“Evangelical”...or, What’s in a Label

It seems that the last several articles I’ve written, have all been related to Evangelicalism in one way or another. Indeed this is a very broad and inescapable subject that inevitably comes up in relation to a wide range of topics. In this article I want to explore certain aspects even further and will attempt to do so in as balanced a manner as I am able. I apologize in advance if it appears that I have handled the subject in less than a fair manner. It is not my intention to offend or upset anyone with some of the less than flattering thoughts I have when thinking about “Evangelical” (or at least what is labelled as “Evangelical”).

Not long ago a friend sent me an article titled, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical?”

Because we often discuss a wide range of doctrinal and religious topics, he was curious what my take on this article would be. He knows that I came from an Adventist background (having been born into and lived it until my early twenties) and therefore we sometimes see things differently. This fact often makes for some good thought-provoking discussions. Once our conversation shifted to the desirability of the label “Evangelical,” it became clear that this is one of the topics on which we differ.

That particular discussion got me thinking about that which has come to be called “Evangelical.” For this article therefore, I believe that a good starting point is deciding what Evangelical means... in a practical sense. Frankly, I’m not at all certain what “evangelicalism” has come to mean... nor do I think the majority of Christians who identify as Evangelical can actually define the term clearly. The label itself has come to include a wide variety of individuals, groups and denominations and I’m not sure the original meaning even applies anymore.

The following quote is from the article, “Why I Am/Am Not An Evangelical” by Eddie Arthur PhD. The article includes portions of the work he did as part of his doctoral thesis which he wrote on, “mission agency theology and practice researches.” At the beginning of his article, he describes what follows thusly, “This post is a long rambling description of why I don’t think the term “evangelical” is fit for purpose and why I don’t use it.”

“...evangelicals tend to hold to a core set of beliefs, but there is no hard and fast boundary of what constitutes evangelicalism (despite many evangelicals attempting to impose one). Because of this, it is generally better to describe evangelicals in terms of the things that they emphasize and which Christians of other traditions lay less stress on. One writer describes evangelicalism as a moving target...”

With respect to how scripture is approached, he shows the relationship of evangelicalism to “fundamentalism” using an illustration of a four quadrant graph. The top two quadrants are evangelical on the left and fundamentalist on the right. He then identifies the resulting problem as:

“...The problem is that there are people who would describe themselves as evangelical, and who others would describe as such, who can be found across both upper quadrants. It would be hard to slip the page of a Bible between fundamentalists and evangelicals...

...Evangelicalism in the UK is a movement which developed from the 1730s in response to a range of religious and social factors. Andrew Walls described it as a response to Christianity which wasn’t Christian enough. As a movement, evangelicalism has Anglo-American roots and spread to other parts of the English speaking world...

...I realise that there is a lot more that could be said; indeed books are written on this subject. However, to summarise, evangelical is a theological term which arose in a particular context, however, today many (probably the majority) of people who would align with evangelical emphases, do not describe themselves as evangelical. Secondly, the term evangelical has become identified with a socio-political movement (primarily in the USA) which I personally find antithetical to the values of the gospel.” (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)

It seems it (Evangelicalism) actually began to spread as a part of the “First Great Awakening” and then really took off with activities connected to the “Second Great Awakening.”

The author of the article, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical,” makes the point:

“At the heart of the history of the evangelical movement, which for most historians of Christianity begins in the Anglo-Protestant world of the 18th century, is the idea of conversion. Christianity, even devout Protestantism, flourished for centuries without focusing on cultivating a particular moment of choice or transformation for change or commitment. But with the Great Awakening and the music, revivals, and personal experiences that these movements encouraged a new focus developed with many Protestants on the emotional connection to God.”

Historians call this movement evangelicalism, and while denominations such as Methodism grew out of it, it was more of a temperament and language across churches than a collection of denominations or a new organization itself. Many Protestant Christians did not emphasize emotions or conversion or activist transformation of oneself and the world around them, and one could be a traditional or conservative Christian without being “evangelical.”

