Open to what?

There was once a time when the adjective 'evangelical' before the noun 'Christian' was a sufficient and adequate description of a clear and defined theological position. But then the definition of the noun became so diluted and neutralised that the adjective had to stand on its own.
All sorts of other adjectives now compete to qualify the new noun. So an 'evangelical' can now be conservative or liberal, open or even post. It's all very confusing since some of the descriptive terms seem to deny the meaning of the noun, at least the meaning it used to have as an adjective - if you see what I mean! A couple of years ago, I met a minister who described himself as a 'liberal catholic evangelical', though on further discussion the noun seemed to mean little more than that he thought church growth was better, on balance, than church decline.
If we have to find a defining adjective I think, on balance, I prefer the one suggested by Oliver Barclay in his book Evangelicalism in Britain, 1935 - 95 (IVP, 1997), which is 'classical' evangelicalism. It would be wonderful if the newer adjectives could all be dropped so that the word 'evangelical' could be released for its original meaning, but I fear that they are here to stay, and probably to multiply. Certainly, the title 'open' evangelical has grown enormously in use and popularity over recent years, but what exactly does it mean? Last year, a paper was produced by a group of self-styled open evangelicals entitled 'Towards a definition of Open Evangelicalism', which seems to answer the important question: 'Open to what?'

Biblical scholarship

The preamble notes that 'open' evangelicalism is usually defined as over against 'conservative' evangelicalism, although 'open evangelicals would claim to be conservative on Scripture and radical on everything else'. There then follows a list of several answers as to what they are open to. First on the list is Biblical scholarship. This is explained as believing Scripture to be inspired, but without wishing to wear the inerrantist label. It means being content to accept that theology is a positive gift to the church and that hermeneutics is essential to the task of understanding an inspired scripture. The problem with this is that all the words are there, but all the doors are left open. The implication is that theology and hermeneutics are unknown to inerrantists, who are clearly 'closed' people. But the use of the term 'inspired' is notoriously slippery, in our contemporary climate. We cannot assume that it has a commonly agreed, or even understood, meaning among evangelicals. When a Beethoven sonata or a black gospel number can attract that description, we do have to ask for a much more focused statement of the precise authority of the written text of Scripture.
Of course, hermeneutics matters, and of course anyone who handles the Bible has their hermeneutic, just as we all have a theological framework. The two are essentially inter-connected. The characteristic evangelical position, however, is that both of these are governed by the Bible, and that in practice both are in constant need of reformation, by becoming more thoroughly and consistently Biblical, as the Holy Spirit illuminates our understanding. We do not want to revisit sterile debates, but we do need to realise that in any generation the battle for the Bible is never finally won. To-day, the issue is more the sufficiency of Scripture as the completed Word of God and its interpretation, rather than its inspiration and authority. There is a profound difference between those whose hermeneutic is dictated by Scripture itself and who therefore make the Bible 'the mainstay of their ministry', to quote Oliver Barclay, and those who do not.

Sufficient and infallible

'Classical' evangelicals believe that Scripture is the sufficient and infallible revelation of God, by which both contemporary scholarship and contemporary claims to prophetic utterance are to be evaluated. Much of the move away from confidence in the Scriptures which so sadly afflicts current evangelicalism is produced by those two influences, which have become alternative authorities. Perhaps that is why there seems to be so little real commitment to careful teaching of the Bible at college level (where the secondary literature often predominates) and then in the churches and especially among young people. It is not enough to assert that Scripture is foundational, or to talk about a Bible-based ministry. We can be catapulted into any number of flights of fancy from a Bible base. We need Biblical ministries, driven by Scripture, not pragmatism. We need a new generation whose blood (as it was said of John Bunyan) is 'Bibline'.
Only this renewed commitment to the whole Bible as God's revealed and unchanging Word can generate the robust Biblical theology we so urgently need. As those who believe in the unity of the whole Bible, its single divine authorship and total harmony, we 'conservatives' are perhaps guilty of doing comparatively little to teach the sweep of the story, in its entirety, and to educate our people in a thoroughly Biblical overview. Sometimes, our circles have been so concerned with systematics that we have forgotten that the big picture of Scripture is the gospel. Consequently, we have become easily diverted by the minutiae of particular doctrines, rather than being thrilled and set on fire with the good news itself. Only that understanding of Scripture will mean that we shall want to define ourselves, first and foremost, as gospel people.

