Who and What, Really, is an “Evangelical”?
A personal commentary
John W. Biggers, June, 2009
Introduction:
For most of the past four decades of my life I have had a special, enduring interest (personal and professional) in the interpretation within the church and the general community, of the designation, or term “evangelical.”
As a native of that part of America that has traditionally been known as “the Bible Belt” (in my case, deep Southern Illinois), and coming from a family that had connections to a religious community with roots in a particular brand of Christian beliefs and orientation ( in my case, the Methodist traditions), naturally I formulated certain “religious” understandings which for me seemed to make sense. The matter of faith, from a religious perspective, is very personal, of course, and yet it usually depends upon the diverse influences in one’s upbringing and even factors during adult years, albeit given the opportunities to refine, change, or otherwise remove long-standing ideas from one’s opinions.
Likewise, with my personal background still very much a part of me, I have had the opportunity in my adult years to secure a graduate education in the field of theology, church history, and denominational polity, even broadened by several years as a professional clergyman.
Of great concern to me at this stage of my life, as I reflect on my own role in the “fellowship of believers”, the church, the Christian faith, or whatever context we might consider, is that there is what I consider to be a misunderstanding of the theological or Christian terms “evangel”, “evangelist”, “evangelical”, or “evangelism”, and that the frequent references to these terms by the media, or by society in general, often cause what I consider a major misuse of the terms, and, more importantly, a confusion among many persons who have questions about the mission of the Christian faith or their part in it.
So, the statement that follows is my personal effort to throw some light on how these terms might be interpreted. Under no circumstances is this statement meant to be a judgment on anyone’s understandings of the terms or their own religious commitments.
Two of the languages by which the Christian faith was first considered to be expressed among its followers were the Hebrew and Greek dialects that were most in use in the Middle East region (fondly referred to as “the Holy Land”) during what the Western World now calls the First Century . We are referring to cultures and languages that existed over two thousand years ago. Of course, they have been translated and intrepreted into modern languages throughout history.
One of the cornerstones of the Christian faith (as a system of beliefs, doctrines, and practices ) is the English word “evangel”, adapted from the Greek language word for “bearer of good news“, and which was utilized over two thousand years ago by the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who was, and still is, referred to in a reverential manner as “Jesus, the Christ“, and commonly known by Christian adherents as “Jesus Christ”.
Another frequent reference to Jesus in church parlance is “Messiah”, adapted from the Hebrew language and tradition for “the One” expected by the Jews to “save” or “redeem” that religious community (which in those ancient times–and also in recent years– was constantly trying to avoid oppression or slavery.)
The written account of this faith-history, that is thought to cover at least one thousand years before the advent of Jesus, is called “the Old Testament” (which means “covenant” or “promise”) by Christians, who traditionally have believed that it was a foretelling of the revelation of a plan for “salvation” by God, thus laying the ground work for the arrival of Jesus, who Christians commonly refer to as “the Son of God”, a concept that emanated from the Hebrew reference to “Yahweh”, or “Jehovah”, or God, as the “Father” of all creation.
The reference to God as a “Father” very possibly comes from the Jewish paternalistic traditions, which in large measure have been used in Christian traditions over the centuries, perhaps resulting in the early references to males as supposedly the closest “disciples” (learners/teachers) of the beliefs among the community that called itself “Christian”. Again, this resulted from the accepted belief that many, if not most, early followers of Jesus Christ were of Jewish background. But, then, church history also shows an early departure from the Jewish faith, as the local Christian communities developed their own distinctive beliefs and practices.
Of course, Christians have preserved the faith-historical account of the birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ, in what is called the “New Testament”; which also includes the writings of the early leaders in the Christian movement, who interpreted what they believed was the essence of the message Jesus Christ left for his followers to share with anyone with whom they came into contact.
Once the church became an established religious and cultural force in the Western World, it was only logical that scholars in the tradition would strive to define the faith in more specific and organized terms, thus the New Testament was established as the basic source of the faith, and considered along with the “Old Testament” as the underlying teachings about the purpose and mission of Jesus Christ. The English word “bible” ( literally, “library” or collection of books ) has long been used as the term for the collection of the scriptures that were retained in the Old and New Testaments.
Needless to say, the Bible has been the motivation for countless writings over the centuries, wherein efforts to interpret the meaning of faith have been an ongoing challenge for persons who either claimed to follow the Christian tenets, or otherwise sought to challenge their authenticity or purpose. The same goes for social and personal efforts to explain what the Christian experience means to individuals and to the world at large. The discussions and debates continue; and most likely will have no end!
For many Christian believers in the early centuries, and still today, the word “evangel” means “the bearer of glad tidings” or “good news” that was made manifest in what the followers of Jesus believe was his life, death, and resurrection from the the dead; this good news being (from my interpretation) that:
In a world of struggle and challenges, e.g. war and violence, poverty, illness, unhappiness, dishonesty, and, ultimately, death (all of which is theologically referred to as “sin”, that is, being separated from God or God’s plan for humankind), there is the promise of hope or “deliverance from ‘sin’ and death” in the face of the worst that life can bring us. This good news is also a message about life that is most reassuring and reinforced when it is shared within a community of fellow believers; the Christian word for which is “the church”.
My basic belief is that the above description of “the bearer of good news”, “the evangel”, is not something that can be, or must be, empirically observed in all events of one’s life, or relegated to any specific person, persons, or events, in the life of society; but, it always remains as a source of hope and a motivating and guiding force that enables each of us, and together as a community, to reach for healing and wholeness in the face of those divisions and devastations that have plagued and continue to plague us.
This good news, also called “gospel” (using Greek language of that day), we are told from the accounts surrounding the Christ
event more than 20 centuries ago, is a message that each person who hears it has a responsibility to share the same good news in his or her own life. Thus, hearers of this word are also called upon to be messengers; namely, evangel-ists (bearers of good news).
