the United States and here in Australia, among the larger Christian networks we don’t find the Evangelical Coalition, but rather the Gospel Coalition.
Some Christians prefer to known as orthodox or classical. I warm to both of these words, although Stephen McAlpine criticises ‘orthodox’ as a group who don’t affirm the real and physical return of Jesus Christ. Perhaps I’m ignorant, but I would have thought belief in the parousia is basic to anyone claiming orthodoxy.
The reality is, many of our Christian labels are disdained. I wish it was suffice to say, I’m a Christian. After all, that’s what I am, I am a Christian. But sadly Christian is frequently associated with all manner of social ills and evils (sometimes warranted). And when I fess up to being a Baptist, I’ve more than once had to qualify it by saying, no, we’re not like the JWs or Mormons.
McAlpine suggests we call ourselves, ‘eschatological Christians’,
“Eschatological” springs to mind. If someone asks me these days I’ve taken to saying that I am an “Eschatological Christian.” Sure it’s not catchy, but it’s not toxic either. Sure I will have to spend a bit of time explaining what it is, but hey, I’ll have to spend virtually no time explaining what it is not.
“Eschatological” is more likely to elicit an eyebrow raise than a nose wrinkle. It is more likely to raise a question than rule a line under an answer. Most importantly it will distinguish me – and us – as those whose hopes -and energies – are not grounded in the political machinations of this age, but in the politics of the age to come lived out in the church today, and overflowing in practical, loving and humble ways into the community.
“Eschatological Christian” also distinguishes orthodox Christians who actually believe that there is a parousia coming in which King Jesus will usher in a new kingdom and judge the world in righteousness, from those who view that as an outdated notion beneath our modern sensibilities. A view that won’t get them respect in the academy.
The name has a certain Fitzroy living single-origin drinking indie-rocking listening feel to it, but I am unconvinced. First of all, few people know what eschatology means, and second, it is defining our identity by one area of theology, rather than the whole.
What do others think? How do you describe your Christian faith? Do you identify as an evangelical?
Misappropriation and misunderstanding shouldn’t surprise us; is it not the expectation given to us by the Lord Jesus? Does not the history of the church give us multiple examples of culture trampling on or deconstructing the church? In a world that is constantly confusing and even hijacking the Christian message, and doing so for all manner of social and political ends, we though can be responsible for how we represent the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, the more faithful we are to God’s word, the more useful we will be to society. So whether we call ourselves evangelical, Gospel, orthodox, or just plain and simple Christian, let’s do it with a growing sense of clarity, humility, grace, and winsomeness, in order to display the reality of Christ and of the hope held out in his Gospel.
MurrayCampbell.net 