The idea of conversion required that a Christian see a difference in their lives and while many evangelicals took that to mean strict behaviors around entertainment or dress or devotional practices, others focused on reform of the sins of the world around them. They led out in the abolitionist movement, the temperance movement, urban reform, and the missionary and church-building emphases of the 19th century.” (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)

(https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2024/04/are-seventh-day-adventists-evangelical/)

Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.) offers this definition and description of Evangelical:

"As a distinct party designation, the term came into general use, in England, at the time of the Methodist revival; and it may be said, with substantial accuracy, to denote the school of theology which that movement represents, though its earlier associations were rather with the Calvinistic than the Arminian branch of the movement. In the early part of the 19th cent. the words 'Methodist' and 'Evangelical' were, by adversaries, often used indiscriminately, and associated with accusations of fanaticism and 'puritanical' disapproval of social pleasures. The portion of the 'evangelical' school which belongs to the Anglican church is practically identical with the 'Low Church' party. In the Church of Scotland during the latter part of the 18th and the early part of the 19th cent. the two leading parties were the 'Evangelical' and the 'Moderate' party." (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)

David Bebbington, in an attempt to provide a better definition and understanding of the term, is widely known for his definition of evangelicalism. What he proposed is referred to as the Bebbington quadrilateral. It was first provided in his 1989 classic study, “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s.” Bebbington identifies four main points or qualities which are to be used in defining evangelical convictions and attitudes:

• Biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)

• Crucicentrism: a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross

• Conversionism: the belief that human beings need to be converted

• Activism: the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort

As I look at this list of qualities, I can appreciate that it is helpful in zeroing in on and gaining a more clear understanding of the term. However, such a list is not without problems of its own. I accept that a large percentage of people who identify as Evangelical would readily accept the proposed list. I also have no doubt that some would not accept all items on that list. There are also some Protestant Christians who readily accept every item on the list but reject the label “Evangelical.”

Growing up I always saw my religious affiliation as being part of “Protestant Christianity.” Looking back, I certainly would not have identified myself or our church as being under the “Evangelical Umbrella.” In fact, I would have to describe the relationship with evangelicalism as tenuous at best. My guess is that many who grew up in my generation would still exclude themselves from identification with that term. For me, even after leaving the church and then (only decades later) returning to a non-Adventist church, I still would be reluctant to take on the label.

Despite the fact that it has been almost fifty years since I identified as a Seventh-day Adventist, I am still very much aware of my roots and experience growing up. Therefore it should come as no surprise that a recent video interview caught my eye where this very question was being asked of a certain scholarly expert. The gentleman was addressing the question, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical?” His response was most interesting. According to him, not only were Adventists definitely NOT evangelical, he insisted they are a cult and dangerous - due to their views. This happened to be the same attitude I experienced when I was a member and I gather it is an attitude that continues to be one which that church is still trying to address up to the present. The interesting thing is that SDA’s would readily endorse every item on the “Bebbington quadrilateral.” It was with some relief I realized that according to this expert, even though I am not a Seventh-day Adventist (and have not been for many years) according to his opinion, I do not qualify as being Evangelical.

So I guess this must mean that in order to qualify for the label, a person must not only affirm the Bebbington list but also correctly define and interpret each item on that list. Herein lies the problem with at least a couple of items on the list. Take for example the item referred to as Biblicism and meaning “a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages).”

Having a high regard for the Bible and seeing it as the ultimate authority – no issue there. So what does it say – the Bible I mean? Is it a book of mysteries that we really don’t understand except for a few choice sections which we like to reference? If we hold the whole thing to be true and the ultimate authority, shouldn’t there be far more teachings and discussions on all of it (even the very uncomfortable parts). If it is the ultimate authority, shouldn’t we start trying to read it unfiltered through the various denominational lenses – and maybe stop saying it says something that it really does not say?

We know there are a number of topics within the pages of scripture on which there is not universal agreement with respect to doctrine and interpretation. A classic example is eschatology and the different views as to what is meant by Christ’s second coming. Other examples would concern interpretation as to what happens when a person dies (otherwise known as the intermediate state) and what is the final disposition of sin and wicked, unrepentant sinners. For that matter, with respect to current societal issues, there even appears to be disagreement about what constitutes sin (something of which the Bible has much to say).