Following the example of Jesus Christ, whose fate was one of being reviled and rejected by the leaders of his day, resulting in his own suffering and death, the early Christians took seriously the admonition that he reportedly gave them, “take up your cross daily and follow me.” For these beliefs many of these early believers suffered the same fate.
Those of us who like to “talk religion” (and perhaps try–I emphasize “try”– to “live” according to our religious beliefs) may become part of some group, organization, or system of beliefs (or “doctrines”) that will underscore and define where we are coming from and where we are headed, in terms of life’s scheme of things. It is a comforting, reassuring feeling that may help us in the midst of storms and strife, personal and social. For some followers of Jesus Christ this may be referred to as a sense of “salvation”, ( some like to refer to this as having one’s “soul saved”), knowing that the cares of the world will not overcome us. In the extreme, this ultimately means that even the event of our death does not defeat us.
From the teachings of Jesus Christ, and his early followers, as they tried to capture his words in the scriptures, this happening to any one or all of us is a gift; not something earned, not some sort of honor. In one poignant passage of the early writings, Jesus is quoted as saying, simply, “He who has ears, let him hear.”
The good news is available to everyone.
Who and What, Really, is an “Evangelical?”
Table of Contents
An Introduction:
Who and What, Really, is an”Evangelical”
“Evangel” Defined
To Become or Not to Become a Christian
Self-Proclaimed “Evangelicals”
‘You Must Be Born Again”
Exclusivity
Christianity Takes its Place in History
Judaism as the Forerunner of Christianity
Dealing with “Pagans”
Jesus on the Scene: A Welcomed
Savior/Messiah
Christianity Grows Up
The Evangel–A Job for Each or
All of Us; If and When
Appendix A-C: The ABC’s of the
Christian Faith
A. The Scriptures
B. The Structure
C. The Spirit
In Summation
TO BE, OR NOT TO BE, A CHRISTIAN
Throughout this commentary, I wish to emphasize my very strong personal belief that even though, as someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, (that is, a “Christian”,) I do believe in the concept that Jesus was, for me, “the Word of God manifested in human form–obviously one type of theological concept–and yet, I also recognize that this is not a belief that everyone can or must accept. Likewise, I do not presume to have “the” best or preferred understanding of such a belief; and, I must admit that due to my own human-ness, I may be mistaken!
In fact, as it is becoming more popular, many persons will insist that they have no religion-oriented beliefs; that they do not need any kind of sectarian trappings, formula or doctrine to “save” them from anything that they encounter in this life; and that there is no reason to be concerned about any so-called afterlife. This sort of thinking is premised on a likely acceptance of our human fate within a great and given world of nature, science, and secular options. (Even the “Stoics” have taught that “the wise man should be free from passion, unsubdued by joy or grief, willingly submissive to natural law.”)
Likewise, I have no quarrel with the proposition that any eternal being, power or deity is not confined or limited to a single “chosen” or exclusive concept or system of beliefs, religious or otherwise, whether Christian or any other expression of faith. It is my firm conviction that any sincere search for one’s, or a society’s, relationship to a source beyond the earthly sphere has as much reason to be accepted as genuine as my own belief-system.
It is presumptuous for any one set of religious thought to feel that it is the singular vehicle or voice to reach an understanding of faith, when you realize that this world has been populated by literally billions of persons and thousands of cultures and religious orders over the centuries. The differences in languages, customs, and environmental factors (among many others) would certainly negate any honest interpretation that a single defined encounter with a deity is or has been the sole effort made by any such deity to reach the countless other societies down through human history.
None of this is new; there have always been “believers” and “non-believers” within most or all societies and forms of religion or faith (these two words are not necessarily synonymous, but we will treat them as such at this point.) Whether we are dealing with the Western religions and belief-structures, such as Christianity or secular humanism, or the Eastern faiths, such as Islam or Buddhism, divisions and differences of the basic tenets of religion (or non-religion) exist. They have for centuries, and, unfortunately, have been the basis of hatred, discrimination, and wars, supposedly (and sadly) “in the name of religion.”
Of course, the place of non-sectarian philosophers (ancient and current) cannot be overlooked; as those sages down through the centuries, especially within the limitations of human discourse, have attempted to search the depths of the meaning of human life and destiny. Their words are worthy of consideration, but, like every other human being, they are subject to making mistakes, and limited to the extent of their worldly knowledge. The same goes for religious thinkers and philosophers.
I will not attempt any definition of the time-honored philosophies of atheism and agnosticism. Apparently, those who subscribe to these idealogies deny or doubt the existence of “God” or any deity outside our human realms. Either, they might say, “God is dead”, or “There is no rational proof that He/It/She ever existed.” Take your pick. In any event, to assume some sort of position on where any one of us, or group or all of us, might fit within some greater realm of faith, belief, or understanding of our human destiny, is a mental, emotional, and perhaps even physical commitment that we make from time to time, either knowingly and unknowingly.
For some of us it is constant; but with all of the distractions available to us, it may be more common to place our religious side of life in compartments that will arise in our encounters with certain and uncertain vicissitudes of life. (For example, one humorous “churchy” bromide often says, “ the church is useful solely for ‘hatching’, ‘matching’, and ‘dispatching’,” referring, of course, to baptisms, weddings, and funerals.) Also, it is very common to say to someone in need, “You are in my thoughts and prayers,” with the latter effort seemingly a reference to a source of help on a particular difficult occasion, looking beyond one’s own power or ability.
Thus, each of us, regardless of our social setting, will make commitments–to family, to social or communal systems, to other individuals or groups, and to concepts and principles that we will refer to as we run into the diverse encounters and experiences of our lives. This usually first happens when we reach what is often referred to as the “age of accountability”, a time (or times) when we realize that we cannot depend upon someone else, parents or other authority figures, to make these decisions and commitments for us.
