Category: Evangelical Theology

‘Nailing’ the essence of the Reformation: Key catchphrases

We’ve finally reached 31 October 2017 – 500 years since Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg  Church door on All Hallow’s Eve in the hopes of sparking a debate within the Catholic Church about the nature of repentance and the appropriateness of indulgences.

There are many ways we can celebrate this momentous anniversary, but there’s little point in any of it if we don’t understand what the Reformation was really about. Here’s a very brief guide to the essence of the Reformation, through the lens of the key catchphrases that summarise the truths that Luther, Calvin and their colleagues contended for so vigorously.


“Scripture Alone” (Sola Scriptura)

Protestants believe that many people and things in our lives can carry authority, provide information or act as guides to us. But “Scripture Alone” means we recognise the Bible as the only infallible (i.e. unfailing and therefore reliable) Word of God that conveys His supreme authority to our lives. There are many voices in the world with much to say about God, sin, salvation, happiness and how we approach life now and our eternal future. But only the Bible is inspired by God (see 2 Timothy 3:16) and teaches with certainty “all things that are necessary for life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3, LEB).

This belief stands in contrast to the traditional view of the Roman Catholic Church, in which the Pope and priestly hierarchy have the authority to interpret the Scriptures for the laity (i.e. the common people) and make determinations about what people should believe and how they should live.

“Grace Alone” (Sola Gratia) 

This refers to the basis for our salvation. God doesn’t save people because they are good, because they do good, or because they’re clever enough to figure out the truth about Him and believe. God saves people who are dead in their sins because of His own gracious and kind disposition towards them. No one earns or warrants salvation at any stage of their lives – if we receive eternal life it’s completely due to God’s mercy and generosity.

This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic view that, in addition to God’s grace, we are saved on the basis of what we do and what we become.

“Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) 

This is inseparable from “grace alone,” but it refers to the means by which we receive justification (our right standing or right status before God). God counts the Christian as righteous due to their union with Christ by faith. The believer is fully right in God’s sight from the moment they trust in Christ and what He has done for them (i.e. His perfect obedience, death and resurrection) and they are never more justified than they were at that point.

This is in contrast with the Roman Catholic system, which taught that faith plus works contributed to our receiving of salvation and that our co-operation was absolutely necessary in the process.

“Christ Alone” (Solus Christus)

This refers to the question of who acts as mediator between us and God and whose help we need in order to be saved. Protestants believe that salvation only comes through the person and work of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12) and that we approach God through Jesus alone – as the only Person who is simultaneously divine and human. We relate to God and receive life from Him, through faith in Jesus – and not through any other means or mediators.

This stands in contrast to the Roman Catholic system of many heavenly mediators we can call upon for help (Mary, saints, angels) and earthly priests who stand between us and God/Christ.

“To the Glory of God Alone” (Soli Deo Gloria)

Because an individual can take no credit for their own salvation by grace, and because their church, or priest (or a heavenly mediator like Mary) cannot be credited with bringing about their salvation either – God alone receives all glory for saving sinners. The purpose of our salvation, in the Protestant faith, is for God to be glorified as a merciful and powerful Saviour.

This stands in contrast to Catholicism where the Christian who enters heaven is partly responsible for their arrival there and the Pope, Church, priests, Mary, saints and others can receive some of the credit for aiding them in their salvation.


The Threefold Office of Christ (Triplex Munus)

This refers to Jesus being God’s “anointed one” (Messiah/Christ) in three specific senses. He is the Ultimate Prophet who reveals God and His will to us like no one before or after Him has done. He is the Great High Priest who makes atonement for our sins and grants us unrestricted access to God. He is the Supreme King who rules over all and helps us conquer sin, Satan and the world.

This idea was not invented in the Reformation (it’s much older), but as an extension of the Reformers’ belief in “Christ Alone” this understanding of Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King became an antidote to the Catholic system of unnecessary spiritual mediators. Jesus spoke directly to believers through the Word – God did not have to reveal new things about Himself through priests. Jesus opened the way for intimate communion with God, by His blood – Christians didn’t need to come through priests, Mass or the saints. Jesus ruled as King – believers could follow and obey His orders without being enslaved to the invented rules and teachings of the Catholic hierarchy.

