Defining the Evangelical Free Church in Malaysia
By Khen Lim
FINAL PART FOUR - IDENTIFYING THE NAME
Image source: answers.com
Defining the word ‘Evangelical’
Here’s a seemingly harmless word – Evangelical. In the Ancient Greek of Jesus’ times, the original word was εὐαγγέλιον, which translates to ‘evangelist.’ In its English transliterated form, it is ‘euangelion’ and in Latin, it is ‘evangelium.’ This word is abundantly found in all the Gospels, giving rise to many calling their authors, the Four Evangelists, namely, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
According to its
Koine Greek origins, two basic stems, εὔ (eu) and ἀγγέλλω (angellō) can be
identified. Respectively, they mean
‘good’ and ‘I bring a message.’ When the two are brought together, the common
interpretation is, ‘I bring a good
message,’ or ‘the person who brings a
good message,’ which in the most practical English form, we should
consider, ‘I bring you good news,’ which
then can be simply contracted to ‘Good
News’ as in the Gospel itself.
However here’s where
things get a trifle tricky because the words ‘evangelism’ and ‘evangelical’ can
be differently applied. In studying biblical Koine Greek, we learn that the
word ‘evangelism’ hardly occurs in the New Testament but if we consider
extra-biblical texts, we could find some clues as to the linguistic
inter-relationships. Here then we discover the verb εὑαγγελίζω (euangelizō)
and κηρυσσω (kērussō) to collectively mean, ‘to proclaim’
(Note: For those who are curious, the latter Greek work is where ‘charismatic’
is derived from).
If we sift through this little ancient Greek study, the word
‘Evangelical’ could then mean ‘to proclaim the good news.’ To underscore
the significance in the use of the word, some of us had an interesting
encounter a few years ago:
In one of EFCM’s Leaders’
Retreats held at a local hotel, we were bemused to find cards on the dinner
tables identifying their reservations that had written on them, ‘Evangelistic
Free Church Malaysia.’ Needless to say, the point of amusement was the word
‘Evangelistic’ rather than the proper ‘Evangelical.’ The mistake gave some of
us food for thought. For the writer, the implications were important and within
the context of this article, it is worth talking about.
Current EFC Malaysia Chairman David Low seated middle with previous Chairman Chan Ah Kee to his left (Image source: efcmalaysia.org)
The choice of using one in preference to the other is contextual. We
can say, “The church is holding an evangelistic evening.” In this
example, it does not make sense to replace it with “…an evangelical evening.”
The sentence tells us that the church has decided to become evangelistic
to and for those who attend the evening’s event. In this context, to be evangelistic
is to offer messages that are specifically tailored to attending unbelievers
(non-Christians). It is the hope that the evangelistic message would
inspire them to accept God’s Word.
It should be fairly straightforward to see that the use of the word ‘evangelistic’
is meant as a descriptive reference of the activity that the church had held
that evening. The activity – described as evangelistic – was, therefore,
to spread the Gospel.
The word ‘evangelical’ is, on the other hand, used differently. Rather
than using it to express an activity, the word describes a state of mind. It
defines the contents of the Good News. It is a reflection of our belief in the
truth of Christ Himself as articulated in the Gospels. When used in the term like
‘Evangelical Church,’ the word describes a church that is exclusively
founded on the fundamental teachings of the Gospel.
In other words, the Evangelical
Free Church movement is entirely and purely Gospel driven, inspired and
motivated. Using the word evangelical describes the way in which we
believe, the contents of which we believe and the undergirded understanding of
the truth of the Living Word, only from the perspective of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.
The word ‘evangelical’ actually has some historical significance
and it is worth us visiting it all the way back to 1524 when Martin Luther was
barred from the Church by the papacy. It was then that he wrote that Christian
believers were “evangelical as long as they hope that the message of the
Gospel will pasture and enrich them.”
It is believed that the word ‘evangelical’ was first made popular
by Luther from which point, the ‘Evangelical Movement’ began to gather
steam in the Church of England during the 1740s to mark the return to a
Scriptural understanding of what sanctification meant and the growing
importance of building a sense of urgency in matters concerning the conduct of
mission and the provision of spiritual care.