So it is with how we look at the Christian message; or any other form of beliefs or non-beliefs; we do have the choices that come our way , and with the priorities and actions we choose, we define just how we fit within a system of beliefs, faith, or understanding.
SELF-PROCLAIMED “EVANGELICALS”
In America today (and which has been evolving for many years, especially the last century) there is a growing segment in the Christian community that puts heavy significance in an exact, well-defined place of God in daily activities and choices, for individuals and for society as a whole. In fact, the emphasis among many of those adhering to what they like to be referred to as “evangelical” Christianity, (and– by their own descriptions– supposedly distinguishing and separating them from others who claim to be Christians) are seen by some “religion” observers as the fastest growing church segment in America (and other countries).
Some critical observers feel that these so-called and self-proclaiming “evangelicals” think that they have some sort of exclusive corner on Christianity; resulting, of course, in the claim that everyone who does not follow their precepts is in deep trouble with an omnipotent, all-powerful God, who looks down upon human society with a careful eye to discern who IS and who IS NOT on the side of the angels. I am one who has this understanding of how many self-proclaimed “evangelicals” feel. Others will disagree, of course.
One primary approach to bringing believers into the framework of this “evangelical” movement, is to advise prospective adherents, often within a personal and highly emotional state of mind, of the need to “confess their sins” (“repent” is the word, which was one of the Jewish practices, and was re-invented by an early Christian author and spokesman, known as “Paul”) and to recognize that they are now loved and forgiven by God, and thus “saved”. Most often this personal acceptance by the new “convert” is experienced in a moment of highly charged exhortation in a”revival” service (e.g. the famous Billy Graham services, which are patterned after such renditions of Christian preaching popularized in 19th Century England and America), with other already “saved” folks nearby, encouraging the “lost” sinner to join the fold. Anything short of this type of “conversion” would be considered lacking and falling short of the “glory of God’s grace,” as some people like to express it.
In other words, a merely “intellectual” (in contrast to a “heart-felt”, emotional experience like that described above), formal or gradual educational learning of the tenets of the faith over a period of time would not be “genuine” to the self-appointed adherents of their claimed “evangelical” approach.
A companion feature of this understanding of “conversion” to the Christian faith is the practice known as “believer’s baptism”, which means that only after the new Christian is “saved” by confession of sins and acceptance of Christ as a “personal savior”, then he or she can be baptized in the formal immersion in a body water (as supposedly Paul did in New Testament days; and which some believe was a rite practiced by some Jewish sects which stressed a need for repentance of sins–that is, breaking the Jewish law, and of which Paul was a member); thus, this perspective rules out the efficacy of the baptism of children before they know for themselves that they wish to be a Christian convert.
This “movement” includes those persons who describe their place in Christianity as “evangelicals”, and who are sometimes denominated as followers of “fundamentalism” (Coming from an effort in the early 20th Century to establish a set of beliefs that must be accepted, or else there is no hope for the would-be believer). It is such a wide and diverse movement that it defies logic to give it a simple description, in terms of beliefs, doctrines, and practices. But, from all appearances of much of the activity within this movement, these adherents have taken the position that their understanding of the Christian Gospel is the only one that would be acceptable to God and to Jesus Christ.
The apparent growth of this movement, especially with the advent of huge “megachurches” (that sometimes buy former sports stadiums to hold their crowds) and that are frequently started and led by charismatic preachers with captivating deliveries, apparently meets an obvious need today for a message that provides a sense of comfort and self-satisfaction. Indeed these adherents are promised lives (and after-lives) of very special rewards and descriptions (such as apocalyptic events that will separate the good from the bad as Jesus takes his true believers to heaven with him; while the rest of the world, namely sinners, are doomed to eternal hell.
There is no doubt that many of these followers experience the emotion of “feeling good” with the kind of message that they hear, week after week. In essence they are assured and are happy to know that they belong to a community that stands alone as the “children of God”, removed from the sinful nature of the society around them, and told that they alone will inherit eternal life as the true followers of Jesus Christ. Obviously, for them, this is truly “good news.”
“YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN”
A companion aspect that is firmly entrenched in today’s version of the type of so-called “evangelicalism”, described above, requires that in order to get into the “kingdom” brought by Jesus, the individual “must be born again”; that is, he rids himself of his old sinful self, in “accepting Christ as his/her ‘personal savior’. This alludes to a single citation in the latest of the Gospel narratives (the Gospel of John), when Jesus is quoted as telling a man that he must have this new birth that comes ONLY from an acceptance of Christ.
I feel that this was a means for a part of the early church in the community that preserved this gospel account showing that these followers of Jesus were absolutely turning from their old ways of strict Judaism. The Gospel of John contains many polemics against the Jewish beliefs and leadership of that day; most of which were not mentioned in the three earlier Gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark and Luke. Of course, as said before, even those three accounts did not agree on many events of what Jesus said or did; as each had been developed within particular faith communities during the first one hundred years after his death, apparently by different faith communities and authors, each with their own interpretations of the Christ event, yet with many common threads of belief and expression.
EXCLUSIVITY
Ironically, a similar position, i.e., exclusivity–”we are the only true Christian faith”, has been taken by the official and authoritarian Roman Catholic Church (mainly through its clergy and official hierarchy, centered in the papal leadership in Rome) for the many centuries that this branch of Christianity has been an organized force within the faith. The word “catholic”, is adapted from a Greek word meaning “universal”, which, of course, the leadership based in Rome has always insisted it means that it alone has the authentic Christian message and structure.
In other words, if anyone does not subscribe to the tenets of either of these interpretations of the Christian faith–the self-described “evangelicals” or the Roman Catholic church, that person, or any human organization of such persons, is not entitled to certain rewards that come with a faithful adherence to particlar specified doctrines about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The well-defined theory is that “Jesus died for your sins”, but this applies ONLY, exclusively to persons who follow those certain prescribed beliefs.