Priesthood of All Believers (Presbyterii fidelium)

This is a key idea that flows out of the one directly above. The Reformation abolishes priests as a special religious class, because Jesus Himself did so as our High Priest. All believers, young or old, educated or uneducated, married or single, were priests in the true sense and had the privilege of access to God through Christ and the responsibility to pray and care for other believers.

Back to the Sources” (Ad Fontes)

A cry of the humanistic Renaissance that became an important principle for the Reformers. The Reformers did not take the Catholic Church’s word for granted when it came to how the Christian faith should be understood and practiced. Instead they went back to the prime source of our faith, the Holy Scriptures, and searched them for themselves. They also read the works of Christians from earlier centuries in an effort to discover what had always been understood as true and what had gradually been introduced or invented by the Church. This was a crucial principle that allowed reform to take place.

Repent” (Poenitentiam Agite)

The 95 theses that instigated Luther’s programme of reform hinged partly on how to understand the Latin phrase for repentance.

Luther rejected the idea that repentance amounted to doing the acts of penance prescribed by the Catholic Church and instead saw it as a genuine spiritual turning from sin that was expressed in appropriate outward behaviour. Forgiveness from God was not attained through religious performances, donations or any action of the penitent. It was freely granted on the basis of God’s grace to those who turned from their sins and exercised faith towards Jesus Christ.

Here I Stand…” (Hier stehe ich)

When Luther was called before the Diet of Worms (a political and religious assembly in the Holy Roman Empire) to give an account for his beliefs, the Catholic authorities called upon him to renounce what he had been teaching.

Luther famously replied,

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

The phrase has become a catch-cry for subsequent generations of Protestant Christians as a symbol of bold defiance towards Catholic pressure to betray the truths the Reformers rediscovered in the Scriptures.

After Darkness – Light” (Post Tenebras Lux)

This phrase has come to serve as a motto of thankfulness and hope in relation to God’s deliverance of His church out of the spiritual darkness of medieval Catholicism through the light of the gospel recovered at the Reformation. It recalls the messianic hope of Isaiah 9:2 “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.” (NIV).

Christians before 1517 were kept in the darkness of ignorance by the church that refused to give them access to the Scriptures in their own language. They were at risk of eternal darkness because the gospel of Christ was obscured by erroneous teachings. But wherever Protestantism has spread, God has brought light to His people through His Word and the clear preaching of the Gospel of His Son.

Always Reforming” (Semper Reformanda)

Some churches self-identify as “reformed” in reference to the fact that their beliefs and practices have been shaped by God’s Word and the principles emphasised during the Reformation. But while there are no grounds to reinvent Christianity every generation or re-evaluate the core truths that Christians have always understood as both biblical and essential – there remains a need for Christians to have the desire to be continually reformed by the Word of God.

The motto Semper Reformanda drives a stake deep into the heart of the attitude that says “We’ll keep doing things this way at church, because it’s just the way we’ve always done it.” It demands constant obedience to God’s Word and re-evaluation of doctrine and practice when Scripture shows us to be deficient in some areas. We do not foolishly reject history and tradition for an approach that seeks to change the church based on what we “feel” needs altering. But we do recognise that we have not finally arrived at perfect theology, Christlikeness, piety or obedience and that God will continue to show His people where we need to repent and be reformed – until the return of His Son to rule over us directly for all eternity.


Happy 500th Anniversary of the Protestant Reformation!






Atonement and the Japanese (Pt. 2)

[Please start with part 1 here]

In the previous post, I made some introductory remarks about the doctrine of atonement, the importance of getting it right and the difficulties in communicating the vital biblical truths about atonement to those who come from a very different cultural background to us. I would like to elaborate further in this post and go into some further detail.

