Why I’m An Evangelical Christian And What That Means

A guy from my hockey team asked me the other day what could be one of my top five questions to be asked,

“Jon, what does an evangelical Christian believe?”

It reminded me of a joke from church history that the Anglicans would tell:

Q: What do liberal Christians hold?

A: All the highest positions in the Church of England!

I was excited to answer my friend’s question because I had just finished reading a book called, “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from  1730’s to 1980’s.” It was long but it was worth it because it helps answer that very question. DW Bebbington takes the reader through the history of evangelicalism from the Wesleys all the way to John Stott and Billy Graham highlighting four characteristics of the evangelical movement that I want to talk about.

Though we seldom hold positions of power in the mainline denominations, there are four common core characteristics that evangelicals do hold rather tightly. They are biblicism, conversionism, crucientrism and activism. Those words are explainable and probably come as no surprise.

Biblicism: The Bible Is God’s Inspired, Authoritative and Without Error

Evangelicals love the Bible. It is, after all, God’s inspired word and the authority for how we talk about God. You have a view of God, she has a view of God, the Bible is God tells us what the truth is. Authority means that when we are in an argument with the Bible, the Bible always wins. We believe that God inspired the writers of the texts to reveal who is he and what he is like. It was carefully handed down generation to generation to us to reveal God and his plan of redemption of sinful humanity.

Conversionism: People Need To Be Born Again To Be Right With God

Evangelicals have understood humanity to be separated from God because of our sin. Sin is our chosen rebellion against God, our Creator. The consequence for our sin is death, both physical and eternal separation from God. Thankfully, God does not give up on us, but he instead he pays the price for our sin through the death of his Son, Jesus. Jesus dies so that whoever would believe in him and accept his free gift of life, would live forever. Conversion is becoming a Christian; confessing Jesus is who the Bible says he is and did what he said he did. Conversion is also accepting Jesus as Lord and Master and following him.

That’s the consistent evangelical call from the revivals of John Wesley to the crusades of Billy Graham. 

Read More

Why April 8 Was My Favourite Facebook Day

I think we can agree that birthdays are enhanced by Facebook. My birthday, July 4, used to be my favourite Facebook day of the year. Not anymore. Now it is Easter Sunday. This “Resurrection Sunday” on Facebook brought me exceedingly more joy to me than any social media boosted birthday has ever before. 

A Scottish Kind of Easter

This was a unique Easter having spent it on the sparsely populated, Isle of Arran in Scotland. My only church commitment that day was taking the Smiths (the lovely family I was staying with) up on their offer to attend the Church of Scotland service that day. The one hour service was (to put it mildly) underwhelming for a resurrection Sunday. The minister told a few stories to the kids to prepare the way for an Easter egg hunt in the middle of the service. As to not have the parents left out she also passed around Mini Eggs with the application that we are all to share good news about Jesus. 

If not for the scripture reading from Matthew’s Gospel or the resurrection themed hymns we sung, the service would have been totally void of any gospel content.

Like I said- underwhelming.

I was a little depressed that afternoon knowing that those kinds of services were happening in churches all over the world. On Easter morning, far too many people in need of the having the truth of Christianity clearly explained to them, got dressed up to “give church another shot” and instead of hearing the gospel they got an Easter egg hunt. 

Read More

Why Respecting My Elders Means Honouring The Fundamentalists

What do you think that people will say about you when you are dead and gone?

Will they conclude that you were perfect, that you always knew what was right and did what was right? 

If you’re anything like me, that is not very likely.

The truth is that our biographers will probably celebrate the areas that we really nailed and then on another page will criticize where we failed. It’s part of being human.

For years I was critical of fundamentalists. In honesty, I was ignorant of who they were and what they stood for. I had a view of these “right-wing, moral-majority-monsters” that came more from the media and not the pages of history. As I began to see just how critical it is to contend for the teaching of Christian doctrine, I see how important it is to do this in every generation. For the rest of this post, I want to briefly share who the Fundamentalists are, what they were all about and why what they stood for/against is essential to us today.

I have learned that, though they had their flaws, their contributions are honourable and should be honoured.

A Quick Historical Survey.

It has been said that Christianity is always one generation away from extinction. It’s a bit dramatic but an understandable statement. If everyone in one generation chose to neglect the call to pass the truth of Christianity to the next generation, if there were no Sunday schools or youth groups, the Christian movement would halt. I don’t think this will ever happen but at the turn of the 20th century, there were some concerns that this could happen.

German higher criticism of the Bible (the belief that there are naturalistic explanations to all the miracles in the Bible)  was spreading through the West, particularly among the younger generations. Secularism was growing, sexual freedom was emerging out of Victorian/Puritan conservatism,  church attendance was declining as people were filling up the Sabbath day with work and sports. Also, advances in science was seemingly triumphing over the “God of the gaps” leaving many questioning the belief that God even existed. 

In the academy, Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Harvard and Yale - once bastions of Christian education, had embraced liberalism and professors prided themselves on their ability to undermine the confidence of students in the Bible. In the center of the Oxford logo (right) is a Bible with Psalm 27:1 written in Latin. Needless to say, “The Lord is my light” is no longer the heart of this historic institution. The shift from “The Lord is my light” to “The Lord is something we used to do” came during this time.

By the end of the 19th century and early on in the 20th, liberalism and secularism had declared war on the Western Church and were winning. Christians en masse were questioning the veracity of the Old Testament and questioning core Christian doctrines (specifically the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ).

It was not much better on the mission field either. Many liberal drifting missionaries were becoming notorious for compromising on Christian doctrine in hopes of blending world religions, allowing for a palatable reception of the gospel. Eventually many of them decided that doing missions was merely about doing good deeds and not about gospel proclamation.

Serious Problems Call For Serious Action

As a conservative evangelical, what would you have done in this scenario? The secularizing youth were becoming increasingly apathetic to God, Bible schools professors were debating what Jesus really said and some if he actually existed. Students training to be the next Christian leaders were being encouraged to doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible, and the historic gospel as passed down through the ages was being re-interpreted by those who held the power.

What do you do?

When my computer crashes, I do a hard reboot. You turn off the machine and you start it up again. In the church, you might eventually have to hit reboot once in awhile as well.

After doing all you can to seek reform from the inside, some would hit “reset” and go back to the basics. This is exactly what happened. Between 1910-1915 some 90 essays titled: The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth were published by a new institution for Christian education, The Bible Institute of Los Angeles. Contributors were evangelicals like James Orr, BB Warfield and Canadian Anglican, Dyson Hague. Such topics included: The Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, History of Higher Criticism, Justification by Faith, etc.

These essays were embraced (mostly in North America) as water to thirsty evangelicals who were desperate to know that the “Old, Old Story” they had grown up singing about was not some myth or fairy tale. The ethos of this group was (whether explicit or implicit) “forget about a self-destructing world, we must jump out of this sinking ship and swim for safety.” These who clung to the fundamentals, the core doctrines of the Christian faith, were known as The Fundamentalists. 

Because they resisted the trend, they stopped getting invited to parties. Or maybe they ripped up the invitation. Conservative scholars were no longer welcome at institutions of higher education. Gospel based, revivalist preachers were passe, putting too much emphasis on conversion.  Missionaries who prioritized converting the heathen were called “no earthly good.” How did these shunned ones respond? The scholars set up their own Bible schools, social workers created parachurch organizations and other evangelical societies. The missionaries started their own conservative organizations and rallies. This was clearly a time of drawing lines in the sand. 

English Fundamentalists?

One debate in evangelical scholarship right now is whether the Fundamentalist movement came west over the Atlantic to the UK. That question was part of my responsibility these past months as I combed through an English Church newspaper seeing what themes came up during these years. Without detail I will say that my findings were that, though the evangelicals in the UK didn’t necessarily use the title, Fundamentalist, they sure talked about the importance of holding to the Christian fundamental doctrines, their disdain for liberal tendencies, the importance of the office of preaching, skepticism towards science/evolution, etc.

My conclusion: If it looks like a fundamentalist, talks like a fundamentalist, smells like a fu…you get the idea.

100 Years Later

The legacy of the fundamentalists reveal that they did not do everything right. Their bomb shelter, sectarian mentality, though understandable for the times, was a too anti-culture and not missional enough. They were too skeptical and scared of science and today their followers are too eager to seek power in politics. As mentioned above, we all have our problems.

Today we have those “right wing fundamentalists” who regularly make the news (the media loves them because they are controversial and controversy sells Toyotas). Though they have the label today, I believe they do not have the same ethos as one who is concerned about “the fundamentals” of the Christian faith.

Say what you want of the original fundamentalists but history shows that they were the ones who effectively passed down the gospel through the 20th century. We see that liberalism destroyed the faith of all who embraced it. It is said that “He who marries the spirit of the age with time only becomes a widower.” The YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association), Harvard, Princeton and the present free-falling mainline churches serve us as great examples of this.

At the time of writing, these are not exactly the pillars of evangelical thought and action they once were.