The consequence, then, is that non-believers, within the framework of either of these movements cannot expect the “salvation” that these religious groups feel can be obtained only through acceptance of their doctrines. In either case, this form of salvation seems to be one’s obtaining or reaching the promise of an eternal life after death, to be enjoyed in the company of all others who have followed these approaches to faith. It is customarily referred to as gaining one’s “heavenly reward”; and the assurance for such a believer is that he/she can be comforted now to realize that when this life is over, the end will be guided to a better and more complete fulfillment; and, above all, to know that this believer joins Christ in that afterlife, along with the believer’s loved ones, who hopefully also have reached that fate. For those on the outside, the final act wrought by “God”, as these religious groups define him, is one of “judgment”, or condemnation for one’s sins commited during his or her lifetime.
According to these exclusive faith beliefs, the ultimate result is–for the “true believer”, the eternal (after-life) promise and expectation is “paradise” or “heaven”; but for the non-believer, eternal “damnation” or “hell”!
From the perspective of this commentary these interpretations of the message and life of Jesus Christ, are NOT good news; not the gospel; not a message for the evangel, the bearer of good news. In essence then, it is difficult to see how such an interpretation of the Christian gospel and its mission is in principle and practice–genuinely evangelical.
Likewise, it is the position of this commentary that the term “evangelicals” is improperly claimed by self-appointed individuals and groups, if they insist on maintaining its use as an exclusive description of them alone as followers of the Christian faith.
My term for this approach to the Christian faith is that rather than the term “evangelicals” they should be called “excluvicals.”
CHRISTIANITY TAKES ITS PLACE IN HISTORY
Taking a historical perspective of this general subject may be helpful.
During the declining and devastating reign of the Roman Emperors, what we now know as the Western World was in turmoil,
and it was a time that “might makes right,” a concept that has prevailed through the pages of history; even today.
There is also a history of other areas on this earth whose great civilizations were struggling to maintain their power and their
prominence. (e.g. ancient Persian, Chinese and Egyptian empires). Of course, from the perspective of the sectarian and secular movements of our so-called “modern” world, much of the ancient world was in social and cultural darkness, and their written history and religious practices are known mainly through speculation and the use of scant ancient literary sources or discoveries through archeology.
If we are inclined to think that the Judeo-Christian faiths have some sort of primary corner on the religion market, one must wonder how a gracious, creative God could have overlooked these ancient civilizations, who apparently did not encounter (or develop) the same religious roots which our own faith-history provide us.
To say the least, as is the world situation today, the nations have always roared, cultures have risen and fallen, and there have been deep divisions among nations, societies, races–and yes, religions; many with some good times, and most with insurmountable problems. Slavery, suffering, oppression, exploitation and wars have been ongoing.
In the midst of all this, there were scholars and thinkers; there were sensitive and benevolent rulers and governments; and there were modest efforts at education and social improvement. But, all in all, from the evidence available to us, most people were not fortunate to be alive in those days. Same today, of course, for many human
beings around the globe.
Anyway, religions have always thrived–and died; usually at the behest of the rulers of the day; and often there would be a cadre of “holy men” (of course, usually males) who did their best (or worst) to develop religious ideals and practices that would guide (or control) the general populace, or at least those who found religion helpful, to make it through a primitive and often oppressive existence. Likewise, many of those same religions were a source of intimidation, exploitation and exclusion.
JUDAISM AS THE FORERUNNER OF CHRISTIANITY
About the time that the Roman Empire was dominating the area we know as Palestine (or, the ‘Middle East’) within social structures that benefitted the Roman government, the Jewish people were hanging onto a faith that had arrived in human history a thousand or so years before, which, according to their beliefs, was the result of being a “chosen people” by “Yahweh”, “Jehovah”, (“God”) to be a “light to all nations”. A big job, of course, but, it so happened that other societies (and other religions) did not care much for what was perceived as a presumptuous and prideful faith and culture; and as a result the Jews have had to struggle to keep their hopes and dreams alive as a people.
Their religion, called Judaism, ripened into a very definite set of rules, referred to as “commandments” (from God, of course) and liturgical or ritualistic practices that their clergy (priests and rabbis) devised to keep everthing about life in order (such everyday items as what to eat on certain days, or not at all; what to wear; special restrictive conduct for women, etc. etc.) Needless to say, there were onerous consequences if one broke the rules; similar to some Christian doctrines that if one does not accept certain concepts about Jesus Christ, there will be a judgment, by God, of eternal punishment.
DEALING WITH “PAGANS”
In the meantime, we would assume that in other areas of this big old world, there were other ways to define religious ideals, mores and human destiny; and also, nearby in the Middle East, there were countless religions that later would be referred to as “pagan” by the Jews (such as the mystery religions and worship of idols, associated with and controlled by royal types), and also considered as such by later followers of Christ.
In fact, during the time of the Christ-event, and before as the Old Testament describes, there are many religions that were far off base, according to the Old Testament and according to the Christians, and their own writings (the “New Testament” as a response to the “Old” Testament of the Jews) that evolved over several years after Jesus was executed by the Romans. So the idea of exclusive rights and rituals, as the only true religion, has been with us ever since human beings had differing beliefs of religious significance. As a result of this kind of thinking, history has clearly demonstated that millions of innocent people have suffered and died in the name of ridding the world of some “false” religion.
One can only wonder how all those millions–no, billions, of “pagans”, then, and up to now, have fared with their improper and imposter deities and religious ideas; especially after their deaths, which of course, was inevitable. The Egyptian rulers had tried to preserve their bodies for lives in the hereafter, but for the rest of the folks, not much to look forward to; apparently!