The way we express atonement in Western evangelicalism along with the way we talk about sin (and the relationship between the two) seems heavily shaped by a Western legal framework we’ve inherited from Roman culture and Roman Christianity. Penal Substitutionary Atonement addresses the common notion of sins as a legal transgressions: offences against God’s law; crimes which must be punished. We break the law, disobey God’s commands and commit unrighteous actions and each one adds to the list of indictments that will lead to our eternal condemnation for our sins. Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law, embodied what it meant to be righteous in God’s sight and died in our place “the just for the unjust” (1 Pet 3:18). He “cancel[ed] the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” (Col 2:14). And the Scriptures clearly testify that Christ’s death directly addressed the issue of our trespasses and transgressions against God and His commands (see for instance, Isaiah 53, Rom 4:25, Eph 1:7, Col 2:13,  Heb 9:15). There is no denying that this emphasis is biblical and vital to our understanding of atonement.  However, the proclivity some of us evangelicals have for focusing almost exclusively on the legal aspects of the atonement is probably still linked to Protestantism’s emergence out of the legal Roman cultural and religious traditions.


There is some evidence from church history that suggests this might be the case. In Eastern Orthodoxy, which had a different cultural milieu to Western Christianity and was less influenced by Roman culture, sin is thought of more as “falling short” of one’s divinely-intended human potential (suggested by the Greek hamartia, translated as sin in English, which was originally an archery term) and therefore the work of Christ was largely understood to be a restoring of humanity to their full potential (namely theosis, or participation in the divine nature). The Eastern omission of the penal element of atonement makes their view grossly defective from the perspective of an evangelical like myself, however it allows us to see how different aspects of sin and atonement might be emphasised in non-Western forms of Christianity.

Picture 077

In expressing the atonement in a non-Christian religious climate and non-Western cultural environment like Japan, evangelicals should never be satisfied by an understanding like that of Eastern Orthodoxy that omits essential truths we know to be biblical. However, we should also not be satisfied by expressing Christ’s work in terms that are more apt at addressing a Catholic religious context or a Western cultural mindset. This means that while it is never acceptable to downplay or omit the legal aspect of the atonement, it may be necessary to appreciate other aspects of the atonement more deeply in a complementary way, in order to communicate the biblical truths effectively to people of different cultures.

In the Japanese evangelistic context, the word most commonly used to translate sin/hamartia is tsume. This has long caused difficulties for foreign evangelists and Japanese Christians when sharing the gospel, as the word is most commonly used for criminal acts and many Japanese are conscientious citizens who find it difficult to accept the notion that they have committed a “crime” against a God they have never known. While I believe that Japanese must accept the truth that they have violated God’s standards of righteousness (and acknowledge that many people in other societies find the notion that they are “sinners” or “transgressors” offensive!) – I have come to wonder if we must help them get to that point by presenting aspects of the atonement that are more relatable to the Japanese mindset as the first point of contact.


Missiologists, along with other students of Japanese culture, have identified the concept of wa  (和) as essential to Japanese culture. Wa is difficult to translate precisely, but it is in many ways analogous to harmony. Social conformity is a highly valued virtue in Japanese society, because it preserves the wa between people within small groups and the nation. Participation in community religious festivals is also largely driven by a commitment to social harmony, but naturally a sense of harmony with nature and the Shinto gods is also a feature of Japanese society and religion.

Relevant questions to ask at this point are: “Does the biblical presentation of Christ’s atoning work have something to say to the core Japanese values system?” and “Does the Japanese emphasis on wa have potential as an idea Christians can engage with in a biblically faithful way that will help Japanese understand the gospel?”

While I don’t think I’ve arrived at a fully-formed perspective on these questions, after some early thinking, my tentative answer is yes to both. In the remainder of this post, I’ll give a brief explanation as to why.

I suspect the biblical worldview and the Japanese worldview can intersect if the transgression of Adam and Eve is explained (at least partially) as a violation or disruption of the perfect harmony that existed in Creation prior to the fall. The everything of creation that God saw and declared to be good included the reality that absolute wa existed between Creator and his creatures. This understanding of creation is closely related to the biblical ideas of shalom as the peace available under God’s perfect rule and the Kingship of God over His creation (as presented, for example, as the starting point of the 2 Ways to Live gospel presentation). When humanity chose to “go their own way”, we became the original destroyers of divine harmony; we dishonoured God instead of giving Him the honour He deserved as our Great King and although we have attempted to create our own societies and live together independently of God – our wa is always a broken one, our peace always fragile and we are unable to restore the divine harmony we breached.

