slightlypuzzled

“What Is in a Name???"
Part I


I have recently started reading on religious history in America; and more specifically on 'Evangelical' history. The problem the author describes right from the very beginning is, 'How do you define an Evangelical?'. Would you know one if you passed him (or her) on the streets? How would you distinguish Evangelicals from other denominations? Viewed from this angle, the history becomes somewhat obtuse; the author follows a thread in history that he feels defines the subject matter, but in a modern day setting it is hard to say, 'that person is an Evangelical and that one is not.' One could well argue that, if it is hard to define the subject matter, how can you write a history about it.
My point about it is that the term 'Evangelical' has become as slippery as the term 'Protestant'. It could well be that the terms will have to one day be replaced with others to describe a certain group. Peronally, I have always preferred the work 'Biblical' to describe my beliefs and stance. However, that does not really say a lot, but then it also says it all. The point from any perspective is that hundreds of different groups will claim to be 'Biblical', but will all hold differing beliefs and work closely to differentiate themselves from other groups of the same 'description'. The whole thing can be very depressing if we lose our emotional drive in that quagmire. Indeed, many have left their faith in Jesus Christ altogether because of the proliferation of denominations, groups, fellowships, synods etc. etc. All in all, it prevents a very splintered picture of the fellowhisp that Christ died and rose from the dead to establish, empower, and embolden to live and witness as His peculiar people.
Now, it should be noted that the author writes a very good history that defines his point, that it is easy to see what distinguishes 'Evangelicals' from other denominations and that will allow one to write a history of the 'origins' of a particular movement. Perhaps it is necessary to point out that the main perspective is not that on Evangelicals are Christians, but that they have some 'pecualiar' or unique beliefs, actions, and lifestyles (?) that set them apart from others who follow Christ. Now, this will include true as well as false, but this is a distinction that is not pursued in the book. The writers point is what is unique about one group that sets it apart from all others. This is harder than you might think.
For instance, the witnessing of and about the gospel of Christ is a charateristic of many groups from mailnine denominations to Orthodox groups and Catholics. The term 'evangelical' is really a term for the 'good news' or 'Gospel of Christ', the Greek being 'euangelion' (transliteration) and means, simply, 'good news'. The local Greek merchant of the first century had 'good news' of a great profit on the merchandise he invested in. Just so, the first Christians had 'good news' about the salvation that came from God to all men. They had no problem with names, just getting the message out to the world at large. Twenty centuries later, a group taking the name arises with a great emphais on missions and spreading the Gospel around the world. We all know the basic lines of the history form Jerusalem outwards, and of the growth both East and West that filled the world with God's witness.
For me, coming in from the cold angst of Atheism, it was how to distinguish myself form other world religions. Looked at from the outside, all religions look a lot alike. The idea of a deity, of a messenger, of a message, and of a code of conduct is commona to all. Indeed, in the first century, the world was overrun with religions. Paul, as he contemplated the religious condition of the Athenians, was disturbed by their profundity of beliers and religious expressions. He was able to find an altar to an 'Unknown God' which became his 'touchpoint' to present the Gospel to the Athenians. Athens, though, is a case in itself.
It was the center of Greek Culture, as intellectual history went, and was proud of it's intelligentsia. It had to be, for it was long past it's prime as a naval power. It's premier place as a port city was taken by corinth, just a few miles to the southwest. It was an 'old' city with an old 'aristocracy' and society. When Paul entered it's gates, he was just resting and observing the people. There were many idols to many gods, that was the Greek 'way' of experiencing religion, it was also infused with the deities from the East, who had also been infected with a Grecian twist and returned to the west with new forms and exorbitant modes of worship bordering on the erotic. In short, Paul's spirit was 'vexed' with all the idolatry around him.
Now, in the midst of all this idolatry, was a synagogue where Paul went to witness to the Jews. The problem begins to take shape, he is vexed by the pagan idols and rejected by the ones who taunted the Gentiles; Paul was in a place in the middle. What is so intriguing about the Athenian 'mission' is that the Jews of thessalonica, who had harried him out of Berea, did not seem to come to Athens. So, Paul has a respite from controvert from his countryment; but now, he comes into conflict with the 'secular' culture. Here, I use 'secular' as opposed to the Jewish culture that was the base point of Jesus and Paul. Oddly enough, Luke describes how the Gentiles heckle and taunt Paul as he teaches in the market place. The synagogue appears quiet for once.
To me, what is interesting, is how Paul relates to this. He seems to be a Jew here, in the synagogue, but the Greek part takes a back seat to the Jewish religion. At this point, Christianity is still struggling with it's Jewish roots, but has made the difference clear from the meeting in Jerusalem. The name 'Christian' appears known in Antioch, but here in Athens it is unknown and openly ridiculed by the Greeks; again, notice the lack of Jewish opposition here in Athens. The struggle to make the Gospel known is purely against accepted religious philosophy and the prevailing civil religion. A case not unlike here in America. Notice how Luke describes the Athenians, '21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)'
Sounds like modern culture, the pursuit of 'the new' whether it be atoms, wealth, machines, books, clothes or what have you; we are not settled, but moving constantly forward for the simple sake of 'moming forward'. Athens and its 'entourage' were like little birds picking up the smallest seeds and tidbits to consume. (So the Greek description of the inhabitants of Athens.) The identified themselves with 'the new', while worshipping the 'old' in the form of the culture they had inherited. When Paul tried to give them some new and fresh, they saw it as strange and ridiculous.
Luke records them thus, '...Some of them dismissed him with sarcasm: "What an airhead!" But others, listening to him go on about Jesus and the resurrection, were intrigued: "That's a new slant on the gods. Tell us more....This is a new one on us. We've never heard anything quite like it. Where did you come up with this anyway? Explain it so we can understand." Downtown Athens was a great place for gossip. There were always people hanging around, natives and tourists alike, waiting for the latest tidbit on most anything.' Paul had caught the ear of some, but others just laughed. So, at the end, '...32-34At the phrase "raising him from the dead," the listeners split: Some laughed at him and walked off making jokes; others said, "Let's do this again. We want to hear more." But that was it for the day, and Paul left. There were still others, it turned out, who were convinced then and there, and stuck with Paul—among them Dionysus the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris.'
Athens is a good test case for us, because of the way they treated the message, not unlike what we, as Christians, struggle with today. We offer the Gospel in the marketplace, but it has to compete with so much else that is a large part of our culture. Many Christians get caught up in this 'cultural tide' and lose their identity with Christ. For Paul, there were Jewish converts in Thessalonica and Berea, but none are mentioned in Athens, perhaps the cultural attack got in the way; although, in truth, the Jewish reception of Christ wherever Paul went was a mixed blessing at best. For me, Acts is so instructive in showing how the Gospel message had to struggle to make it's distinctive appeal in the synagogue and in the market place. The same is true today.

{In Part Two I will finish this, and talk a little about 'terms'}