JESUS ON THE SCENE;
A WELCOME SAVIOR/MESSIAH
Along comes this man, Jesus; and according to his followers he does have a message for everyone–from God, no less. Everyone. Not just Jews; but they are welcome; yes– for everyone. (Apparently some Jewish sects did give credence to the Jesus event as one example of Yahweh’s revealing ‘Himself’ to the world.) The Christian theme has definite universal tones within its scope, as the Christians preferred a faith in Jesus Christ as the “Son of God,” not as some royal descendant from a line of “chosen” rulers. From all appearances and admonitions that we can discern from his example, we are helped to see that our lives can be fulfilled in love for our neighbor and ourselves, with a self-respect that enables us to be messengers–bearers of the good news, evangel-ists, each in our own way, with a message of love in a world of hate and distrust.
If we can ascribe any authenticity to the life and message of Jesus Christ, the man from Nazareth, he was the personification of love for one’s neighbor–even the enemies that confront us. This love means an acceptance of all persons, regardless of status or of any mistakes or failures they committed. His idea of love was one of a gift, without condition, based only on seeking to meet the other person’s needs within the abilities of each of us. He made it simple; all we need to do is to love God, which, he said, really means loving our neighbor, even our enemies, as we love ourselves. An expression of faith that defies any meticulous setting of rules or warnings of judgment or punishment; or for rewards.
So, the early Christians fully believed that the then thought-to-be sinful condition (for breaking the prescribed laws), that they had always been told was their lot in life, now felt that they were “forgiven” by a gracious “Savior”, who represented a God of love and redemption from the frailties of life. In a sense, this was a new freedom for all–absolutely all–of humankind. The only requirement was to simply accept it as a gift of good news that was revealed in Jesus Christ, and to see that each hearer of the good news could likewise be such a bearer, thus part of the evangel.
As a personal aside at this point, I do not believe that the freedom to accept (or reject) this gospel as seen in the person of Jesus Christ means that those who reject it, for whatever their reasons, or those who have never been exposed to it, have to fear or expect some sort of judgment by a vengeful “god” who we Christians feel with all our “heart, soul and mind” speaks to our own lives. destinies. The scriptures in their detailing of the example of Jesus Christ clearly demonstrate that he did not accept any sort of judgment of others; only love and concern for them.
However, it doesn’t take long for folks to make distinctions about Jesus’s message. For example: maybe it’s only for a few–”the elect” or “the chosen”; maybe it’s just for those who believe; maybe it’s for everyone; maybe he didn’t say this– or that; what did he mean when he said this? Etc. These are questions that have no final answer (except for the “excluvicals”, who feel that they alone have the message and are “saved” from damnation.
Furthermore, some persons like to choose their answers from selected statements or actions. For example, among the “fundamentalists”, mentioned previously, are people who feel that every word in the Bible is “true”, was “divinely inspired” by God, and must be taken just as it is written (perhaps depending upon which one of the many versions of the Bible you read).
And, then, after the tragic but seemingly miraculous story of his death and resurrection from the dead, the followers started calling themselves a strange thing–”the church”. (Patterned after some Greek word for a group of believers). Another name they commonly referred to for their movement was “the way.”
Jesus himself apparently didn’t set up too much of a structure, except he supposedly picked a dozen men to spread the word–the good news–they were entrusted with the evangel. (Remember, in those days, women were not usually accorded places of authority; so, we can wonder why, perhaps, Jesus did not challenge that system. We do know that he had women followers of note, and there is referrence to their loyalty to his mission, perhaps as much, if not, more courageous and devoted than the men at his side.)
All the faithful followers were soon considered evangel-ISTS. They had the good news that Jesus brought to a pitiful, miserable, divided world. As some scholars attribute the use of the title“evangelists” in the early Christian movement, the term did not so much describe an office or person so much as it did an “activity”. Even some of the major names in the early movement, such as “Paul” and “Peter”, new names that were given them because of special relationships to Jesus, according to certain scriptural passages.
According to one concise scriptural report, the promises of a faithful life result when each hearer can believe in just two things:
1. Love your God with all your being. He didn’t give too lenghty descriptions on who or what God is, but the early church liked the word “Father”, since that had been the frame of reference in the Jewish culture, and thus provided a ready understanding of the relationship of the Savior to God, and of the individual Christian to Jesus Christ (Now, a big question right off the bat might be, what gave Jesus the right to talk about the “Father”; “his Father” , as the early church recalled he said?
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. Now, there’s that all-encompassing word again; love; and to think that Jesus was said to announce that most of all, we must love our enemies.
“Tough to follow, Jesus; do you really mean it; what is love anyway!”
If we are to accept the writings of the New Testament, he made it clear that these really “non-rules” replaced the burdensome, judgmental commandments that the Jews of his day were desperately trying to follow; and he didn’t have too much to say about the Roman power structure and its laws, except that that form of government (with its puppets in Palestine) was the law of the day, so do the best you can, e.g., “Render unto Ceasar what belongs to him.” Figuring out exactly what that means is another challenge for anyone who takes seriously the words ascribed to Jesus. Some might argue that in his own teachings and ministry, Jesus had no quarrel with the customs and government of the day.
The early church did not see Jesus as a political radical, except that he questioned the strict application of the nitty-gritty Jewish laws, e.g., picking corn on the sabbath had been a no-no, he said (in one of my favorite scriptural passages), in so many words, “do it, if folks are hungry.” Also, he supposedly did not approve of some of the ecclesiastical practices at the neighborhood synagogue or temple.