In a commentary on today’s Evangelicals in America, one who studies such things reported that actual Biblical literacy is at an alarming low point. It seems for many the only important passages somehow relate to how to “get saved” along with a few passages on being encouraged. These are supposed to sustain one while reading the daily headlines and noticing how bad things are getting – all while waiting for “the Rapture.” The Great Commission to make disciples of all nations seems to have been replaced by limited evangelical efforts - concentrating on simply “getting folks saved” and hauling them into the rapture life-boats.

An observation I’ve made (perhaps I’m out to lunch on this) is that many Evangelicals – perhaps in pursuit of that special personal experience – put all their effort into seeking spiritual (emotional) highs. Christian rock concerts seem full of such individuals waving their hands about, weeping readily or dancing about wildly. Their theology however is perhaps a bit more difficult to determine. In conversations I have had with a few, I’ve learned any serious questioning of doctrine or questionable behaviour, is seen to be either “unimportant details” or is somehow “legalism.” I would say however, we often are called to say/do things that run contrary to our desires and emotions – but we must do them nevertheless.

On the question of conversion-ism and salvation is there actually a clear understanding and agreement amongst all Evangelicals as to what this means? At the heart of the history of the evangelical movement is the idea of conversion. For centuries Christianity, even devout Protestantism, flourished without a focus on a particular moment of choice. With the Great Awakening this seemed to change with with the addition of a strong play on the emotions. The thing about utilizing a highly emotional appeal for decision-ism, that I personally question, is the amount of manipulation that is being employed to gain the “decision.” Sometimes it seems like a great deal of pushing and manipulation of emotions is being used. I find the technique distasteful and irritating... especially if all that is being done is manipulation toward garnering an emotional response.

That one must be born again is clearly stated in scripture – no issue there. Having a “born-again” experience though – what exactly is this? On my return to church I was often puzzled by the question, “Are you saved?” or “When did you get saved?” or “Are you spirit filled?” I can tell you about a decision I made – perhaps a cross-road I’ve come to in my life... but if you are talking about having some sort of St Paul on the Damascus road experience... that hasn’t happened. So, how exactly is an evangelical conversion measured? That’s the rub. It’s been the cause of evangelical consternation for about two centuries now.

Rather I think conversion has a lot to do with one’s understanding of the gospel and what exactly it calls us to. I do not believe it’s all about simply saying the right words in a prayer someone gives me to recite or a card someone gets me to sign – and then I’m good to go for eternity with no further commitment or expectation as to choices I make from that point onward.

Looking now at the idea of Activism i.e. “the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.” The obvious question here is, “Effort towards what?” If the answer is, “Effort towards spreading the gospel and advancing the Kingdom,” then I fully agree. However, when Activism is taken to mean establishing lists that focus on ‘allowed vs forbidden’ behaviours... or investing in to social engineering schemes and activism, I’m going to be far less agreeable. Recall that historically, because of the “holiness” and “restorationist” influences of the 2^nd Great Awakening, many evangelicals took a very works based, legalistic approach. “Activism” had often meant promoting strict behavioural codes around entertainment, dress, and/or devotional practices, while for others the focus was on reforming the sins of the world around them.

Finally I would ask is Evangelicalism (sometimes now referred to as “Big Eva”) becoming the new homogenized church? Is it seeking compromise on various doctrinal distinctives in order to absorb individuals and denominations from a wider swath of current Protestant groups? I don’t know the answer to that but in my view many today would have a hard time sorting out the differences between Evangelicalism and Ecumenicalism. Might the Evangelical church of today become the United Church of tomorrow?

A Church that Fails to Remember

Most people have likely heard some version of the quote, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” What is it about this idea that makes this quote so memorable or, for that matter, necessary? In society today we see daily efforts to remove historical markers and rewrite the stories of our past. Why is there the effort to change history or attempt to erase it?

This above quote most likely came to be as the result of something said by writer and philosopher George Santayana. In its original form it read, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It is unfortunate that this sage bit of wisdom is both necessary and yet frequently ignored by so many, generation after generation. It seems to be a common human failing in which an egocentric view of history is taken. Because today's views, attitudes and events are seen as morally superior, history must therefore be somehow corrected and brought into obeyance with the ‘wisdom of today.’