Published in February 1970, in the book called ‘Christ the
Controversialist’ (IVP Books), author John Stott suggested that the word ‘evangelical’
was first used to define the nature of those people who hinge their lives and
pin their hopes on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
A quick glimpse at the Internet might tell us what others think of the
word ‘evangelical’:
Princeton University (WordNet
Search)
“Relating
to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the
inerrancy of the Bible especially the four Gospels”
“Pertaining
to or in keeping with the Christian Gospel especially as in the first four
books of the New Testament”
“Marked by
ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause”
Wiktionary*
“Relating to any of
several Christian churches that believe in the sole authority of the Gospels”
“Relating to Protestant
(especially Lutheran) churches in Germany”
* Last accessed in 2011
NetSERF (Hypertext Medieval Glossary)
“Pertaining to the Gospels”*
* Definition is based on ‘The
Medieval Church: A Brief History’ written by Joseph H Lynch (page 362)
Re:Quest (click here for link)
“Christians who believe in
the authority of the Bible and the need of forgiveness through Jesus Christ”
Government of Chile (click here for link)
“Term used in Chile to
refer to all non-Catholic Christian churches with the exception of the Orthodox
(Greek, Persian, Serbian, Armenian) and the Mormons. Most Evangelicals are
Pentecostal. Some would say ‘Protestant’ refers to non-Pentecostal churches of
the Reformation but they themselves (ie. the Methodists and Presbyterians) also
identify with the term ‘Evangelical.’ The 1992 census used both ‘Protestant’
and ‘Evangelical’ to ask about religion but the difference is meaningless.
Pastors of all denominations urged people to say they were ‘Evangelicals.’”
Wikipedia* (click here for link)
“The essence of the Gospel
consisting of the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus
Christ’s atonement”
“Christians who believe in
the centrality of the conversion or ‘born again’ experience in receiving
salvation, believe in the authority of the Bible as God’s revelation to
humanity and have a strong commitment to evangelism or sharing the Christian
message”
* Based on definition
offered by The Concise Oxford Dictionary (OUP, 1978)
Got Questions (click
here for general link)
Evangelical Christian (click here for
link)
“A person dedicated to
promoting the Good News about Jesus Christ”
“To indicate a believer in
Jesus Christ who is faithful in sharing and promoting the Good News”
Evangelical Church (click here for link)
“Theologically
conservative individuals or churches that affirm biblical inspiration and
salvation as a personal faith experience in Jesus Christ”
Evangelical Free Church (click here for
link)
“A reflection of the
assertions that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God, people are born
into a sinful condition and salvation comes through the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, as well as a commitment to spreading these beliefs”
“Belief in the
premillennial return of Christ, the bodily resurrection of the dead and the
celebration of water baptism and the Lord’s Supper”
Now that we know what ‘evangelism’
means, we can modify it to become ‘evangelicalism,’
which Wikipedia
describes as “a worldwide, trans-denominational movement within Protestant
Christianity, maintaining that the essence of the Gospel consists in the
doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ’s atonement.”
In
short, ‘evangelicalism’ is a
Protestant movement that transcends all denominations in embracing the tenets
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is, in other words, a movement revolving
around the nature of evangelism.
Rev Dr David Holborn, formerly the Head of Theology at the Evangelical Alliance (U.K.)
defines Evangelicalism as an activity of an evangelist. The following found on Evangelical Alliance’s website
is a very good round-up of what evangelicalism embodies in an evangelist:
We’re evangelical. We’re passionate about God, about the Church
and about the Bible.
We’re evangelical. We’ve decided to live our lives with Jesus –
the Saviour of the world and Son of God – at the centre.
We’re evangelical. We humbly and lovingly believe that the best
thing for our families, friends, neighbours, nation and world is that they live
their lives with Jesus too.
We’re evangelical. We believe that God is with us and empowers
us by His Spirit.
We’re evangelical. We love the Bible. It bears witness to God’s
revelation in Jesus Christ. It invites us into the story of God and the world.
It guides us in how we live our lives and has so much to say about what it is
to be human and how we should do life together: with God and with each other.
We’re evangelical. So we just can’t keep quiet about it.
We’re evangelical.
For a more definitive expression of what evangelicalism is, this
PDF document written by Rev Dr Holborn would explain it in better detail. Click
here to download.
Image source: gmi.org
As of 2015, Wikipedia reports that
there are around 285 million Evangelicals throughout the world. They account
for 13.1 percent of all Christians, which makes them 4.1 percent of the total
world population. The largest concentration of Evangelicals are to be found in
North America, Asia and the African continent but there are growth trends in
South America and parts of the developing world with China, being particularly
popular.
Evangelicalism is naturally tied to the Protestant Reformation
movement inspired and largely sparked by Martin Luther (1483-1546), Jehan
Cuavin (tr. John Calvin, 1509-1564) and Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) who were
the pioneering activists in Germany, Geneva and Zurich respectively. All three
were the catalysts in the rediscovery of the three primary Gospel truths that
the Catholics had conveniently forgotten. Holborn recalls them as ‘solas’ (tr.
solitudes):
Sola Scriptura
Latin for ‘by Scripture alone,’ this is the
conviction that God’s objective truth is supreme over all and perfectly
revealed through His Word in the Bible. Sola Scriptura places the Bible as the
indisputable, unerring and unceasing truth and that it precedes all manners of
reason, traditions, ecclesiastical authorities and individual experiences.
As this is the basis of
Evangelicalism, then the EFC movement must be integral to it.
Sola Gratia
In Latin, it means, ‘by grace alone.’ It describes a God who is unfailingly the One
who takes the initiative. Since man will never know to ask God to save him, it
is He who offers the Salvation in the form of a lasting covenant. It was God
who conceived a plan for all mankind. Sola Gratia reveals to us that the truth
of the Word had involved none of our effort because God is that truth and it is
only through His grace that He is revealed to us in Christ.
Sola Fide
Meaning ‘by faith alone,’ Sola Fide fulfils the
third tenet of the Protestant Reformation. It emphasises not only God’s
offering of Salvation but also the response He wishes from us. It is His
purpose that God has invested in us intellectually, emotionally and physically
so that we are saved by grace through faith.
While evangelicalism is strongly grounded, evangelicals themselves
appeared to be doctrinally divergent thus giving rise to numerous
sub-denominations. Joseph Tkach of Grace
Communion International explains that despite embracing the authority of the Word of
God:
“Some baptise infants,
some stress predestination, some speak in tongues, some insist on a specific
form of governance, some emphasise social work. Perhaps this variety is better
than enforced conformity but it can make Christianity appear to be obsessed with trivialities – and
indeed, sometimes we Christians do get distracted by such issues.”
He further adds:
“As you know, I have
repeatedly noted our need to emphasise
the main things, not peripheral matters. We can and do have beliefs about
the periphery, but we must not emphasise them so much that we create barriers
as if people who don’t agree with us could not possibly be converted. We of all
people should know that it is possible for Christians to be wrong about
important matters and we should understand the
need to be charitable toward others who serve Christ as best they know how.
For these reasons, we strive to keep our
central beliefs relatively simple, rather than lengthening our list of
what’s ‘essential’.”
As we have witnessed how
Protestantism has evolved over the centuries, calling a movement ‘evangelical’
can espouse a great number of differing ideas and views, which then leads many
of us to focus on their differences rather than appreciating a common core.
As
Tkach says, it is far more important for all evangelicals to centre their
belief on the essentials of the Gospel and not stress on the ‘peripheral
matters.’ As many of us often say, “don’t major on the minors.” Even so, it can
sometimes be disheartening to discover that many don’t see the truth in this
and therefore, there remains much to debate still.
Having said that, EFC’s
statements of faith do not make them unique, which is a good thing. Being
similar to other churches in one way or another, encourages us to appreciate
and focus on the common essence of the Gospel of Christ. These commonalities
should help to engender among us a sense of sharing of ideals and values rather
than to get all bothered with the little gaps here and there.
Evangelical on a world scale
Image source: hosannaefcluxmundi.blogspot.com
By comparison to the leading
mainstream denominations, the Evangelical Free Church order is relatively
small. Of all the Protestant groups concerned, figures in America (provided by Wikipedia)
reveals no listing in the leading pecking order. Other Internet sources have
weighed in with different results. Let’s have a look at what the top largest
Protestant denominations in America are based on a 2011 report from the
National Council of Churches:
1.
Southern Baptist Convention at 16.1 million
2.
United Methodist Church at 7.8 million
3.
Church of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) at 6 million
4.
Church of God in Christ at 5.5 million
5.
National Baptist Convention at 5 million
6.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at 4.5 million
7.
National Baptist Convention of America at 3.5 million
8.
Assemblies of God at 2.9 million
9.
Presbyterian Church (USA) at 2.7 million
10.
African Methodist Episcopal Church at 2.5 million
11.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America at 2.5
million
12.
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod at 2.3 million
13.
Episcopal Church at 1.9 million
14.
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World at 1.8 million
15.
Churches of Christ at 1.6 million
16.
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America at 1.5 million
17.
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church at 1.4 million
18.
American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. at 1.3 million
19.
Jehovah’s Witnesses at 1.2 million
20.
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) at 1.07 million
21.
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ at 1.07 million
22.
Seventh-Day Adventist Church at 1.06 million
23.
United Church of Christ at 1.05 million
24.
Progressive National Baptist Convention at 1.01 million
Source: 2012 Yearbook of American
and Canadian Churches (click here
for link)
Finding a credible list is
incredibly difficult. The lists all appear to be dramatically different one
from another. Besides, some are more than ten years old and therefore the
figures can’t be very accurate now. The ones I have listed above will give
readers some semblance of real numbers although I must add that it’s a far
stretch to include the Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses
here since they’re not considered acceptable in Protestant circles.
Other interesting sources can
also be found here,
here
and here.
Useful sources can also be found here and one from
Pew
Research Centre is also very readable.
Image source: thefarrans.blogspot.com
Given these figures, Wikipedia
reports that EFC America’s congregation
numbers are at 371,191 as at March 2010 based on a total of 1,500 EFC chapters
across the country. At those numbers, EFC is only a remotely small blip on the
radar even in America.
To put this number into contrast, the Hartford Institute
for Religious Research reports that in 2012, America’s population of
evangelical membership stood at 77,488,954 from 25 top denominations. At that
figure, it’s only 9.2 million more than the Catholic Church alone. At that
figure, EFCs in America count for less than 0.5 percent of the total number of
evangelicals in the country. To say we’re small is understating it but at that
size, we’re certainly very exclusive!
Image source: hosannaefcluxmundi.blogspot.com
Regardless of its small
congregational size, the EFC movement remains well represented internationally
as we are part of the relevant global and regional bodies such as the
worldwide-based ‘World Evangelical Alliance (WEA),’ founded in 1846 in London by
Christians from ten countries. By their meeting together, a charter was agreed upon in order to create “a definite organisation
for the expression of unity amongst Christian individuals belonging to
different churches.”
It took until 1951 for believers
from 21 countries to convene and establish the World Evangelical Fellowship,
which today is a “dynamic global structure” accounting for over 600 million
evangelicals in 129 countries. Fifty-five years later, they changed their name
to the current World Evangelical Alliance (WEA). For more on its history, go
here.
Today the WEA functions as an NGO parked under
the Special Consultative Status, which itself is part of the United
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in accordance to the
U.N. Resolution 1996/31. Despite being essential a British idea, much had
changed by 1951 after the devastation of two world wars and the fact that the National
Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was founded nine years earlier in 1942 by the Americans
and the World Council of Churches (WCC) six years thereafter in
1948. In the same year too, the United Nations had also moved its headquarters
to New York with 51 signatory nations to begin with. It is with this backdrop
that today, the WEA is also New York based.
The WEA has some 120 national and
regional evangelical church alliances including also 104 organisational
ministries and 6 specialised ministries that it represents throughout the
world. In this global network, two are relevant to the EFC cause in this part
of the world. The first is the Evangelical Free Church Mission. The second is
the Asia Evangelical Alliance (AEA) headed by Rev
Dr Richard Howell and under them is the National
Evangelical Christian Fellowship of Malaysia (NECF). By following this
branching, we find EFC Malaysia’s representation intact.
The India-based Asia
Evangelical Alliance (AEA) was formed much later in 1983 to bring together
‘National Alliances’ to lead the changes in Asia. These National Alliances are,
according to their website, to unite the evangelical
churches for the purpose of “mission work, church planting, theology, church
renewal, religious liberty, social concern, women’s ministry, youth ministry
and leadership development.” The AEA’s coverage extends to the southern parts
of the continent including India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and also
Nepal.
Within the AEA structure is NECF
Malaysia
of which EFC Malaysia is a member. The NECF is one of several key unifying
bodies for churches in the country. For EFC
Malaysia,
this is the national framework for dialogue, of which it is only one of three
components that make up the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM). Through the
NECF is the route to the Evangelical Fellowship of Asia (now
called Asia Evangelical Alliance) and then to the World
Evangelical Alliance (WEA).