Then, “Lo and behold” (which is a fairly imposing “religious” sort of exclamation), here comes a group of people over twenty centuries ago who tell a story about a faithful Jew, the man Jesus, who was supposedly born of a virgin mother in Bethlehem (a small town in Palestine; in a story very similar to a legend told of a deity in Persian and other ancient religious and mythical writings), and grew up in the town of Nazareth. According to these sorts of outsiders-Jews who followed Christ (because the Jewish power structure of their day rejected their highly suspect claim), this Jesus was the expectation of a “Messiah” or “Savior” that Judaism had been talking about all along, especially as dramatically detailed in some ancient writings, which we now call the Old Testament. The rabbis and the Jewish leaders had these “books” and many other ideas that were written, some proverbially, or literally, in stone; and which had to be recognized and followed daily (a body of devout and well-defined rules written in the Hebrew language, called the “Torah” (From the Hebrew language for “teaching”).
It was truly heavy duty for common folks to keep in line, and for the most part, the bulk of Jews were reminded that they were
sinners, pure and simple. But, there was the temple (for prayers) and synagogue (for instruction), and so long as they kept to the process, they would probably be OK in the eyes of Yahweh, or Jehovah, or God.
But the promises of an “after-life” were not so explicit as they were with the followers of Christ, many of whom had Greek concepts of “immortality” backgrounds, and the idea of a grand existence after death was part of the Greek mythology and religions. And, let’s face it, this kind of apocalyptic hope has managed to survive down through the centuries; and we might even see that in large measure, the promise of some sort of eternal inheritance was, and may still be, used as a motivation for some persons to willingly accept a version of the Christian message that holds out such a reward.
CHRISTIANITY GROWS UP
The New Testament writings evolved over a period of two hundred or more years (with lots of wrangling over which ones were authentic–one can just imagine the debates over what Jesus said, etc.); so we can only speculate how exact the recorders were of theevents in the supposed three years of the ministry of Jesus, especially given the unsophisticated means of written documents. The sources did not always agree, and it was obvious that different Christian communities had their own ideas about who Jesus was and what he said. But–all in all, without typewriters (what’s that!), telephones, computers, and newspapers, (even much writing material), how could we expect too much to be handed down over the twenty centuries of church history?
Christians today owe a lot to the courage and persistence of the followers of Jesus Christ during the first three centuries after his life on earth; especially considering that for much of that time, anyone owning up to his or her Christian faith was in jeopardy of a sentence of death, or at least recrimination.
Around 300 A.D. or so, (and we must remember that during that era of history, the dates were not timed according to Christ’s birth; that came later )there was a formal widespread Christian structure developing, mainly because the Roman Emperor Constantine thought it would be a good idea to tie in his rule with that of a religion that helped to keep people in line and under control. Many persons were “converted” at the point of the Roman sword. There were all sorts of ideas and great thinkers, called theologians, who decided they should wrap up the Christian faith with prescribed “confessions of faith” , or “creeds” (literally, a collection of accepted beliefs) and a holy book, or scriptures, certainly one that could respond to some of the untold truths of the Old Testament.
But, be sure of it, the Christian Church leadership, backed by the power of Rome, wanted to make it clear that to follow Jesus was to break with the Jewish faith and culture and a definitive response to the old pagan Roman and other gods. It is a new day for the followers of Jesus, some of whom had merely thought he represented an up-dated version of Judaism.
The tragic but monumental early years of Christianity, (the first three centuries) witnessed many of the followers being persecuted for their beliefs (and, truly countless of them remained faithful and courageous throughout); and their example eventually led to a general appreciation of the strength of the Christian faith.
But, for better or for worse an “ecclesiastical” (i.e.formal church structure) evolved that made sure the true faith was adhered to by the professing Christians. In a matter of time, there was the ongoing competition for power by the governmental authorities and the religious leaders; and the ensuing result was the constant maneuvering for “who is right”, “who is the bearer of the true faith”, etc. This lasted for centuries, of course, and when in Europe and parts of Asia (e.g Russia and Greece, which did not adhere to the Roman structure and doctrines) there was a questioning of the authority of the Roman church leaders, all sorts of offshoots developed; many thinkers and religious figures called the Roman church to account, most notably with the advent of the Protestant Reformation that made its biggest impact in the 15th Century and beyond in Europe. Even before then, around the year 1000 A.D., the Eastern (sometimes referred to as “Orthodox” Church) took hold in what we know as modern Greece and Russia.
So, the rather sad story is that the message, entrusted to the evangel, the bearer of good news to a suffering world, has been the subject of dispute and division for most of the twenty centuries of its existence. The only analysis of this “fracturing” is that, like the authors of the scriptures, the church was made up of frail human beings; “earthen vessels” was one term used in the New Testament.
Thus, since the dark and dreary days of the Middle Ages (5th through 14th centuries), when the mystery and frightening aspects of Christianity seemed to capture and control the masses of hapless, but uninformed believers, there have been reforming and transforming movements and persons in the history of the faith. The words and life example of Jesus, the story of whom resulted in a formulation of the GOOD NEWS (the Gospel), and the EVANGEL (the community of Christians bearing the message), that many have struggled (and argued) with through the centuries, still exists among a human society that keeps making this good news a promise of deliverance from the oppressive forces of life.
These faithful efforts comprise a guide by which each person can experience what it means to be an Evangel-IST in their own right; seeking ways to be faith-full and active in times of trouble, serving in earthly ways that we might consider as examples of a God embodied in the life of Jesus Christ, who has made words like “love”, “peace”, and “justice” genuine bases and purposes for the EVANGEL.
THE EVANGEL–A JOB FOR EACH OR ALL OF US, IF AND WHEN—
Recognizing that these thoughts of the Christian faith may be relevant to us, we can start practicing them, as we realize that the job of sharing this good news is not the exclusive responsibility of just you, me, or any few or special communities as expressions of the EVANGEL.