The darker motivation driving attempts to eliminate and/or change history, is to facilitate the take-over and/or control of a particular culture or even a complete society. One’s history is a big part of the identity and foundation of the group or culture one is part of. By attacking that history (of the target group), society can be seriously weakened and, through the resulting division and uncertainty, it can even be destroyed.

George Orwell, in his famous book, “1984,” said: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

The following quote is by, C. McMasters Ph.D. (Political science professor and blogger). It is taken from her blog post titled, “Erase History, Control the People:”

“Marxists and Socialists must destroy the Constitution and any respect Americans still have for our founding if they want to introduce a new Marxist world to America. Consider this quote by Orwell: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

What do you think is happening here? The more we remove our history, the more we must only look at the present. If we look only at the present we’ll never see what we used to do and where we have come from; we’ll never see how far we’ve come and how much we actually have improved and changed the world for the better. By removing our past, we remove any warnings the past might offer.”

Milan Kundera wrote:

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was… The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” (note: Milan Kundera was a Czech and French novelist. Kundera went into exile in France in 1975, acquiring citizenship in 1981. His Czechoslovak citizenship was revoked in 1979, but he was granted Czech citizenship in 2019).

Thus far in this article, I have concentrated on the warnings to remember and protect the history of our culture and society; but what about the church? Might these admonitions and warnings be applicable there as well? It is my contention that they are both applicable and highly relevant. Further, I think many within the current Evangelical structure, and particularly those newer groups (that began around the time of the Second Great Awakening) have gradually become disconnected from their anchoring to history.

I want to start with the importance (as the church) of remembering, and how failing to do so makes us vulnerable to the snares and traps of the enemy. In “The Gospel in Words: Word of the Week: 'Remember'” we can find the following statistic: “It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the word "remember" in the standard works. Remember is used 352 times in the scriptures. When its variants are counted, that number jumps to more than 550.”

The Biblical use of the term “remember” (in Hebrew – “zakar”) means more than the simple mental exercise of recalling and regurgitating some fact or event. A call to remember is also a call to act accordingly... or, in other words, obey. In the Old Testament, to “zakar” means to employ your hands and feet and lips to engage in whatever action that remembrance requires. Thus we could say the very first failure to remember recorded in the Bible was when Eve partook of the forbidden fruit (and then Adam soon after). The text clearly indicated that Eve was able to recall the warning concerning the forbidden fruit but her action was NOT in line with the obedience that the remembrance required.

The following two verses are just a sample from many in the Bible where action is directly tied to recall:

Psalm 22:27 “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,”

and

Hebrews 13:7 “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.”

There is obviously a close tie between remembering and history in that both relate to something past. The Scriptures, in addition to instructions to remember, also have more specific direction respecting remembering history. For example Isaiah 46:9-10 says (quoting “The Message” paraphrase) “Remember your history, your long and rich history. I am God, the only God you’ve had or ever will have — incomparable, irreplaceable — From the very beginning telling you what the ending will be, all along letting you in on what is going to happen, assuring you, ‘I’m in this for the long haul, I’ll do exactly what I set out to do.’”

The following is from the article, “The Biblical Importance of Remembering History”:

“Throughout Scripture the Lord invites his people to examine their history in order to see examples of his love and power, to encourage them to continue serving Him, and to warn them away from sin and idolatry....

The Scriptures speak loudly about the importance of history. In Daniel 2:21 we find that the Lord “changes the seasons and guides history, He raises up kings and also brings them down, he provides both intelligence and discernment.” God’s divine power and wisdom ultimately control human events, but history is also the story of man’s response to God in rebellion and reconciliation. A rigorous study of history must incorporate both of these elements, keeping the divine narrative in mind while taking seriously the human actors involved.

There are several occasions in Scripture when the Lord tells his people to remember specific events and people from their past. In Micah 6:5 God commands, “My people, remember what King Balak of Moab planned to do to you and how Balaam son of Beor answered him…Remember these things and you will realize what I did to save you.” By appealing to Israel’s collective memory of how (He) rescued them, the Lord calls their attention back to himself.”

History and the Church:

Having established the importance of history and the related concept of “zakar” (remembering), let me now return to the concern that underlies this essay. It is my contention that because of both Biblical and historical illiteracy, many under the current Evangelical umbrella have become untethered and are drifting. When one becomes untethered from the historical anchor of established, long standing Christian orthadoxy and is largely Biblically illerate, they have a very poor foundation and are open to being easily deceived. I believe this to be most unfortunate because it has resulted in all sorts of division and in some cases, strange and unbiblical doctrines.

In Matthew 7:26, Jesus spoke of the foolish man who built his house upon the sand and because of such a poor foundation, it fell with a great crash when sorely tested by the elements. (History and the previously known wisdom would have informed him this was a foolish place to build). While the story is about a wise man and a foolish man, I believe it can also be applied corporately to a group or church. Wisdom would suggest the importance of paying attention to the lessons, teachings and experiences of the past. With that thought in mind, my concern is that many in the churches today are in the same place (as the foolish man) and therefore can expect the same results.

There seems to be an attitude held by many in today's church, which interprets the norms of Christianity by what is going on in “our church” - after all we’re “normal.” A number of Evangelicals seem to have very little understanding or regard for the church throughout history and very little appreciation for the great music, or the struggles and theology of our past. The fact that Jesus, through His followers, established the church over two thousand years ago, should be more than just a fact to be remembered – I believe it should be something to be studied, celebrated, and remembered with the idea of zakar!

I believe there is a significantly large segment within the current evangelical congregations who would benefit from a study of the rich history of the church about which Jesus said even the gates of Hell would not withstand. Some evangelicals seem to operate as if the church didn’t actually begin in earnest until their own particular denomination or group came to be. Before there was a Methodist or Pentecostal or Adventist or Baptist or _______ (fill in the blank), there was the church of which Jesus spoke. No doubt some could use a gentle reminder that the church is over two thousand years old and not just a couple hundred (as their own particular brand might be).

The Bible we read, the doctrines we hold dear, the awe and reverence the church once had (as we were reminded about whose presence we were in) all have a history. The corporate worship, study and prayer all came from someplace. It seems a shame to think so many are becoming separated from so much of our history. In its place what is becoming more and more popular is something that is being held out as church but sometimes comes off as nothing more than shallow entertainment. Such gatherings seem to produce fruit the substance of which is about a mile wide and only about an inch deep.

To be clear, when I speak about the church in history, I am not simply referring to that box like structure that one could often find sitting on a street corner close to the centre of town. Also, I am not speaking about the gatherings which still occur within those buildings on a weekly basis. Activities which are practised or services and teachings which religious folk attend for an hour or two each week are only a small part of what I am talking about. I believe it can be shown that throughout history, since the time of Jesus, the church has had (and is meant to have) an influence on culture (for both truth and the good of all humanity).

From the time Jesus began his earthly ministry, he preached repentance and preparation, “for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” As he prepared his followers for their mission in the world, most of his teachings and parables were about the Kingdom of God. As he was looking forward to the end of his mission on earth, he gave his followers, what has come to be called, “The Great Commission.” This (Matthew 28:19 & 20) is where he directed his followers to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Clearly he was commanding them (us) to go into and engage the world. We are to be salt and light while spreading the good news of the Kingdom. He also made it very clear that ALL authority in Heaven and on Earth had been given to him, so that he could give such a command.

Further more, in his first reference to his church, while he was at Caesarea Philippi, in Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, “...on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Of this passage, Bible scholar Dr. Michael Heiser Ph.D. had this to say:

“We often presume that the phrase “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” describes a Church taking on the onslaught of evil. But the word “against” is not present in the Greek. Translating the phrase without it gives it a completely different connotation: “the gates of hell will not withstand it.”

It is the Church that Jesus sees as the aggressor. He was declaring war on evil and death. Jesus would build His Church atop the gates of hell—He would bury them.” (Taken from, “What Did Jesus Mean by “Gates of Hell”?” By Michael Heiser.

