Isn’t this the heart of the evangelical movement? Preaching Christ to all?
Posted by Jim on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008In a comment on Only Prostitutes Rank Lower Than Evangelicals, Kirk says
It seems to me evangelicals have gotten away from what made them ‘evangelical’ in the first place, and that’s why people have a low view of them. Evengalicals should be more concerned with God’s view of them and not man’s. What about the role of proclaiming the gospel message of Jesus Christ and cultural image? How do those fit together? And should we even focus on the idea of whether people like us or not if it causes us to compromise on the proclamation of Jesus? I guess I challenge the entire premise and nature of the question itself.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Who were the first evangelicals anyway?
What were their distinctives?
At the risk of sounding like I have an opinion
Let me suggest that people such as William WIlberforce and the Clapham Sect were truly the first evangelicals.
Others like John Wesley and George Fox might also be considered early evangelicals
Here are some of their thoughts about how what we now call Evangelicals might behave.
All quotes from
William Wilberforce: The Life of the Great Anti-Slave Trade Campaigner
by William Hague
“As early as 1671 George Fox… had called on slave owners not to use cruelty toward Negroes and that “after certain years of servitude” should set them free” pp 131
“By 1774 John Wesley as railing against the slave trade and all who took part in it, threatening slave traders with a worse fate than Sodom and Gomorrah” pp 131
“The arguments of the Quakers were one of the several powerful forces at work in North America in the 1760s and 1770s which would contribute to opening up the debate over the slave trade in Britain.pp 133
These are our evangelical forefathers - they rank head and shoulders above even eminent modern day evangelicals like Billy Graham.
The preached what they practiced not vice versa
July 15th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
What about the early church? Would you contend that Paul and Peter in Acts did the same as the men you mention?
July 16th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Yes - they worked among the poor, they did not seek political influence and they were both feared and respected by the local populace. They made their reputation serving the poor.
No?
July 16th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I agree you gain influence by serving others. Jesus gave that model. I agree that the disciples did not seek political influence. I love how the early church gained incredible political influence in Rome by helping those in the epidemic when no one else would. I wish James Dobson and others would have followed that model. (I know they help a lot of people too).
I woud challenge you on the feared and respected part. That certainly was the case in some places, but definitly not on others. I think of Paul’s imprisonement and the riot in Ephesus to mention two. I would contend that their reputation was on the proclamation of the Gospel. This is why Paul ws imprisoned, beaten, stoned, and the like.
It probably isn’t on or the other, but a blending of the two. Why must I be so polar in muy thinking? How do you see Paul proclaiming the Gospel meshing with the mission of the poor/emslaved/etc? And how can that be a model for us?
July 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm