Being fascinated with history—and desiring to oppress everyone else with my interests—I, of course, believe the old adage that “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana). We are blessed with memory in part so that we can learn from the past. Of course, we are not interested in living in the past, but in the present, and for the future. Hence, “the farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see” (Winston Churchill). After all, we must “study the past if we would define the future” (Confucius). [I hear you screaming, “Enough already!”]
In the description of Hebron Church in our current sermon series, we are using the term “evangelical.”
Hebron is a biblically-based, Christ-centered community of disciples, a Reformed, (classically) evangelical church in the Presbyterian tradition, worshipping, growing, and serving Christ in the East Hills of Pittsburgh
The evangelical movement to which we refer is not necessarily the one commonly identified in today’s society. In common usage, the term “evangelical” refers to a socio-political approach which has some religious background. However, that usage of the term, “evangelical,” is far from its original meaning here in recent American history. This history can help us understand Hebron’s evangelical character.
In the mid-to-late 1800s, Americans were embracing an anti-supernatural approach to life, one that excluded the possibility of miracles, God’s intervention in the world and any recognition of traditional authority. The rise of the human spirit, the triumph of reason and human ingenuity permeated American culture and society. Of course, this included a direct challenge to traditional Christian teachings—on the authority of the Bible, the supernatural work of Jesus, the need for spreading the Gospel.
Given these society pressures, the church in America was faced with two options: to embrace the cultural influences, denying or at least minimizing the supernatural, or a retreat from the public square, a rejection of all things modern. Thus, was born the church conflict between the modernists (those seeking to adjust Christian teachings to modern culture) and the fundamentalists (those retreating from society and embracing traditional thought). As the rift between these two camps widened, the church was splintered and followers of each became increasingly obstinate and hostile to one another. The Modernists claimed that emphasizing out-of-date dogmas, the Church would lose the ability to engage with society. Fundamentalists argued that rejecting or ignoring fundamental doctrines would ultimately lead to heresy, and sought to protect itself by disengaging in the perversions of society (don’t drink, go to movies, dance or play cards). After decades of passionate, virulent debate and conflict, the faithfulness and the witness of the Church was suffering immensely.
Enter the evangelical movement. In the 1940s and ‘50s, a group of church leaders arose who recognized the necessity of embracing solid, traditional, biblical doctrine, while lamenting the church’s withdrawal from society. Maintaining theological rigor, these evangelicals also insisted on the Christian’s responsibility to promote the public well-being, seeking the welfare of those in need and the encouraging Christians to engage at every level of society. The transformation of society, not a withdrawal from it, necessitated the involvement of the believer in all levels of life, including social movements, politics, cultural influences and others.
Gaining strength, these leaders promoted evangelical thought through schools (Gordon-Conwell Seminar, Trinity Seminary), magazines (Christianity Today), associations (National Association of Evangelicals), and ministries (Young Life, Campus Crusade for Christ, The Coalition for Christian Outreach). Their impact was felt in both churches and society as a whole—note: 1976, Newsweek’s “The Year of the Evangelical,” in part due to the presidential election of “born again” Jimmy Carter.
Of course, over the following decades, things did not remain stable, but the evangelical movement continued to evolve and change, to the point where the contemporary label of “evangelical” bears little resemblance to its immediate history.
So, where does that leave us? Can we use the term, “evangelical” in the ways it was used historically? And what qualities are being stressed if we do? This and more will be covered this week in worship, as we see the Church in action in Acts 2:42-47.
- What does it mean to “devote” yourself to something (verse 42)? How would that show itself? From your lifestyle, what would someone say you are devoted to?
- Four things are listed here that the early church was “devoted to.” What would modern expressions of each be?
- There are many effects/results mentioned following verse 42. What are they, and how do you imagine they were received by outsiders?
- The first part of verse 47 lists two consequences of the Church’s existence: “praising God,” and “having favor.” How are these linked? How might they be seen in opposition? How should we measure each in our own lives?
- The last sentence describes the impact of the church’s early work. Note who does what here… who is the active Agent in all of this? How should that impact the way we look at Hebron Church today?
By Henry Knapp