\u201cWe are New Testament Christians.\u00a0 We have no creed but Christ.\u00a0 Where the Bible speaks, we speak.\u00a0 Where the Bible is silent, we are silent.\u201d\u00a0 And so went the basic beliefs of the church I attended during my college years and for many years after.\u00a0 Each foundational statement sounded really good. But, something was amiss. I couldn\u2019t figure out why this supposed \u00a0\u201cNew Testament Church\u201d looked liked and felt more like1900 AD than 100 AD? \u00a0This included their music and their practices as well as the list prohibitions (no smoking, drinking or dancing).\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
My church was also thoroughly Evangelical and fits perfectly into the story that D. W. Bebbington writes in Evangelicalism in Modern Britain.<\/em>\u00a0 Bebbington\u2019s central idea is: \u201cThe Evangelical version of Protestantism was created by the Enlightenment\u201d[i]<\/a> and it continued to evolve over the next two hundred years with each new development in philosophy. \u00a0Bebbington 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.<\/p>\n What stands out so starkly in this study is high regard of Evangelicals for the authority of the Bible (like my church).\u00a0 \u201cThey 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.\u201d[ii]<\/a> \u00a0This source,<\/em> of course, is the Bible.\u00a0 John Stott put it simply: \u00a0\u201c\u2018We evangelicals are Bible people.\u2019\u201d[iii]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0The authority of the Bible has been the central foundation of Evangelicalism.\u00a0 And yet, with this firm foundation, Evangelicalism has progressed through a number of modifications and divisions and manifestations.\u00a0 Each modification, Bebbington suggests, was the result of the changing thinking of the times (from Enlightenment to Romanticism, up through Modernism).<\/p>\n This study provided two important insights for me. The first concerns the nature of the Bible.\u00a0 What this history demonstrates is that the Bible is amazingly adaptable to cultural and philosophical trends.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 But, we must ask if these new adaptations lessen the message and authority of the Bible?\u00a0 It is instructive to see from Bebbington\u2019s 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. \u00a0This illustrate the concept that the Bible is both \u201cliving and enduring\u201d (1 Peter 1:23) rather than static and set for all time (as my church believed).\u00a0 The second insight is to question how much of my own thinking and faith is really my culture speaking?\u00a0 How embedded am I in my time and place? \u00a0(Or is this question itself a question that only my post-modern cultural situation would ask?) \u00a0Is it ever really possible to stand outside the mentality of one\u2019s 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.\u00a0 Yet these same cultural influences are often the cause of divisions among churches.\u00a0 So, how might we do Christianity better if we are aware that our faith will in some way reflect our culture?\u00a0 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?\u00a0 Might this at least make us more empathetic of our brethren in other denominations?\u00a0 This study has given me a greater appreciation for the unique and multifaceted nature of God\u2019s Word.<\/p>\n Bebbington concludes that Evangelism had \u201cexerted an immense influence both on individuals and on the course of social and political development\u2026\u201d[iv]<\/a> It was the movement\u2019s 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.\u00a0 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!<\/p>\n John F. Woodward<\/p>\n