Those who clung to the fundamentals continued on. They passed down the faith because they believed they still had a faith to pass on. Just as I’m thankful for how the Benedictine monks preserved the Scriptures during dark and chaotic 5th and 9th centuries, I’m thankful for the Fundamentalists. With time I believe we will see just how crucial it was that this group of people believed that the exclusive, counter-cultural truth of Jesus’ salvation message was important enough to risk rejection and lonely isolation.

The fundamentalists believed that and were willing to do whatever it took to preserve this message. That message, however counter-cultural it is, has pointed me to love and serve Jesus and want to tell others about it as well. 

I can honour that. 

Summer Is Coming

I am very pleased to announce that I am going to be coming back to BC this summer. That means that I will be able to hit the camp circuit once again. 

This year I have put together a couple of streams to help organize my mind a little. I thought they would help people figure out what I’m most passionate about speaking about. They are posted here.

Please pray that God would lead me to the right places and that the gospel would change many young lives again this summer. 

In 1920 There Was No Driscoll, Just Bernard Herklots

I almost fell off my chair when I read this sermon the other day. I found it in a 1920 issue of an Anglican newspaper called, The Record. In a sermon called, The Anger of Christ, Rev. Bernard Herklots calls out the men of England, particularly the preachers (and it still echoes to all of us who are called to teach). He preached this sermon at St. George’s Anglican Church in Leeds. 

The quotes are lengthy but they are worth it, especially if you are familiar with the work of Mark Driscoll. About ninety years ago, Herklots was saying a little of the same thing.

Over to Reverend Herklots.

“In the case of little children we are justified in teaching them of Jesus as meek and mild, in the language of the familiar nursery prayer; but that idea of the character of Christ needs careful and thorough modification before the child has entered its teens. Yet I fear that in many cases the other side of the human nature of Christ is never taught at all. The result is that many people who never read the Bible retain the impression made on their minds when they attended the infant Sunday School, and never since corrected., that the character of Jesus Christ was “soft.” The chaplains in the war told us several times that the only mental image which many men had of Christ was of “gentle Jesus meek and mild.” That showed that though they had grown from childhood to manhood, their conception of Christ was limited to that which was given them, and rightly given them, to suit their infant minds. They had never got beyond it. Christ was to their minds, to say the least of it, a somewhat effeminate figure.”

Later he adds,

“I would like to try to impress parents and teachers of the young with the harm which this kind of soft and weak kneed teaching about Christ does in the case of growing boys and girls. Does any girl, with any character about her, admire an effeminate man? Does it help a girl to admire Christ and follow his lead if you only picture him to her as “meek and mild”?

And what about the boy? How is he ever to see the heroic in Christ, and to get any glimpse of the strength and vigour of his manhood, if he has been taught that Jesus was anything more the gentle Jesus of his childhood prayers? The world is calling out for men of moral strength. The world needs to be led by a brotherhood of men inspired to united action by a heroic Leader, who feared nothing, dared anything and risked everything. England wants men full of the courageous spirit of Christ. How are they to get it if they are never taught to see anything more that He was meek and mild? The truth is that most people do not read their Bibles from Monday to Saturday. No wonder they do not know what Christ stands for, and what Christians are expect by Him to stand for today.”

On 4 More Years of Research.

The email finally came. It was from the University of Oxford. I don’t get many emails from them so I had a pretty good idea what it was about. Feeling sick in my stomach, I had to get help from some friends getting the courage to click on it. Eventually I did.

My research proposal I had been working on for 5 months was accepted. I was now on the path to getting a doctorate from the University of Oxford.

That is not something that just happens overnight. Here’s the story:

To Study Or Not To Study?

In the fall of 2011 I arrived in Oxford to do a one year program that was designed to give students a crash course in apologetics. I knew that it wouldn’t be enough. Not enough to warrant leaving Coquitlam Alliance, leaving friends, being away from family and selling my car and motorcycle.  I wasn’t sure if God had called me to stay and make a run at studying here longer but I was keen to inquire about it.

The book of Proverbs was very helpful during this time. It encouraged me that there is value in the search for and acquisition of wisdom. There is nobility in planning your steps while committing the path to the Lord for ultimate guidance. 

“Let the wise hear and increase in learning” (Prov. 1:5).

Surprised By Anglicans

Studying at, Wycliffe Hall, an evangelical Anglican training college and attending an evangelical Anglican church, I was immersed in this subculture of the Church of England.  Out of this heritage came John Stott, JI Packer, the Alpha Movement, JC Ryle, the Puritans, the Wesleys, George Whitefield and many other spiritual giants on whose shoulders we stand without even realizing it. 

The well was deep. There was a lot of material to study.

I started to think about what subject would excite me enough to tackle for four years. 

Read More