Denominations

Another self-defining characteristic of 'open' evangelicalism is its commitment to denominationalism. A majority, we are told, would want 'evangelical' to return to its status as an adjective, but to apply it to a denominational noun- Anglican, Methodist, Baptist. This entails a commitment to the structure and ecclesiology of that particular denomination. Something else matters more than the gospel. Of course that can be as true of independents and the new churches as of the historic associations. For 'classical' evangelicals, however, the gospel matters more than the particular ways we do things. Historically, we have co-operated across denominational divides, in associations such as the Evangelical Alliance, UCCF, missionary societies etc., and in evangelical activities, both nationally and locally, because the gospel has been at the top of our agenda, and it has been our ground of unity.
We are not empire-builders. Our goal is the evangelisation of the nations. We want every population centre to have a vital witness to the Biblical gospel, so that everyone will be able to hear and understand its truth and see the life being lived, and we are not worried about labels. We stand in different historical streams of heritage, but we can respect one another's differences of opinion and conviction on secondary issues, because we are agreed, on gospel grounds, that they are secondary. They matter, which is why we hold convictions, but they do not matter as much as the gospel does. That is the larger issue, and a big vision for the evangelisation of the nation means little fences.

With the grain

However, it is at this point that another feature of 'open' evangelicalism is encountered. They too are concerned to be the church for the whole population, but in order to achieve that goal they are committed to the view that this must involve working 'with the grain of society rather than against it'. Open evangelicalism defines itself as basically world affirming. What is not clear is how far, or whether, it is equally important also to be world negating. For surely that is the more Biblical position. We all want to be world affirming in acknowledging that 'the earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it' (Psalm 24.1). This is the world which God loved so much that he gave his Son to die; the lamb of God to bear away its sin. But we must also be world negating, because we are citizens of a heavenly country, who know that 'the whole world is under the control of the evil one' (1 John 5.19). To work with the grain of society may well be to capitulate to his stratagems.
This sort of openness produces need-centred evangelism, where the perceived 'felt needs' of the hearers shape and dictate the content of the message, until repentance and submission to Christ as Lord become forgotten concepts. It leads to the moral compromise which promotes sexual anarchy and allows hedonism to rule unchallenged, because ultimately it worships at the shrine of political correctness. It is what produces the funeral service of Princess Diana and will soon doubtless 'bless' homosexual 'marriages' and work to legitimise euthanasia. Once the Bible is lost, in its negatives as well as its positives, the church doomed to lose its God-centredness and any resultant religion is bound to be centred on us and on our cultural norms.
This is not to say that as Biblical evangelicals we want to withdraw into a ghetto of introspective pietism, nor do we have any right to do so. Sadly, there is a good deal of justification for the criticism that our strength on the doctrine of redemption has sometimes been at the expense of our doctrine of creation. Our evangelism, which we say matters so much, is then reduced to a series of sporadic hit-and-run raids. We can very easily become content with a superficial Biblical input, which will operate only within our traditional vocabulary and through forms and which effectively cuts us off from the contemporary issues and debates of our culture. When that happens, we foster an anti-intellectualism which inevitably shoots ourselves in the foot. Rather, we want to affirm all that is good and noble as a result of God's common grace to our world, but we want at the same time to confront all that is sinful and rebellious. That is not schizophrenic; it is Biblical. And it is the Bible's grain we must cut with, not that of the culture, which is under God's judgment.

Understanding God

Ultimately, it all comes down to our understanding of God. 'Open' evangelicals have a view of God as 'an agent of change rather than a defender of the status quo', we are told. Again, it seems to me that this is largely conditioned by ourselves and our culture. Characteristically, it's our view of God, our angle or perspective, or even 'spin' which predominates, rather than the awesome majesty of his self-revelation. But the God of the Bible is an unchanging agent of change, and his obedient people are caught up in that very process. The reformed church must always be being reformed. 'Classical' evangelicals are not automatic defenders of any status quo; but they will not be drawn away from God's unchanging revelation, as the 'living and enduring Word of God', nor will they compromise its constant demands, or nullify its penetrating message. More than ever we need to work together, in understanding and applying Scripture to the multitude of our contemporary cultural issues and challenges, in teaching it much more widely and effectively, in training and equipping leaders, and in joint evangelism and church planting. These are surely the appropriate and important aspects of 'openness' which should characterise people of the good news.

David Jackman is Director of the Cornhill Training Course, London.

The meaning of the term 'evangelical' and the emergence of a new group calling themselves 'open evangelicals'

Biblical scholarship

Sufficient and infallible

Denominations

With the grain

Understanding God

Main Articles

Other articles