So when we take the declaration Jesus made as to his church overcoming the very “Gates of Hell,” and couple that with the “Great Commission” he gave his followers, it becomes very clear to me that the church was to engage the cultures of the world. It seems to me the church was called to be pushing back the darkness and deception while spreading the light and good news of the Kingdom. Nowhere in scripture could I find anything to suggest his church was to become an institution that would meet in little cloistered groups once a week. I could not find anything saying the church was to permit its reach and purpose to be limited by worldly powers. Nothing in Christ’s directive instructed the church to confine our focus only to matters considered spiritual and to stay out of the business of the state (politics). I believe that in all seven spheres of society (family, economy, government, religion, media, education, and celebration) there is not one where it can be said the church should stay uninvolved.

Indeed, anyone familiar with a little bit of history will know, when the church was most fully engaged within culture, civilizations made their greatest gains. The following list is used as an example and is taken from the article, “15 Ways Christianity Changed History and Society” by Jason Pierce. The rationale for each statement is in the article and will not be reproduced here in this essay:

“Here are 15 powerful (and surprising) ways Christianity changed world history and today’s society at large:

1. Christianity gave us the concept of holidays.

2. Christianity gave us hospitals as we know them today.

3. Christianity gave us adoption and foster care systems.

4. Christianity (effectively) gave us the middle-class workforce.

5. Christianity gave us a higher view of sexuality and marriage.

6. Christianity gave women greater dignity and freedom.

7. Christianity gave children a higher status and importance.

8. Christianity gave history its most significant artwork and artists.

9. Christianity gave history its most excellent music and musicians.

10. Christianity gave history its most excellent works of literature.

11. Christianity created the foundation for America.

12. Christianity created the foundation for our education systems.

13. Christianity created the foundation for science.

14. Christianity is the most powerful force in abolishing slavery.

15. Christianity is the most powerful force in charity work.

Jesus of Nazareth is the most influential person in the entire narrative of human history, regarded by Christians and non-Christians alike. Our systems of social organization, literature, the arts and music, architecture, education, and sciences, as well as the ceremonies of marriage and death, have all been shaped by Jesus.

No person before him and no one since has ever caused such a prodigious surge of influence, supremacy, authority, or mastery over his initiatives. The Jesus movement makes up over a third of the world’s population, rendering him the most significant influencer and leader ever to live.”

I strongly suspect that things began to turn around and began to grow darker as the church began to give up it’s influence in some of those seven spheres mentioned earlier. In some areas of culture, it’s almost as if the church retreated altogether from some areas and began turning more and more inward. Many Christians (fortunately not all) gave over the cultural roles of education, health care, economy, government, entertainment and media. They incorrectly assumed these were not places the church should be engaged in and were areas for state concern or political issues. Of course any Biblical world views that were initially present in these domains were gradually diminished generation after generation and a far more secular world view expanded to fill that void. Many within the church, because they accepted a false worldly gospel of a constitutional separation of church and state, gradually allowed the state to push them out of the public square and into those unique looking buildings called churches. The state has attempted to keep more and more of all those “religious” practices confined to those buildings and away from the rest of society using that “separation” concept. And now (since the days of Covid) the state has begun to demand access and control of the messaging and what goes on within those churches. If the last four years are any indication, it seems the majority capitulated with those demands as well. The state have been quite successful in replacing the idea of “freedom of religion” with “freedom from religion” and this is not because they are right or more brilliant with their argument but because the church failed to stand when it was called to do so.

There is a spiritual battle going on which has been in play since the first garden. Ever since the church came into existence, it has been in the cross-hairs of the enemy and is in the midst of this ongoing battle. It is my view that the history and identity of the church is under attack – and with the same goal in mind as that which is used to attack our culture and nation. The strategy is as has been noted by Milan Kundera:

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was… The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

The enemy Satan is waging this battle knowing that where history has been neglected (either never learned or forgotten) and when there is an accompanying Biblical illiteracy, his job is much easier. When there is such a poor foundation – or no foundation at all, deception is much easier. Substituting a carnal and material world view for a grounded Biblical world view becomes easier. Replacing scriptural morals and values with worldly values is the resulting outcome.

Finally, I’d like to end with two passages from scripture:

Ecclesiastes 1:9, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”

and Job 8:7-10, “And though your beginning was small, your latter days will be very great. “For inquire, please, of bygone ages, and consider what the fathers have searched out. For we are but of yesterday and know nothing, for our days on earth are a shadow. Will they not teach you and tell you and utter words out of their understanding?”