I am an evangelical. That word evangelical often means way more than I intend or virtually nothing at all to many people. By evangelical, I primarily mean that I adhere to the centrality of the Gospel and the authority of Scripture within the broad trajectory laid out by the Protestant Reformation in Europe.
Yet some within or without this (now) nebulous movement have fallen into patterns of thinking that simply do not represent how I understand evangelicalism.
On one hand, Christians have attempted to progress beyond traditional beliefs of past Christian thought. Some progress beyond traditional Christian beliefs about the authority of Scripture, a sexuality grounded in biblical and natural revelation, and a whole host of other notions.
For many, the fight makes them feel alive. And without a fight, there is no feeling at all.
On the other hand, some have so narrowed the scope of Christian faithfulness to be virtually divisive. If an evangelical cannot associate with those who differ on important but nevertheless secondary issues (e.g., spiritual gifts, mode of baptism, pandemic responses, etc.), then we have lost grip on what it means to base our fellowship around the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
This narrow group—those who increasingly narrow their scope of Christian faithfulness to some few assemblies—represents what I might call the fundamentalist right.
By fundamentalist, I do not mean Fundamentalism from the early 20th century. I am using the word colloquially. In short, by fundamentalism I mean those with divisive inclinations who want to cut off any association with Christians who do not adhere to their convictions on secondary or tertiary matters.
The Divisive Drive
In our context, market pressure as well as theological culture tend to create groups with a divisive drive. Market pressure fosters division because unless one manufactures a battle for “truth,” then that person cannot galvanize his tribe, sell tickets for his conferences, or market his books and media.
In short, one must tilt at windmills to gain a following and survive financially. As T. T. Shields told Martyn-Lloyd Jones, “Do you know, every time I indulge in what you call one of these ‘dog-fights’ the sales of the Gospel Witness go right up. What about that?”[1]
Market pressure fosters division because unless one manufactures a battle for “truth,” then that person cannot galvanize his tribe, sell tickets for his conferences, or market his books and media.
In terms of theological culture, a perceived vacuum of strong leaders among evangelicals has left room for aggressive personalities to gain followings. The strongest personality, the hardest denunciations, and the most extreme rhetoric about others—that creates a following. It perpetuates the idea that one remains faithful only if he is embattled in controversy.
For many, the fight makes them feel alive. And without a fight, there is no feeling at all. They rely on their passions and desires to confirm their faith. If they feel inflamed, they are alive. If they accomplish their desire and receive the praise of those within their camp, they are faithful. And such behaviour draws a crowd. Martyn Lloyd-Jones explained, “I have always observed that if there is a dog-fight a crowd gathers; I’m not at all surprised. People like that sort of thing.”
It is a trap, however. Paul explains, “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col 3:5). The passionate intensity of some polemical ministries says more about what is earthly in them than it does about faithful ministry. This polemical passion “is idolatry.”
Confidence Without Being a jerk
How can we then speak clearly about the truth of God without falling prey to the attitudes and actions described above? There has to be a way to be confident in the truth without being a huge jerk about it. That confidence to speak up out loud cannot be the sole property of the fundamentalist dividers.
We have found ourselves caught between pressures to maintain the unity of faith while recognizing the need to speak with forthright confidence (Eph 4:13, 15). We sometimes have the boldness to speak against progressive forms of Christianity. We decry the behaviour of those outside our circles.
I sense, however, that we are too afraid to speak with confidence against divisive fundamentalists that often exist very close to our associations. The idea seems to be that if we just stay quiet long enough, the problem will go away. Or perhaps they will join us.
The thing is: having read story-after-story of Christians over the last 2,000 years, I have never seen that strategy work. In World World II, Neville Chamberlain famously said, “We will have peace in our time.” He was wrong. Appeasing the unappeasable never works. You give an inch. They take a mile.
We who hold fast to the inerrancy of Scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ must somehow do so without the biting acerbic rhetoric of modern fundamentalism. They alone do not own the right to speak confidently about the truth.
And this confidence matched by the Love of God shed abroad in our hearts matters (Rom 5:5). Our souls are at stake. In the same conversation cited above, T. T. Shields commended the polemical work of Joseph Parker, saying: “Surely you are helped by the way he makes mincemeat of the liberals?”
“No, I am not,” [Martyn Lloyd-Jones] responded. “You can make mincemeat of the liberals and still be in trouble in your own soul.”
We do not want to make mincemeat of our souls for the sake of destroying the liberals or those whom we perceive as compromised. Somehow, we must bridge the divide between confident faith and a heart full of love.
In another article, I laid out a biblical and theological foundation for doing just that (click here to read it). But for now, I offer this article for reflection on what it might mean to be confident in the truth without being a jerk. It’s possible. By God’s Spirit, we can do it.
[1] I wrote about this phenomenon some months ago in an article you can find here.