It is not the Evangel if this responsibility is only for “us” and NOT “them”. It is comforting to know that, whether a person subscribes to any particular ideas about Jesus, or his words and life, he or she can still be a part of the evangel, bearing the good news in the ways we meet and deal with our neighbor; maybe our enemies, too; each day. In the scriptures where Jesus is said to have told a “sinner, that he should go and sin no more, he didn’t say, “And be sure to follow the rules, doctrines and some religion I have set up.”
So we seem to keep having myriad fanciful distinctions and doctrines (which are devised by those of us who wish to make
our own interpretatons of Jesus or of the early writings–including the author of this commentary!) and which are constantly being disseminated among anyone who might accept them, and which have come (and still do) from self-appointed leaders or spokespesons over the centuries.
With a modicum of catchy and intriguing words or devices, often directed to the hungry emotions of trusting persons, it is a sad thing to see many persons misled (I must stress–in my opinion!), often by the beguiling exhortations of a captivating message and charismatic personality, who can use the basic tenets of Christianity to cajole or convince eager hearers to accept a version of the “evangel”, with an attendant promise of some reward that might even be other-wordly, many times at a price paid to the exhorter or some self-described religious entity.
In fact, it might be noted that even over the years, some of these very persuasive idealogues and their organizational structures have become embedded in society, and are unfortunately (again–in my opinion!) perceived by many persons as valid and faithful expressions of the evangel; and of the church, which many professing Christians of every persuasion, feel is “the body of Christ.”
There are Christian writings, even in the scriptures that reveal the human quality of the scribes who dared to transcribe the words, actions and events in the life of Jesus Christ. It is obvious that differing viewpoints existed, even during the early days; and, as we try to interpret what the words meant, within the context of the culture and circumstances of that day, we are challenged to see through the competing ideas, and yet realize that each writer, or community of writers responsible for any portion of the scriptures, was simply doing his or her best, human and imperfect as it was, to share the story of the Evangel as he, or she, or they heard and experienced it.
It is up to each of us, regardless of what we believe, or in whom we believe, or what words we use, or what group we belong to, to be interpreters in our own way of what a gospel of love means to us and can mean to those around us. We are then truly EVANGELICALS, and we are free to decide for ourselves what “good news” we want to demonstrate, regardless of what labels or language or lifestyle that best serves us and our neighbor.
One of the truly poignant passages in the New Testament comes in the event, known as the “Parable (story) of the Good Samaritan”, when Jesus Christ asked his followers to think long and hard on who is, and how do they define, their own neighbors. (After all, in that story, supposedly the Samaritan was an enemy–and thus excluded–from the Jewish community to which the story was told.) A real challenge; in spite of any religion or non-religion that we might seek to follow, and how we choose our own “good news” for the persons who make up our world.
Appendix:
THE ABC’s OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
There are three areas that provide the basic elements for this commentary:
A. THE SCRIPTURES THAT GUIDE US
B. THE STRUCTURE THAT MAINTAINS THE FAITH
C. THE SPIRIT THAT ENABLES THE CHURCH
First, a word of explanation: There are many; yes, many, historians, educators, writers, philosophers, scientists of one sort or another, theologians, and others of various backgrounds and persuasions, who are absolutely certain that the Christian faith, and its religious practices, historical and theological accounts are false; and are, in fact, based on unsubstantiated legends and myths that have different backgrounds and bases that are premised on ancient religions, customs, and mythologies. Further, there are well-meaning persons who feel that many aspects of the Christian faith and heritage reveal the use of the Christ-message in order to exploit or otherwise mislead hearers of the message based on the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.
I do not feel that persons who believe and put their trust in the Christian message, including myself, need to use our energies or any polemics to try to otherwise convince those subscribing to these understandings and interpetations of the Christian faith that has struggled and survived for more than twenty centuries.
Appendix A.
THE SCRIPTURES
Every established religious faith has some sort of written or documented sources to which the adherents refer for understanding and commitment to that faith. For the most part, these writings are considered to be “sacred” by the faithful community, ascribing to the authors some sense of authority derived from a deity or external power that has inspired the writers to chronicle the ways in which the message or missions have been, and continue to be revealed.
What trust or credibility anyone wishes to accord any written or spoken message or account is a matter of personal acceptance, and, again, I see no reason to dispute anyone on his or her own interpretation of the body of Christian literature that might differ with any words that have significance and meaning to me.
So it is, of course, for Chistianity, which for centuries has premised its own message on the writings of the early followers of Jesus Christ, finally determined by church leaders in the Fourth Century to be the most authoritative “books” that the original authors left for the ongoing church community to follow. These 27 books, known as the New Testament, were thought to be the products of persons who were close followers of Jesus, and were most likely written” and preserved during the first two centuries.
APPENDIX B.
THE STRUCTURE
One scriptural passage refers to the maintenance of the Gospel message in “earthen vessels”, which could be interpreted to mean a faith community, called “the church”, made up of ordinary, and extraordinary, individuals and groups, who heard the message of Jesus Christ, and then proceeded to establish an organism that would seek to carry on the traditions and promises that were revealed in the Christ event.
Just as any organized religion that depends upon mere mortals for its work in the world, the church has been made up of men and women who struggled throughout the church’s history, both within the community–yes, there were jealousies and divisions from the start–and in the larger world of ideas and forces, many of which rejected the message of Jesus Christ and any concepts that emanated from his life, death and Christ’s resurrection from the dead, believed by the church to demonstrate God’s lasting love for humanity. Some Christians like to say that “Jesus Christ died for our sins”, much like the Jews of his day stressed the need for offering some sort of sacrifice to Yahwey to “atone” for the sins of the faithful Jew and the Jewish community.