Death, disease, destruction, despair, frustration, fragility, fear and fighting are all reminders that we are not at harmony with the divine, that God’s anger is directed towards us due to the way we have dishonoured His name and rejected His rule. Hell is a place of eternal disharmony and discord, where God consigns us to feel the weight of our rejection of Him, our inability to repair the dishonour we have done Him and to experience an everlasting existence without hope of seeing our lives restored to a harmonious relationship with our Creator.

When Christ’s work of salvation is understood through the grand lenses of atonement (i.e. “at-one-ment” as described earlier) and reconciliation, I believe the reality of our severe disharmony with God is powerfully addressed at the cross. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:19-20, ESV)

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph 1:7-10, ESV)

Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension and second coming all work together to reconcile corrupt humanity and the fallen universe to God, His perfect rule, order, plan and blessing. The harmony that Japanese culture extols as the greatest value can only be realised in Christ. And the attempts of the Japanese to form harmonious societies independently of God and irrespective of the broken relationship between humanity and their rightful king, is part of their rebellion. Because I don’t think the death of Jesus can be explained without delving into issues of guilt and culpability, penalties and consequences, at this stage I think I would try to demonstrate how our violation of God’s created harmony is simultaneously disobedience to His rule and commands that made such a peace possible. The notion of sin as treason may work well in communicating this.

While I still have a fair bit of fine tuning to do (which I anticipate will come through further interaction with Japanese Christians, Japanese non-Christians and missionaries serving in Japan), I expect a gospel presentation like 2 Ways to Live can work quite well as a tool for communicating the good news to Jesus, so long as the wa aspect is adequately communicated throughout the presentation.

Do you have any experience communicating the truths of the gospel and Christ’s atoning work to people from non-Western cultures that lack a Catholic/Christian heritage? What have you found helpful or challenging as you seek to be faithful to the unchanging gospel, whilst being understandable to your audience?

Atonement and the Japanese (Pt. 1)

If you’ve done some exploring regarding the work of Christ on the cross, you’ll likely have come across several different “theories” of how to understand what we call the atonement. What you believe about the atonement; the words and images you use to describe it; and how you think it affects our relationship with God usually says a lot about where you sit on the theological spectrum. Correct views about Christ’s work of redemption are crucial to healthy Christian thought and spiritual development, while erroneous teachings about the atonement may be significant cause for concern about the biblical faithfulness of a person’s views on Christianity.

5862827861_28e4299524_z                                                                                                                                                 [2]

The understanding of atonement that I hold and consider to be vital to Christian understanding of the cross is commonly referred to as penal substitutionary atonement. “Penal” refers to Christ bearing the penalty of our sin upon the cross, the way a criminal might bear the just punishment for their crimes. It is inseparable from the idea that the wrath of God against human sin was poured out upon the crucified Christ and that this was necessary for sinners to be reconciled to God. “Substitutionary” communicates the idea that everything Christ endured on the cross was done for us and for our salvation: in other words, Jesus died in our place, the sinless Saviour representing sinners – as God executed judgement upon His Son as though it were us on the cross receiving our due for rebelling against Him. Atonement itself was said to have been invented by English Bible Translator William Tyndale to communicate in English the idea of God and humanity being “at one” again, as a result of the person and work of Christ.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is fiercely defended in many evangelical circles and many theologians, pastors and church leaders are greatly troubled when differing aspects of the atonement are elevated to a position that takes precedence over the above understanding of Christ’s work. Some of the other proposed atonement paradigms include: Christus Victor (the atonement is about Christ’s triumph over the evil spiritual forces of the world); Moral Influence theory (Christ died as an example to humanity of what love and ethics we should strive for); and Ransom to Satan (Christ’s death was payment to Satan to “buy back” sinful humans, rather than a sacrifice that dealt with sin in the sight of God). I find the latter view completely unacceptable and regard the essence of the other two views as aspects of Christ’s death that need to be appreciated as elements of His work that are subordinate in importance to the penal substitutionary aspect.


