Am I Evangelical?

This semester I am a Teacher's Assistant for a class called Theology of Believer's Church Tradition. While the title of the class is problematic, as it begs the question what should we consider those outside of this tradition. BCT (as we call it) is a strand within "Evangelicalism" (a term that is slowly beginning to have its definition restored) holds to what we call the "four sola"s. The irony being that sola is Latin for "alone". The four "sola"s are sola gratia (Grace Alone). sola fide (Faith alone), , solus Christus (Christ Alone), sola scriptura (Scripture alone). So salvation is granted by grace alone to those who have faith alone in only Jesus Christ, which is revealed by Scripture alone.

I thought the veneration of scripture was unique to BCT, until recently I was reading Clark Pinnock's Most Moved Mover. In this work he writes that "as an evangelical, my primary commitment is to Scripture, not to tradition, reason, or experience because I believe that any authentically theological model must have biblical backing and resonance" (p. 19). I am unclear as to whether Pinnock means that because he is an evangelical, or that because of his understanding of a theological model he must venerate scripture above all else.

Let us presume he means that an authentic theological model that is biblically based must venerate Scripture above reason, tradition, and experience. It appears self-evident to me that such a model is possible without venerating scripture, as a base can have four corners. If it is not self-evident then that me show how this definition of what it is to be "biblically based" is inherently faulty. The scripture that we use today has been copied over the ages millions of times. In this copying we have been reliant on the reason of the scribes (guided by the Spirit) to take the manuscripts and discern what was editorial comments from the previous scribes and what was original content (hence the multiple ends of Mark). Furthermore, because of our Evangelical tradition we hold the 66 books of the Bible as scripture. If we were Catholic we would have more books that we would include as scripture.

Is it then that one must venerate scripture above reason, tradition, and experience? If this is what he means and it is true can those of us who use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to engage in the discipline of theology consider ourselves Evangelical? My understanding of the WQ is that scripture, reason, tradition, and experience are considered the four primary modes that God reveals himself (the four corners of our foundation). These four modes are not fit into some sort of hierarchy, but are equal in authority and each mode must adhere to the assertions of the other 3 modes. This four way system of checks and balances is to ensure that one mode is not venerated above the rest.

This leaves me asking: If Pinnock is correct about what it means to be an Evangelical and I am correct about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, then should I continue to consider myself an Evangelical or have I become orphan?

Goodbye Glam God

For those of us who remember the 80's, we would no doubt remember Glam Rock that was all about looking good. Ok, so maybe it was more about being flashy and extravagant, rather than looking good. Truth be told most of the artists looked like second rate comic book characters.

Seemingly unrelated, I have been reflecting on who God is and his relationship to us lately. When I consider how we depict God I feel as though in our attempt to convince people of how "cool" and "awesome" God is we have gone to the extreme of losing who God is in the flashiness of communicating his message. In our desire to share God we have been making him a flashy, over the top Glam God. I can understand the immediate objection being "God is so awesome that we can never over do it with God"! While I agree that God is beyond our ability to describe, in trying to emphasize God's "holy other"ness we often fail to emphasize his intimate relationship to his creation.

This failure to recognize that this infinite being, who is the source of all that is, has entered into his creation out of his longing to be in restored relationship with his creation, results in us reducing YHWH to the cold, distant, God of Aristotle. He's not wanting to make us a club member or make us "behave". He's wanting us to be in an interactive and intimate relationship with him. Although this may mess with some people's definition of immutable (I question how much our definition of immutable is scriptural & how much is a result of Greek philosophical indoctrination), I will say that our relationship to God is such that God is changed (not in character) by being in relationship with us. I do not mean that some how God is deficient, in himself, by not being in relationship with us. I am merely stating that God experiences joy and love that is unique to the relationship he has with the individual that he would not experience in any other relationship.

In our communication of who God is we need to say goodbye to the Glam God and embrace and emphasize God, the "holy other",who took on flesh and dwelt for awhile among us and knowing no sin became sin for us, so that we can live in intimate relationship with him.

In the words of Bonhoeffer, "Our relation to God is not a 'religious' relationship to the highest, most powerful, and best Being imaginable- that is not authentic transcendence- but our relation to God is a new life in 'existence' for others' through participation in the being of Jesus."