Currently church body membership
at the NECF stands at twelve main denominations – of which EFC
Malaysia
is one of them – as well as independent and para churches, bible seminaries and
miscellaneous individual churches. Some mainline denomination churches are also
represented within the NECF. For more information on the
NECF, go here.
Local EFC leaders have played and
continue to play very active roles in NECF. Among the EFC luminaries who have successfully
done so are Mrs Chan Tean Yin (EFC Gospel Centre), Rev Tony Lim (Emmanuel EFC,
Malaysia Bible Seminary), Rev Loh Soon Choy (PJEFC) and Mr Lim Lee (Faith EFC).
Together they have served NECF in areas of women’s concern, evangelism,
research and mission work.
Evangelical confusion
At this stage of the discussion
on EFC, herein lies a simple question – despite the sophisticated nature of the
international evangelical network where we find myriad groups all parked in
different pockets, we have a common adherence to the truth of the Gospel but
there still remains the continuing debate on the issue of evangelicalism. Some
of these churches do compel us to ask if their interpretation is consistent
with what we understand from the word ‘evangelical.’
The late John Stott (Image source: christianpost.com)
Take John Stott as an example.
Here is a person well known around the world as an English-born leader of the
worldwide evangelical movement. He was also one of the principle movers of the
Lausanne Covenant in 1974.
Born in 1921, that would have made him 94 years old
if he was still alive today. Here was a British aristocrat who gave away much
of his not inconsiderable book royalties purely to finance seminary education
for many budding pastors. He was massively influential and broadly admired even
by those who were challenged by his boldness of views.
He was of course frequently
controversial as well as Alister Chapman describes him in his book called, ‘Godly Ambition: John Stott and the
Evangelical Movement’ (OUP, 2011). As the very first biography of Stott, it
makes for compelling reading for those who want to delve into his legacies but
with a more critical eye.
Chapman paints a picture of an
English aristocrat who achieved evangelical prominence shortly after his
conversion in boarding school. Thereafter he pursued the global church through
extensive international travel in a time when it was still very costly.
Following closely in Billy Graham’s footsteps, Stott was well placed to pursue
what he had longed for all his life and that was, a spiritual revival in
Britain. He was very close to doing this in 1954 in his three-month crusade at
the Harringay Arena, boosting evangelical confidence even among the sceptical
British press.
Nonetheless, Chapman
characterised Stott as a person deeply dissatisfied in British Christianity.
Despite his efforts, Stott never saw the revival he had hoped for in his
lifetime and he attributed this to the morass that had plagued British Isles in
the post-British Empire era following the closure of the Second World War. He
compared Britain to the Roman Empire that fell ingloriously following “moral
corruption and the marauding barbarians.”
In the Christian Post’s vale
of Stott, author Anugrah Kumar raises the question of the annihilation of the
wicked to which Stott is quoted as saying that it “should at least be accepted
as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious
torment.”
“Emotionally, I find the concept
(of eternal conscious torment) intolerable and do not understand how people can
live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the
strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must
not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it… my question
must be – and is – not what does my heart tell me but what does God’s Word
say?”
These were Stott’s words as
recorded by his authorised biographer Timothy Dudley-Smith but compared to
American author and supposed-pastor Rob Bell, Stott’s universalist views drew
much less ire.
“I regard him as a brother in
Christ who differs on this particular point (hell),” says Dr Barker, Dean of
Covenant Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in St Louis, in 1999.
He added further, as if for assurance, that there is “no question in my mind
that John Stott is an evangelical Christian.”
So what is the big issue here?
James I. Packer in his article, ‘Evangelical
Annihilationism in Review’ puts it very clearly:
“The question is
essentially exegetical, though with theological and pastoral implications. It
boils down to whether, when Jesus said that those banished at the final
judgement will ‘go away into eternal punishment’ (Matt 25:46), He envisaged a
state of penal pain that is endless or an ending of conscious existence that is
irrevocable: that is (for this is how the question is put), a punishment that
is eternal in its length or in its effect. Mainstream Christianity has always
affirmed the former and still does; evangelical annihilationists unite with
many Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists and liberals – just about all,
indeed, who are not universalists – to affirm the latter. Beyond this point,
however, evangelical annihilationists have fanned out, and there is no
unanimity.”
