Objections

Some have objected to my pulling not away from, but back from, independent evangelicalism on the grounds that the division that exists in the evangelical church is largely superficial, that is division does occur, but not usually on the basis of major theological issues.

I agree in part, that the evangelical world has not as a whole repudiated essential Christian doctrine, and that division often occurs for petty and personal reasons, rather than doctrinal ones. Thomas Oden and J.I. Packer have just published a book, One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus, which attempts to show that on essential doctrine, evangelicals do have a common core of belief.

But as I look back on division as I have seen, experienced and to some degree participated in it, I have to counter that in nearly every case, division had a theological root.

One church split, in part, because of differing views of eschatology. The congregation held a pre-tribulation rapture view, that Christ would remove the church from the earth prior to seven years of judgment which precede his physical return in His second coming. The pastor held a post-tribulation view and sincerely felt that if believers, expecting to be "rescued" from such a time of tribulation were not in fact "snatched away", they would be ill equipped to deal with the struggles, suffering and persecution that might follow (assuming, as all did, that we were in fact near the "end times".) To evangelicals in the late 1970s, this was neither a petty nor a non-theological issue. And it is not insignificant that these intense debates are over a view of eschatology unknown to the church prior to the 19th century.

A second issue contributing to a major division was interpretation of scripture regarding moderate social drinking. Was it acceptable for a Christian adult to drink a beer with a friend? Romans 14 was quoted, emotionally and passionately insisting that it was wrong to cause young Christians to stumble. (It was not noted quite as strongly that Romans 14 also speaks of passing judgment on another for what he eats or drinks.)

A church struggled with division over a building program centered largely on the evangelical practice of the "faith promise". The congregation was expected to make a pledge of contributions "over and above" the normal tithe, trusting God to provide the extra on the basis of faith. The questions "faith in what? Faith for what? On the basis of what?" were not questions I asked as a young adult. I supported the project and the leadership. But the nebulous realm of undefined faith led to bitter and acrimonious exchanges about "pushing" on the part of leadership and "resisting" on the part of the congregation.

Then, in yet another situation, there was the issue of "signs and wonders" theology. According to this line of thinking, true revival comes when the Holy Spirit "moves" in power. Revival will occur when people see miracles, healings, changed lives, and things that are beyond the realm of normal experience. Unfortunately, at least one "healing" turned out to be bogus, and weekly sermons tended to use scripture as a proof text for a pre-conceived conclusion, rather than reading scripture objectively and allowing scripture to speak for itself.

Finally, in a long protracted struggle, there were issues related to authority. Where does authority come from? How far does it extend? Who gives authority and how? When can authority be questioned? If Elders are elected for a "term" by a congregation, are they accountable to the congregation? Does the pastor cast the vision for the church or does the church cast its own vision? Does the youth pastor set the tone for his program or does he try to please the parents? When conflict arises how is it resolved and by whom? Does the denomination have a right to interfere? Does the denomination have a responsibility to interfere?

Because evangelicals have as the rock bottom foundation for their existence the authority of scripture, every issue is at its heart theological. And this is the problem, exacerbated by the individualism of the late twentieth century, that critics of evangelicalism most often point to. Since evangelicals generally accept the idea of the right of personal interpretation, that scripture is not the exclusive domain of the clergy, it becomes the private right of each individual to make up his or her own mind about everything.

And since we, as evangelicals, have little or no knowledge of the history of Christianity, save for a general knowledge of Luther and the Reformation, most read scripture in a historical vacuum. We lack context for our personal Bible reading and it becomes very subjective. Scripture means what we understand it to mean, and as such, it does not have the authority for "correction, reproof, and training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16) that it should. It is an exaggeration to say, as Franky Schaeffer has, that we become our own popes, but even an exaggeration has an element of truth.

There is a passage in Vincent's Commonitorium that I wish every evangelical could memorize. "Here, it may be, some one will ask, Since the canon of scripture is complete, and is itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it...Therefore, because of the intricacies of error which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic (Universal)."

Vincent assumes scripture is complete, that it is abundantly sufficient. That is not the question. What he adds, he adds because even in his day, multiplicities of interpretation existed. What is needed is a standard of interpretation. What is that standard? His answer, "...we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

My problem is simple. I have come to understand that scripture alone as the most authoritative written record of apostolic teaching, sola scriptura, though it is a true concept, is an insufficient one. It is impossible to have a stable approach to scripture apart from the history of the church. And the more I studied the church of history, the less it looked like the congregationally governed, variety-show influenced, people focused, constantly changing organizations I had associated with for a quarter century.

I was not, and am not seeking a personal preference for something "new" or "different". I am not abandoning rationality in favor of "mystery". I am not abandoning scriptural authority in favor of ecclesiastical power. I am trying to delve more deeply into truth, to be submissive to something higher than myself, to stand on the shoulders of those who have come before. I am trying to be obedient to the teaching of the apostles. And I found I could not do that in churches where independence is the dominant guiding principle.