When John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones famously separated over the nature of associations, at issue was the question of ‘Who is a Christian?’ or even ‘What is an Evangelical?’
Now names and debates from the 20th century may be already forgotten in today’s media glut. But the questions remain with us, just as they have always been since the days of Jesus among the Pharisees to the fundamentalist-modernist controversies.
Doctrinal or Sociological?
In Canada, we must ask whether our Evangelicalism is doctrinal or sociological. Put another way, are Evangelicals defined by what they believe or who they associate with?
I was reminded of this belief versus belonging contrast when a new member of my church recently arrived from the Middle East made the comment about how being an Evangelical in Canada is quickly associated with being an American Republican. The term ‘Evangelical’ is now defined as a sociological category, not a doctrinal one.
Well of course we can expect such misundertandings outside the church. We need to remember that from the early days in Antioch, the disciples were called “Christians” (Acts 11:26), and it wasn’t a compliment.
But what about inside the church? How should we be defining ourselves? In Canada, there has often been too little thought about these defining questions. In what follows I will argue that Canadian Evangelicals need to return to a clear doctrinal basis, not mere sociological connections.
What Do Evangelicals Believe?
At bottom, we need to ask what are the cardinal truths that define an Evangelical. One of the basic ones is a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. If you don’t confess the inerrancy of Scripture, then you’re not an Evangelical. You might call yourself something else, but your not an Evangelical. Inerrancy is a well worn doctrinal position with detailed ecumenical statements clarifying its definition. If a pastor doesn’t confess inerrancy, he isn’t an Evangelical.
To some this seems obvious. But in Canada, not everyone thinks that way. There are many churches with pastors, elder boards, and denominational committees that view themselves as Evangelicals in a sociological way, but they don’t believe key tenets of what Evangelicals believe.
Doctrine Gives Clarity
I have spoken with pastors from various historically Evangelical denominations and they tend to say something similar. They feel their denominations don’t want to talk about doctrine. Or at least they don’t want to debate doctrine by doing hard work in exegesis, determining what is very clear, less clear and unclear in a text. Denominations have embraced the adage that ‘doctrine divides’. And they are committed to maintain the social cohesion of their institutions, even if it means dropping the doctrinal reason for their existence.
So at general assemblies, pursuit of doctrinal clarification is often met with impassioned pleas for unity and accomodation. Those desiring to discuss doctrine are then viewed prejoratively as doctrinaire.
But doctrine gives clarity. By applying time tested principles to the Scriptures, there is a greater ability to do theological triage. That’s how Albert Mohler put it. He said:
A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world’s framework for medical priority.
By identifying doctrinal definitions a lot of confusing things would be made clearer.
The Honesty Problem
A problem comes when those merely sociological Evangelicals aren’t honest. It’s when they don’t come right out and announce to everyone that they do not believe what Evangelicals confess. They might like being an Evangelical and know lots of Evangelicals and read Evangelical books, but they actually don’t believe what Evangelicals believe. It’s double-talk and phony virtue signalling.
I always have to wonder why it is that people who refuse to confess inerrancy or penal substitutionary atonement still want to hang with those who do? Are Evangelicals that cool? Certainly not me or the ones I know.
Maybe it’s my suspicion of human nature, but I honestly think that many people know that Evangelicalism is where the action is. In the Evangelical movement, you have more money, more book publishing, more media, more youth and more energy. If non-Evangelicals choose to be consistent they have to join the liberal mainline denominations. Once they cross that threshold, they give up the benefits of the Evangelical movement. Rather it can be quite lucrative to stay in the Evangelical camp while denying what it stands for. A person can adopt a sort of ‘lone prophet chic’. There is one blogger with massive evangelical readership who is clearly non-evangelical in every way. But if she went clearly into the liberal mainline, she’d lose the crowd. Yet she can only truly come back to Evangelical faith by being awakened to repentance for her unbelief and false belief.
The Fact of False Teaching
So Canadian Evangelicals, and especially Reformed Evangelicals (like TGCCanada), ought to be happy about clarifying doctrine, with appropriate levels of priority and triage.
Should we despise the non-evangelical for their false beliefs? No. We must continue to be precise and winsome in our loving presentation of the gospel to them.
What about non-evangelical ‘church leaders’? Do they get honored because they are in church leadership? My view is that they should be recognized as one of the ‘helping professions’ like doctors or nurses, or even a firefighter or policeman. A Roman Catholic priest may be kind and helpful to someone in a physical or mental way. The United Church minister may do good things in the community.
But a Roman Catholic priest or a non-evangelical pastor is also a false teacher, viewed in doctrinal terms. They may be sincere and utterly convinced of their beliefs, but they are sincerely wrong, offending God by their teaching, and deceiving the people in their pews.
It can seem overly dramatic to call someone a false teacher. Evangelicals have been used to thinking that every Protestant who is not in a mainline liberal denomination is an Evangelical. Often it has been only the obscurantist with a poor skill in theological triage who has labelled people as false teachers within this sociological group. Yet times change.
Faithful Triage
It illustrates the state of Canadian Evangelicalism that a very broad confession such as TGC is possibly viewed as doctrinaire and obscurantist. Still we cannot weaken our resolve to do faithful triage, and identify false teaching. We must be more concerned with the eternal suffering of lost, decieved souls, than the temporary sufferings of disdain or dismissal by gatekeepers of the ‘used to be evangelical’ crowd.
Let us ask ourselves afresh, “What is an Evangelical?” That simple question could bring great clarity to the Canadian Christian scene. The answer will separate the doctrinal from the sociological. Such an answer would be no less than a clarifying answer to prayer.