There are two positions about
what takes place in the Final Judgement. The contemporary standard is the one
that has been established for many centuries. We call it Annihilationism and it
suggests that the definition of hell is a place where God maintains a judged
person to be in permanent post-mortem pain or as we know it, eternal
punishment. This is a state of endless pain; endless in length and in effect.
In very simple terms, it is when God will eventually destroy the wicked,
leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality.
Stott’s position challenges this.
Called Universalism, he believes that the permanent post-mortem suffering is
unworthy of God but instead he upholds the notion that all humans will finally
make it to heaven including those who supposedly die in unbelief. Universalism
is a concept that challenges Annihilationism and by its name, it is suggestive
that it has universal appeal because it considers that all people have a universal human quality.
Therefore Universal
Reconciliation (as it is also called) expresses the belief that sinners of all
kinds will be reconciled to God because He is merciful and His love is
all-encompassing for all ages. Universalism wants us to embrace religion as a
universal human value where the emphasis is on the universal principles of not
one but all religions inclusively.
So
the cornerstone of universalism is to reconcile humanity to the divine by way
of converging the values of all we understand from all the religions of the
world and it doesn’t matter if you believe or don’t believe in Jesus or if you
are or aren’t a Christian.
(Note: There are many useful
texts on the Internet that can help you to understand more about Universalism.
Here are some for you to consider: here,
here and here.)
Rob Bell (Image source: danielleshroyer.com)
Stott does not appear to
subscribe to the divine retribution that defines the Final Judgement. It might
not be presumptuous to imply that like the ever-divisive Rob Bell, he doesn’t
believe hell exists or at least not in the way the Bible tells us about
Gehenna.
As an evangelist, that is a
dangerous position to be in. Stott was a foremost evangelical instructor and
his reach covered not just Christians but unbelievers. His publications
continue to be very popular and they are widely read throughout the Christian
world. Just as Paul has warned us, would Stott’s belief in Universalism cause
others to be confused and stumble? Could his belief lead to Christians being
disillusioned about following Christ or that truly in Jesus is the way, the
truth and the life? What ever happened then to the Heavenly Father being the
God of all gods? In very simple terms, does Stott really adhere to what the
Gospel of Christ teaches?
Stott is not known as “one of the
most prominent evangelicals for the last four to five decades” for trivial
reasons. He was no petty Gospel instructor. It is often said that the
commanding role he played in global evangelism was second only to Billy Graham.
For Stott to deny the reality of hell would put into question whether or not
Jesus had made its existence crystal clear in the Bible. The fact that Stott
rejected it leads us to ask if, as an evangelist, he complied with the
evangelicalism of the teachings of Christ.
There is no question that Stott’s
life isn’t all about his rejection of the Annihilation concept. Thankfully
there is so much more about him that is worth admiring and focusing on. And to
that end, the author does not deny his many well-known contributions as an
evangelist. The issue at this point is to query the legitimacy of the term
‘evangelical.’ If someone like Stott can reject the biblical notion of hell,
how evangelical do we need to be in order to flawlessly be one? Or is it that
we have lost something in its translation?
The inclusiveness of EFC
Pastor Simon Tham and his wife, Florence of Hosanna Evangelical Free Church, Malaysia (Image source: efcmalaysia.org)
By comparison with mainline churches, Hosanna EFC – being a
local Malaysian chapter – has very straightforward and simple membership
registration procedures. If you’re wondering why the fuss with procedures, it’s
a government requirement to record numbers under the Registry of Societies Act.
As such, any one person should not and must not be a fully signed-up member of
more than one church even if the two (churches) belong to the same
denomination.
At an EFC (using us as
an example), the criterion is simple enough – you only need to be a believer in
Christ to be a member although you need to be regularly attending our church
for a period of a year to qualify and be one. Nonetheless it is relatively
simpler than many others. For us, a person declares his personal faith in the
Lord Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour and demonstrates a desire to live out
his life in obedience to Him. The Apostles’ Creed would be as close as we can
get to mirror a person’s belief for membership qualification.
If the person can do all of these, being a member would be
very simple but more importantly, it points to the unmistakable inclusiveness
that has become an EFC hallmark. Compared to most other mainline denominations,
EFC churches make it extraordinarily simple to be a member.