A problem arises though when it comes to maintaining faithfulness to what one sincerely believes that the Scriptures teach and emphasise, and contextualising the gospel so that people from diverse backgrounds understand what Jesus did for them in ways that address the fundamental concerns of their culture and beliefs. I simultaneously recognise one particular view of the atonement as valid above all the other proposed models, yet at the same time I can see how our articulation of it predominantly addresses the Western mindset we’ve inherited from Roman civilisation and Roman Catholicism. In nations like Australia, the UK and the USA, the way I am used to expressing the atonement over and against the inherent legalism of Roman culture and Roman Christianity and the modernist heresies of liberal Christian groups is, I believe, the necessary way to communicate the biblical truths concerning Christ’s work on the Cross to Christians and non-Christians alike (whether its in the context of discipleship or evangelism).

But in thinking about how to communicate these truths in a very different culture, specifically Japanese culture, I’ve been forced to think carefully about how I can emphasise what the Bible emphasises and not concoct “new truths” to share with the Japanese, whilst at the same time not falling into the trap of delivering a pre-packaged, Westernised presentation of the gospel to people who have a very different cultural and religious starting point to the once Christianised societies of the Western world.

Francis Xavier – bringer of Catholicism to Japan

Let me spell out some of the obvious differences. The Greco-Roman cultural and philosophical values that have always been part of the Western mindset are not the same as the Far-Eastern, Confucian values that characterise societies like Japan. Despite coming to Japan via Jesuit missions in the 1600s, Roman Catholicism has never been the dominant religious force in Japanese society and in fact it was outlawed and brutally oppressed for many years – severely limiting its impact upon national life. As a natural result, while Protestantism “naturally” arose in European countries like Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Scotland and England, when people turned to Scripture as a higher authority than the papacy and the Church – Protestantism in Japan has never arisen as a response to Catholic teaching, cultural dominance and abuses of power. It has come from other parts of the world as a pre-packaged response to somewhere else’s ecclesiastical problems. And naturally, while Japan has been enormously influenced by the modern West in the last 150 years, it has not directly had cultural movements like the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which were arguably only possible in the Western-Christian context in which they occurred.

On one level, evangelical Protestantism and its understanding and articulation of the gospel is completely valid and even needed in relation to the Japanese context. For one, it’s goal is to be thoroughly biblical and therefore the discoveries it has made from the Word of God in relation to core principles of Christianity are universally applicable. They have something to say to every culture on Earth. Furthermore, they are legitimate because Catholicism is in Japan and chances are that what little the average Japanese man or woman knows about Christianity will come from Catholicism. Since Catholics are committed to promoting Roman dogma to the four corners of the globe, we must be ready to counter it by clarifying what the Bible teaches on a range of issues and our experience in the historical controversies within Western Christianity will offer us many of the tools for doing that. Western cults like JWs and Mormons are also present and promote their own corruptions of orthodox teaching on topics such as the atonement. The resources for dealing with these aberrant movements will also come from the Western experience.

But my concern is that in order to be faithful evangelicals in Japan, we must not simply recycle pre-packaged Western Protestant methods of communicating Jesus and articulating the faith, if they do not take seriously the fact that Japan is less like 16th century Catholic Germany or 21st century post-Christian Australia and perhaps more like the pagan frontiers of non-Roman Europe in the early centuries of the church. Our gospel will be the same, our basic understanding of the atonement will not change. But how we introduce, explain, illustrate and apply this core aspect of the gospel may need to look different to what we’re used to in our Western contexts.

I’ll share more about what I’ve been thinking in regards to this issue in the next post…

[1] Rumble Press “3D_Judges_Gavel” (CC BY 2.0) flickr

[2] Yu Tung Brian Chan “Peace!” (CC BY-NC 2.0) flickr.

[3] György Soponyai “St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City” (CC BY-NC 2.0) flickr.

[4] Billertl – “Statue of Saint Francis Xavier, at St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church, in Superior, Wisconsin” CC BY-SA 4.0 wikimedia commons


Valentine’s or “Vale Lent Time”?

