We Are Bible People…Indeed!
“We are New Testament Christians. We have no creed but Christ. Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” And so went the basic beliefs of the church I attended during my college years and for many years after. Each foundational statement sounded really good. But, something was amiss. I couldn’t figure out why this supposed “New Testament Church” looked liked and felt more like1900 AD than 100 AD? This included their music and their practices as well as the list prohibitions (no smoking, drinking or dancing). Further, my church was absolutely confident that they had it right while most other churches were wrong. After much confusion and diligent research, I discovered that my church held a view of the Bible that more reflected the Enlightenment than the first century. The church had started with the honorable intention of unify all Christianity by finding the essential elements of the faith that all denominations could agree on. This very search for basic elements came from the rationalist, scientific thinking of the Enlightenment, and, ironically, resulted in creating greater divisions due to disagreements over what exactly were the essentials. Since their approach to the Bible was clearly influenced by the thinking at the time of its origins, the church has continued in that mindset and the accompanying practices reminiscent of the early 1900s, believing them to be thoroughly biblical. In other words, my church was stuck in a time warp.
My church was also thoroughly Evangelical and fits perfectly into the story that D. W. Bebbington writes in Evangelicalism in Modern Britain. Bebbington’s central idea is: “The Evangelical version of Protestantism was created by the Enlightenment”[i] and it continued to evolve over the next two hundred years with each new development in philosophy. Bebbington does a brilliant job of meticulously tracing the history of Evangelicalism, showing how the thinking of the day not only brought Evangelicalism into being, but contributed to the direction of Evangelicalism throughout its existence.
What stands out so starkly in this study is high regard of Evangelicals for the authority of the Bible (like my church). “They have claimed that their brand of Christianity, the form once delivered to the saints, has possessed an essentially changeless content so long as it has remained loyal to its source.”[ii] This source, of course, is the Bible. John Stott put it simply: “‘We evangelicals are Bible people.’”[iii] The authority of the Bible has been the central foundation of Evangelicalism. And yet, with this firm foundation, Evangelicalism has progressed through a number of modifications and divisions and manifestations. Each modification, Bebbington suggests, was the result of the changing thinking of the times (from Enlightenment to Romanticism, up through Modernism).
This study provided two important insights for me. The first concerns the nature of the Bible. What this history demonstrates is that the Bible is amazingly adaptable to cultural and philosophical trends. That instead of new thinking causing Christianity to lose its creditability, it weathers the challenges of each new age, bringing about new inspiration and forward movement for the church. But, we must ask if these new adaptations lessen the message and authority of the Bible? It is instructive to see from Bebbington’s study that the basic tenants of Evangelicalism (Bible authority, conversion, the cross and activism) never wavered with each new modification, however varied its manifestations in church, life and social practices were. This illustrate the concept that the Bible is both “living and enduring” (1 Peter 1:23) rather than static and set for all time (as my church believed). The second insight is to question how much of my own thinking and faith is really my culture speaking? How embedded am I in my time and place? (Or is this question itself a question that only my post-modern cultural situation would ask?) Is it ever really possible to stand outside the mentality of one’s time and view the Bible with eyes of innocence? Most Christians I know believe strongly that they are being faithful only to the Bible. They have no awareness that their culture has any influence on their interpretation of Scripture or how they practice their faith. Yet these same cultural influences are often the cause of divisions among churches. So, how might we do Christianity better if we are aware that our faith will in some way reflect our culture? Might it start by simply accepting the idea that God intended His Word to speak to each culture in a way that would resonate with people at that given time or place without losing any of its power or detracting from its central message? Might this at least make us more empathetic of our brethren in other denominations? This study has given me a greater appreciation for the unique and multifaceted nature of God’s Word.
Bebbington concludes that Evangelism had “exerted an immense influence both on individuals and on the course of social and political development…”[iv] It was the movement’s ability to stay true to the Bible while adapting to the times that allowed it have a voice in each new era, while my church, having settled for the ultimate truths and the right Biblical practices solidified two hundred years ago has had little influence or social involvement over the years. This study of the history of Evangelicalism in Britain would greatly help my church to see how easily we forget that we (the Church) are a product of the times we live in as well as the Bible, and that often times the Church is left behind because she have failed to let God speak anew to the present generation!
John F. Woodward
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.