All Chevys may be automobiles, but that does not make all automobiles a Chevy. I remember a math teacher that once used this same reasoning for an equation; it was a frustrating day in Math when I learned that.<\/p>\n
Well, I must admit, this is probably the \u201cGlobal Evangelism\u201d book I have been waiting to see for this program. It provides numerous methods for clarity in regard to some of the views that have been depicted in various other readings. Primarily, I have personally always struggled with two specific terms: Protestant and Evangelical. These are tough words to struggle with when you are a minister for a church that various members have associated themselves with; and yet, as the minister, you are not sure you apply. For this reason, I was very anxious to finally see these two defined\u2026at least in some regard. However, my delight was somewhat short-lived\u2026well, at least at first.<\/p>\n
I knew I was in trouble when the introduction revealed this unnerving detail; \u201cwhile many evangelicals are to be found within \u2018mainline\u2019 denominations that are not self-consciously evangelical[1]<\/a>.\u201d I did not know if I should celebrate that I was not ignorant alone or be scared that I have often been linked to a movement that was steeped in such mysterious foundations. The reading further linked itself to a potential tie to that of the Lausanne Movement; a movement that I had personally been taught about while working through my M.Div. I celebrated as I knew I had a book on my bookshelf that would bring clarity\u2026or not. As I worked through the final pages of my \u201cPerspectives on the World Christian Movement\u201d book, I found a final section titled, \u201cThe Lausanne Covenant.\u201d Within these few pages was a list of 15 characteristics of the movement; would this also serve as 15 defining characteristics for evangelicalism as well?<\/p>\n I must pause for a moment to interject what I hoped to find in this reading: First, I wanted to find something that actually delivered clarity in regard to classifications placed on modern Christian churches. Second, I wanted to know if the topic of my dissertation, baptism, was considered a fundamental of evangelicals, or as the author put it, one of the \u201cnonessentials\u201d that most \u201cevangelicals are often flexible about[2]<\/a>.\u201d I was pleased to find where Hawthorne wrote, \u201cJesus gave two simple specifics about discipling the peoples: baptizing and teaching[3]<\/a>.\u201d This week\u2019s reading further stated, \u201cMost also practice water baptism as an initiation rite\u2026[4]<\/a>\u201d Well\u2026STRIKE ONE!<\/strong> It was not the fact that it I have realized that \u201cinitiation rite\u201d has different meaning to different churches; but rather the fact that this phrase began with \u201cMOST.\u201d Though my desire is that this would say \u201cALL,\u201d the reality is that this helps point to the problem I am identifying in my dissertation.<\/p>\n Now, back to my assessment. The reading stipulated a handful of areas that evangelical beliefs seem to resonate[5]<\/a>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Well, so far so good; I might just be an evangelical.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n However, then the description became broader. The discussion moved to the topics of Protestants; who by the \u201cfour key ingredients,\u201d would actually exclude some from other evangelicals. For instance; the third ingredient was Activism; which included the need to give, \u201cabove all to the work of spreading the message of salvation in Christ[6]<\/a>.\u201d How does this exclude? How many churches today will fight against the principle of \u201cworks\u201d as a necessity of Christianity. Furthermore, the discussion continued regarding those \u2018nonessentials\u201d I mentioned earlier. Perhaps it is those \u201cnonessentials\u201d that are the product of why it is so difficult for so many Christian religions to define what evangelicalism truly is; how you do make any determinations if one person sees an issue as essential (as I do with baptism), while others see them as negotiable or nonessential? As the conversation moved to \u201cFundamentalism\u201d, the same question must be asked; how do we manage to fly our churches under the same flags if we are divided on issues like the \u201cinfallibility of the Bible[7]<\/a>,\u201d and whether or not Jesus really was born of a virgin?<\/p>\n STRIKE TWO!<\/strong><\/p>\n My third strike<\/strong> came from another reading; in fact, one of our future readings, \u201cThe Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.\u201d I am sure these two readings are intended to reflect the good, bad and ugly perspectives for us to mull over as we read; however, it was when Noll wrote, \u201cAnd you can see that most evangelicals simply don\u2019t think[8]<\/a>.\u201d As I seek to determine if I am an \u201cevangelical\u201d or not, do I really want to be associated with a group that does not \u201cthink,\u201d in regard to spiritual growth? Can I possibly be an evangelical if half of what other evangelicals believe in is contrary to my own beliefs? Apparently, I can\u2026but do I want to be?<\/p>\n I have always struggled with defining or classifying my belief system. In Acts 11:26, it reads, \u201cAnd the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.\u201d Growing up in the church of Christ, we were always classified as the \u201cconservatives;\u201d furthermore comparing ourselves to those \u201cliberals\u201d across the street. There was division and corruption all in the name of Christ. On one hand, I see grace in the scriptures; giving us room for some freedom in worship and Christian expression (as some of you saw in our worship service in Hong Kong\u2026I may not be from an instrumental church, but I can still worship with others who are). However, I also never forget that Christ Himself taught, \u201cEnter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it[9]<\/a>.\u201d Don\u2019t mistake my message here\u2026Clarity can be a blessing, and I am truly happy to finally understand the classifications of \u201cEvangelicalism;\u201d however, my real question is\u2026why we are separated in the first place. What are we as Christians doing wrong that we have to write numerous books on what separates us? How did we reconcile this with Ephesians 4:4-6?<\/p>\n \u201cThere is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n And yet\u2026we are all embracing our divisions rather than the things that should be unifying us. I just don\u2019t understand that.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n Lewis, Donald M. & Richard V. Pierard. Global Evangelicalism: Theology, History and Culture in Regional Perspective.<\/em>Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014.<\/p>\n Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.<\/em>Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.<\/p>\n Winter, Ralph D. & Steven C. Hawthorne. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement.<\/em>Pasadena : William Carey Library, 2009.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a>Lewis, Donald M. & Richard V. Pierard. Global Evangelicalism: Theology, History and Culture in Regional Perspective.<\/em>Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014. P 12.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>Ibid, p 21.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>Winter, Ralph D. & Steven C. Hawthorne. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement.<\/em>Pasadena : William Carey Library, 2009.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>Lewis, Donald M. & Richard V. Pierard. Global Evangelicalism: Theology, History and Culture in Regional Perspective.<\/em>Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014. P 19.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>Ibid, p. 18-19.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>Ibid, p. 20.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a>Ibid, p. 21.<\/p>\n\n