This Sunday is the perhaps the peak of “cultural Catholicism” in 2016. For one thing, it will be the most widely observed Saint’s Day in Australia and the West – St. Valentine’s Day. It’s amusing how many people who wouldn’t have a clue when the ancient feast days of the great apostles fall in the liturgical church calendar will get in on the act of celebrating a day commemorating the martyrdom of an obscure Italian bishop. But then Valentinius has an advantage over Peter, Paul and John in the 21st century, since medieval Catholicism did him the favour of venerating him as the patron saint of the part of life that enjoys perhaps even more idealisation today than ever before: romantic love.

St. Valentine

Now of course in 2016, Hallmark and the advertising industry have a lot more clout in shaping how you’re supposed to think about this day and celebrate it than the Vatican does. But nevertheless, I simply want to point out the anomaly of this day – the one time a year that the staunch atheist and decidedly unceremonial “low church” Christians embrace some vestigial martyrology now unrecognisable beneath the garb of cultural commercialism and modern notions of romantic love.

On the other hand, it’s the first weekend of the season of Lent – observed by Catholics worldwide in the lead-up to Easter and present in the traditions of certain Protestant churches that have retained the Catholic liturgical calendar and some of its ceremonial practices. Evangelical Christians, particularly those of the non-liturgical, less-ritualistic “low church” variety have often viewed Lent as an extra-biblical (or even unbiblical) season and eschewed the fasting and other observances that go along with this period. But as Christians of this variety grow increasingly open to considering the value of practices and traditions from outside their own denominational background or “camp” – experimenting with Lent appears more common amongst evangelicals than in the past.

But as the first Sunday of Lent draws near, I’m more inclined to enjoy some meat instead of fasting and commemorate “Vale Lent Time” than Valentine’s. This is not just an effort to be snarky towards traditions with Catholic trappings that I dislike. My anti-fasting commemorates one of the most important events in the Protestant Reformation: one which was inseparably linked to questions of Lenten observance.

While many Christians will be aware of the event nearly 500 years ago that is often spoken of as the flashpoint that started the Reformation – Luther’s nailing of his 95 theses to the Wittenberg Door – fewer are aware of the event that escalated tensions between the Catholic church and those who would become the Reformers of Switzerland. In 1522, a few years after Luther’s infamous challenge to Catholic practice, the “Affair of Sausages” caused a storm in Zurich, which led to a chain of events that were pivotal to the Swiss Reformation.

On the first Sunday of Lent, Christoph Froschauer, a Swiss printer, violated the fast from meat that was officially sanctioned by the Church for the period leading up to Easter, by serving his employees and friends sausages for supper. He was subsequently arrested for this act of defiance against the authority of the church’s teachings concerning Lent.


Ulrich Zwingli, the premiere Swiss Reformer was present that evening (as were many of the figures who would later play a significant role in the Swiss Reformation) and defended the breaking of Lenten rules in his subsequent church sermons by appealing to the Scriptures and noting the lack of a biblical warrant for enforcing fasting during this period and the New Testament’s emphasis instead on freedom in the gospel. What many of us take for granted nearly 500 years later was revolutionary preaching in 1522 in the face of the often unbiblical, artificially constructed religious regulations of the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy. Evangelical freedom to practice one’s faith according to the clear teaching of Scripture and to follow one’s conscience when the Bible was silent was one of the important emphases recovered during the Reformation and made an enormous difference in the daily lives of Christians and the power of church officials.

Ulrich Zwingli

Zwingli essentially made Lent a matter of conscience or preference. If you wanted to fast you were free to do so. If you didn’t desire to abstain from certain foods in the lead up to Easter, men with ecclesiastical titles did not have the power to compel you to forego the almost absolute freedom to partake of any kind of food granted by the New Testament.

So while many of my Christian brothers and sisters will use their freedom in the gospel to observe some form of Lenten fasting or abstaining, or to enjoy the commercial/cultural/Catholic celebration of romantic love with their significant other, I’ll be endeavouring to celebrate the freedom itself.