Of course, the church was first seen as something of an offshoot of Judaism, much like a sect (of which there were many in those days; and still today within the Christian community throughout the world). But not long within the first centuries that notion was discarded, as it was clear to the early Christians that what they sought for anyone who would hear the words of Jesus Christ was largely beyond the kinds of faith expressions of Judaism, even though the Jewish scriptures, and many of the customs of Judaism, were assimilated into the Christian ways of doing things. The Old Testament story of“the people of God”, those followers of Yahweh and Jehovah, their most common expressions of “God”, provided a basis for understanding the love of humankind by an omnipotent God (like a loving “Father”), who cared for his children, referred to in the Old Testament as the nation of Israel.
Accepted by the early church as a faithful Jew himself, Jesus was seen a new messenger who the eventual church came to believe; and that he was the fulfillment of the promises contained in the Old Testament faith. Jesus, too, was remembered as referring to God as “Father”, and that way of understanding and relating to the deity of Christianity has prevailed, although in recent decades more thought has been given to understanding God as more inclusive than in the father-masculine form. It was soon obvious to the followers of Christ that the Jewish leaders of his day simply could not accept him as the “Messiah” that all faithful Jews had longed for, and anticipated, as the “One” who would come to restore Judaism to its rightful place in a world of sin and disobedience to the laws of life that had been revealed through the long line of strong, and yet human forefathers of the Jewish community.
Jesus said that he had come to fulfill the longing and laws that had been designed and declared by the Jews for hundreds of years, and this position or claim, by Jesus Christ himself and by his followers was just too much for the Jewish leaders to swallow.
Many Christians have taken the position that the New Testament writings are “the inspired word of God”; with every word to be accepted as “true”, and not subject to question. A common refrain is , “Well if it isn’t all the inspired word of God, what parts are you going to accept, and what parts reject?”
Others of the faith feel that the authors of the New Testament (and the bearers of the oral traditions and the scriveners and interpreters of the scriptures and accounts of the life of Jesus Christ), although serving as the basic writings for our faith, are nevertheless best appreciated and understood by applying a critical and contextual approach to what they mean, without stringent and literal acceptance of many, if not most passages. Of course, a major item that is frequently up for debate is the account of Jesus’s birth, as being of a virgin mother. Or, the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; or the ascension into heaven; and, likewise, some of the “miracles” that Jesus might have performed, to show that he was fully on a par with God, above human limitations and abilities.
Thus a doctrinal statement that has long served in the expression of a Christian system of beliefs is that the faith is the result of a “holy trinity”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The was the result of the church fathers seeking to explain the theological basis of the faith; somewhat in response to the some positions that saw Jesus as a mere man, teaching good morals; or some sort of divine being, a non-human that did not share our common lot. All of these doctrinal niceties have, unfortunately, in my opinion, caused too much furor and disagreement, thus needless divisions within the church community which diluted the true message that had been entrusted to the followers of Jesus in the Evangel.
APPENDIX C.
THE SPIRIT
Why does any system of writings or historical happenings serve as any basis for religious faith? Why do Moslems, Buddhists, or the adherents of the Eastern mystery religions, or non-believers, or Christians hang onto their beliefs? What does it take to persuade any person, or community, or society, or culture to base their major or indeed ultimate life decisions upon some type of systematic theology (the explanations, theories and studies of religion)?
Constantine “convinced” many of his citizens to accept Christianity, because the structure of the early church around the year 300 A.D. seemed to strengthen and stabilize the Roman Empire; it worked for those who gained some sort of reward for being followers of Jesus Christ. While at the same time, and up to today, millions of dedicated, loyal, and enthusiastic adherents of the Christian faith will hasten to tell you that their own choice to follow the Gospel that came with the Christ event was not based upon force, or even some intellectual conviction, but rather was because they have been touched or influenced by the power and influence of a “Holy Spirit” that was left to the church when Jesus left the earthly realm. This concept came to the surface among the early church followers after they realized that Jesus was not returning in his human form to lead them in their faithful quest. We can only imagine the disappointment and disillusionment of the early church when Jesus did not float down from heaven to bestow upon the faithful few some heavenly reward that separated these mere mortals from the rest of the miserable sinful world around them.
This concept of “Spirit” has been so widely interpreted that it defies any single effort to describe it so that it is understood, or its effect is the same on all persons who confront the Christian message. To some it is a “feeling”, something that they simply know is acting upon their lives and their viewpoints of life. To others, it is more of a gradual, evolving intellectual understanding of how they can deal with the choices and exigencies of life; but not limited to some special emotion or simply personal inner emotion.
Suffice it to say, the Spirit is a force within the church community, and one also that motivates and inspires the church in its relationship to the world around it, regardless of how it might be structured, to carry the message, serving as the evangel to anyone where the church and its envangel-ists live.
In sharing the message within the Christian community–shared worship, education, service and mission to persons and conditions of their neighbors and society, in the family, and in any human experience that determines his or her own place in the world, the Christian of today can maintain a basic underlying concept of the Christian faith , namely that God directs and undergirds each hearer of the Gospel to sincerely recognize that he or she is called to be part of the evangel; therefore to be “evangelical”, in an all-inclusive (and diverse) family of fellow Christians.
IN SUMMATION
To “make a long story short,” I have attempted to say that the words evangel, evangelical, evangelistic, evangelism, and evangelist, should be used to describe the efforts of of ANY INDIVIDUAL, or any group, society, organization, or community that seeks to meet the needs of his/her/their neighbors in a spirit of love.
This is, in principle and practice, a message of good news, hope, and promise in the face of the frailties of life and death.
For the countless persons who have experienced in one way or another the good news shown in the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of the framework within which they have heard that message, there is an opportunity (better still, a responsibility) to share this good news in the most effective ways they can.
The basic premise of my commentary is that “the evangel” is not limited to specific kinds of words or actions, or to any exclusive manner of expressing and demonstrating the evangel. For me the Christ story assures me that the good news he symbolized means that each of us has an important part in this evangel, a part that we can experience with joy and without fear of failure and judgment.