The underlying
simplicity may best be defined as possessing spiritual values that are
essentially cut from the same cloth – so long as your key doctrinal issues are
in line with the EFC distinctives, you may disagree on the finer points and
still work well within the EFC fold. We mentioned earlier that it is a straight
case of ‘not majoring in the minors’ and at EFC, it is even better put:
“In essentials, unity, but in non-essentials, charity.”
And may I add, in all things,
Christ, our Redeemer.
The emphasis at EFC is that major doctrines are absolutely
important to find agreement with, to the extent that we must not allow minor
issues to stymie our spiritual growth and development and cause others to
stumble in their walk with Christ. We are never
to create impasses for those who desire to be more Christ-like. EFC values the
inclusiveness – we know we are different but why not celebrate the differences
because we all belong to the same God through Christ!
Our ecumenical nature
Image source: ecumenicalvisions.org
In plain spiritual terms, the EFC movement is as ecumenical as
many others. However in structural terms, it might be less so. This does not
mean that they are disinterested in fostering global fellowship or that they
are averse to working with other denominations. What it actually means is that ecumenicalism
for EFC might be, in practice, a little harder to achieve as compromises in
beliefs might come in the way and pose greater difficulties than one can
imagine. Still one would expect them to continue to be as fruitful and
constructive as possible.
A case in point is any form of ecumenical union between a
Protestant order and the Roman Catholic Church, knowing that the doctrinal
truths are too divisive or disparaging to make things work. Leading examples
include justification of faith, the supreme authority of the papacy, the
elevation of Mary to worshipful deified status or the veneration of saints as
well as the prerogative of the purgatory and many others. For the Roman
Catholics, all of these remain unchanged, making it impossible for any
Protestant church including the EFC to ignore, let alone come together, no
matter how appealing the idea appears on paper.
Of course using the Roman Catholic Church as an example is all
too obvious; the point is that inter-denominational ecumenical unions are
always going to be a challenge. While the benefits are attractive, every
Protestant denomination, including the EFC, must be able to come together in an
agreeable manner even if the different doctrinal stands are not.
If this is clearly going to be an issue – and for many, it is
– then we must realise that such compromises are unacceptable to one if not
another denomination. For the EFC movement, the importance of its
evangelicalism is too much to be frittered away. Yet doors to opportunities in
the future must not be closed. There must exist hope that at some point, we can
make things work better.
Therefore total aversion must remain avoidable because
ecumenicalism should remain desirable for EFC both in principle and in spirit.
It may not appear so but every EFC chapter does subscribe to the unity of all
Christ believers in the Body of Christ. We genuinely cherish the vision of
coming together, bonded in the commonly shared belief that we must set forth to
accomplish the Great Commission of Christ.
Image source: sojournlife.org
Given that at EFC, freedom
is passionately guarded, governance is, not surprisingly, congregationalist in
style. The broad definition of the word ‘congregationalist’ refers to any
Protestant order that is rooted in the Nonconformists of England and are
similar to the Methodists in teachings.
A congregationalist church
is one that considers its individual congregation the most basic unit of
governance as well as opposed to the more traditional episcopal polity where
governance is via a hierarchy of bishops or even the Presbyterian polity where
there exists, instead, higher-level assemblies of congregational
representatives that exercise greater authority over the individual laity. This
form of independence suggests that an EFC church is ecclesiastically sovereign
or in a more familiar word, autonomous.
Historically,
congregationalism came not only from the Anglo-American Puritan movement during
the 17th Century but also the Baptist movement and many of the groups that were
part of the larger German-based Anabaptist movement, all of which had been part
of the migration to America by the late 18th Century. Similarly EFC’s
congregationalism had come from Scandinavian influences, chiefly to do with the
Swedish-Norwegian migration. Today, congregationalism is widely practised by
many non-denomination churches as well.
EFC churches are each
independent and self-supporting. Its members provide church governance based on
a model that does appear to have ‘superficial’ democratic overtones. Congregationalism
does offer a unique opportunity to incorporate checks and balances that
constrain the authority of the pastor, the elders, the lay officers and the
members. Importantly the limitations of the powers of the pastoral ministry and
church officers are prescribed by clear and constant reminders of the freedoms
that are guaranteed by the Gospel to the laity.
With this freedom comes each
member’s responsibility to ensure proper governance under Christ. This would
therefore require the laity to exercise tolerance, understanding and compassion
when discussing issues amongst one another and be reminded that one does all
this in glory and service to God.