There is nothing wrong with fasting (as long as it’s practiced in accordance with Christ’s instructions) or spiritual preparation for reflection on the deeper truths of the gospel. If you find giving something up in the lead up to Easter to be helpful to you spiritual life – nothing and no one (other than the Bible or Jesus Himself) should restrict your freedom to abstain. If you find celebrating February 14th with roses, candlelight dinners and love poems nourishes intimacy within your relationship – again only Scripture should curb the way you express your participation in this cultural celebration of romance.

But as for me, I look forward to celebrating Sunday with a sausage or a steak as I rejoice in the liberty God gave me from man-made rules through the gospel of Christ – which was revealed in the New Testament and recovered in the Reformation.

Reflexions to Projections: Clear Evangelicalism

After giving you a little bit of background as to my personal theological formation and spiritual journey, I thought I’d write a little bit about how I like to think about myself now, my hopes and aims for the future and the kind of theology and spirituality I want to dedicate The Lion & Phoenix to upholding and advancing.

I’ll try and make this a short post about a big idea: clear evangelicalism. You may have noticed that in the previous post, I described myself in the most recent period of my life as “a Reformed, Conservative Evangelical.” It’s an accurate enough description of the kind of theology and emphases I’ve developed since my early twenties, but it isn’t where I want to stay. Because I have an inkling that “Reformed” and “Conservative” can both potentially be too limiting and that without wanting to diminish or “move on” from the convictions I hold today, I sense that evangelicals defining themselves in terms of “conservatism” or having arrived at a fully reformed state of being in theology and practice, may not be the most helpful place to end up.

The truly “reformed” church is committed to the principle of semper reformanda (Always Reforming), not merely resting on the laurels of your church’s traditions and past achievements. “Reformed” is accurate if you or your church have  been  shaped by the  principles of the Protestant reformation and have undergone a process of changing your doctrine or practice because of your arrival at new convictions based on the clear teaching of Scripture. But Christians –  even in the best reformed traditions – need to continue to challenge themselves to be renewed and reshaped in response to God speaking through His Word.

Likewise,  “conservative” would seem to imply that we need to resist changing trends,  values,  beliefs and practices and hang onto “the way things have always been”. When it comes to the core of our faith,  conservatism is crucial: you can innovate your way out of historical, orthodox,  biblical Christianity! But conservatism doesn’t work so well as a universal approach – in fact I dare say it undermines further reform and self-evaluation in many cases.  Sometimes we hold to traditions without ever re-evaluating whether what we say we believe and how we practice it in today’s world accurately represents biblical principles and faithfully points to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Plus there is a tendency to create litmus tests for theological conservatism that often alienate other evangelicals who may share a range of similar convictions but find themselves disqualified by one or two shibboleths.

“Progressive” evangelicalism seems to have more problems of its own than solutions to their conservative brethren’s issues (more on that another time). So I’m proposing something that is in many ways the same as conservative evangelicalism,  but with a difference that possesses the versatility to either appear explicit or subtle when the two approaches are placed side by side.

Clear evangelicalism is about holding tightly onto the core of the gospel tightly and never loosening our grip,  while at the same time ensuring that the secondary and tertiary aspects of our theology and practice present other Christians and non-christians alike with a clear and unobscured message about the Christian gospel.

It begins with looking at one’s own approach and constantly being challenged to say and do everything in such a way that proclaims Jesus,  and salvation in His Name,  loud and clear. Then it extends to encouraging others who share this commitment to keep doing the same.

My hope is that while people might be classified differently under the present evangelical subgroupings on offer or still find themselves disagreeing with gospel-centred people on a range of issues,  a common commitment to clear evangelicalism will facilitate greater encouragement to preserve,  promote and proclaim the things that matter most. I also hope that where differences exist and one group can’t win the other over to their position despite reasoned biblical arguments,  there will be room for a different kind of victory: challenging those with different views and practices to approach them in the way that best displays the gospel.

I’ll share more on what I think this might look like in the coming weeks and months,  but for now I would love to hear your feedback.  Does this sound like a worthwhile approach? Am I perhaps just rebranding conservative evangelicalism without any substantial changes? Do you see any dangers or weaknesses with this kind of attitude towards evangelicalism?

[1] Sathish J “Spirituality” (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) Flickr