The authority of all within
the EFC church is limited in the local congregation by the existence of a
Charter, which is a definition of the union by which the terms of their
cooperation together are properly defined and agreed to. This Charter specifies
the doctrinal standards, behavioural codes and some guarantees of specified freedoms.
At Hosanna EFC, our Charter comes in the form of a Constitution that widens to
cover the electoral processes and obligations of the lay officers, terms of
office as well as provisions for voluntary and forced termination.
True to the spirit of the EFC
movement, the theory of congregationalism strictly forbids pastors from obtaining
authority to exercise their powers over their local churches by themselves. As
such, pastors are in the employ of the EFC church, hired by the lay officers
under the gaze of the elders and with the approval of the congregation.
Therefore
there are checks and balances in place to constrain pastors from overreaching
or overstretching without consent by the elders or the lay office or even the
whole congregation. That is the same as saying that no pastor in any EFC chapter
can ever make decisions concerning the future of the church, its direction or
its congregation on his own. To do that would be in direct contradiction of the
congregationalist principle to which the EFC movement holds dear to.
At any EFC, officers may
be referred to as deacons (or deaconesses for women) and/or elders. The names
used are unimportant but what is significant about these people are their lay
status and their equal vote – in conjunction with the pastor(s) – in determining
how church issues are to be managed and how decisions are to be arrived.
With
this form of governance, ‘tyranny’ can only happen if or when freedom is
transgressed, which would be the case when the rule of the church is through
the hands of one person. For an EFC church, nothing can be worse than
discovering that authority is concentrated in the hands of not the governing church
body but one person alone. That would make the church no less subservient than
if it were under the shadows of a State Church or any such equivalent
instrument of the government.
Image source: samshaw.wordpress.com
A larger EFC chapter would
see congregationalism widening its appeal to not just the key church body but
to the appointment of the members of the laity to various ministry areas where
their tasks and decisions are subject to the vote of the entire congregation.
As mentioned earlier, the
democratic overtones that are the outer complexion of the EFC church may be
superficial in their mimicry but they also offer us the closest semblance to
the biblical expression of ‘priesthood of all believers’ where all the members
of the congregation possess the same opportunities to be part of the bigger
picture of the church, that is essentially, the Body of Christ (Corpus
Christi).
These opportunities allow
members to partake in the collective running of the EFC chapter, providing
roles of responsibility where each person is tasked to fulfil in the Name of
Christ. Whether these are large or small roles, none are insignificant. From
the simple ushers to the people who supplied the worship music to the ministry
leaders, Sunday School teachers, deacons, elders and pastors, there is a place
for everyone. And for everyone, there is a task, duty and responsibility that
define one’s sense of belonging.
A growing EFC church
presents plenty of potential for members to be a part of. But rather than the
church creating the openings for participation, it would be even better if the
congregation carve out opportunities to serve God in the most creative ways,
finding and capitalising on every possible chance to bring the church to the
community. And what better than EFC to guarantee that freedom to express your
love for Christ!
Again, as it always is
with freedom, there are many questions. When congregations are given the power
to elect people into positions of authority to run a church, the most pressing
question to ask whether or not they are equipped enough to make the best
choices. As we are prone to see in American politics alone, choosing the most
popular person might not be the same as choosing the best person for the job.
One is adored but might not have the means to do the job well. The other might
not be so popular but he could finish the job that he’s asked to start.
For this reason, many EFC churches feature a simple dual
approach to governance. To balance the pastoral ministry are the lay officers
who act in the best interests of the congregation in hiring – and firing – the pastors
themselves. Seen in brighter light, this approach affords pastors the freedom
to focus on what they do best – to fulfil their pastoral duties and obligations
– while they take care of the daily running of the church such as to pay the
bills, to plan the days and various events and at the end of the day, to
balance the books.
Bigger EFC churches add a third layer to this simple
governance by introducing a Council of Elders to compensate where lay officers
are not equipped to. The key responsibilities of the church elders are to
ensure that doctrinally, we do not stray from our charter and to also monitor
the pastoral management of the church.
Unlike the lay officers, the Council of Elders does not get
elected but instead they are appointed. Elders therefore have no obligation to
do things to be voted into office but they adhere to the Word dutifully and
they make certain that the church fulfils its role in the way God intends it
to. In that sense, the Council of Elders perform unique tasks that the lay
officers have little to no ability to.
Interesting statistical information
No comments:
Post a Comment