« Back to Issue 52

Name Above All Names

By Clive Jarvis.

“ ‘Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.’ Whoever wrote that was an idiot.”

That was the opening line of my sermon last week on Paul’s message to the church at Philippi in Philipppians 2.1-11, and enough of a coincidence when I read the article in the Spring 2011 edition by Tony Campolo to attempt to pen some thoughts about names and the use of them.

The first and I think most important is that the name above all names and the only name under heaven by which we are saved is the name of Jesus (Acts 4.12). Should it not suffice therefore that we might be known by this name alone as ‘Christ’s Ones’?  When, in John 17, Jesus prays specifically for believers (17.9), it is that we might be “protected by the name of Jesus in order that we might be one” (17.11). When we strive to ensure as Christians that we are not under any circumstances confused with or identified alongside other Christians, we might consider the legitimacy of what we do.  There is a fine line between standing up for our own personal understanding of our faith and making enemies of those who understand our faith differently. Too often we cross that line - and when the words we use to identify fellow believers are used judgementally, we cross that line.

I am a Christian, and this defines me as one who belongs to Jesus Christ, a son and heir, bought with a price, loved, and redeemed.  There are lots of other wonderful, amazing words that could be part of this sentence - words that define me in relationship to Jesus.  I want to distinguish them from the familiar words used by Tony Campolo in his article.  They are words (Fundamentalist, Evangelical etc.) that define, not my relationship with Jesus, but with other believers and with the world.  To this extent they are lesser words.

I like to think of the former as nouns (‘being’ words) and the latter as adjectives (‘describing’ words).  This appears all the more evident with America’s latest movement and Campolo’s invitation to become a ‘Red Letter Christian.’  Given the political divide in American Christianity between Fundamentalist Republican Christians and Liberal Democrat Christians, was the use of the word ‘Red’ wise? Or was deliberate?  Aside from this and other more serious issues, I can’t help but say this is hardly a catchy name for a New Movement.  Indeed, that is in itself a bold claim. Time will tell if a change of name for the sake of self-identity and American political repositioning can be defined as a New Movement if by that we mean a movement of the Spirit of God!

The thought occurs, of course, as to the Americanisation of this whole article, the origins and context of which are not revealed.  I assume it wasn’t written for Ministry Today?  Campolo writes, “Upon being identified as an Evangelical, it is assumed that one is pro-war, anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-environmentalism, pro-capital punishment, pro-gun, and certainly part of the religious right.”  In one sense, nothing could make clearer that Campolo is writing entirely about the American scene.  Some of these issues are irrelevant in the UK (pro-gun and capital punishment), others are considered not as articles of faith, but as matters of conscience informed by faith (feminism and politics); some (pro-war) have a particular meaning unique to the American situation; and my guess is British Evangelicals are on the whole pro-environmentalist.  The simple truth is that, in the UK, our political position is not defined by our theological understanding/position in the way it would be in the US.  It is ironic that, in a country that constitutionally separates Church and State, the church is more intimately bound up with matters of the State than it is in a country where State and Church are wedded!

So we must ask if the article has any relevance for us in the UK, where our understanding of ourselves and one another are free of the politics that occurs in the US?  I think it does and sadly so.  There is within UK society a well funded fanatical and fundamentalist secular voice whose antipathy toward Christianity is being zealously pursued.  I at least discern that one of their avenues of assault through the British media is to continually associate British Evangelicals with American Fundamentalists and thereby portray us as crazy Christians whose views are out of kilter with British society as a whole.  The truth I believe is that the social, ethical and moral message of Evangelicalism in the UK resonates strongly with the British people as a whole.  If this analysis is unacceptable to some, the same result will be achieved by acknowledging the more subtle influence of American TV Dramas which are imposing upon the unchurched British mind an American understanding of church and politics. 

The UK Church is much less politically aware and engaged than its American counterpart and this is both good and bad.  It’s good because we are not associated with political parties in the same way that American Christians are, and it’s bad because the UK has suffered by the failure of Christians to sufficiently engage at a national level in society as a whole.  There is no doubt that the phenomenal growth of the UK Church throughout the 19th century was significantly aided by the fact that Christians were at the heart of the social transformation of British Society and from which we still benefit from today.  Our failure to engage today is one reason we are often seen as irrelevant.  The question is, do we allow ourselves to be defined by the media, by our American cousins or do we define ourselves?  The latter course requires a stronger public voice than we have managed for many years, even decades! If we don’t succeed in defining ourselves, we will be defined by others and most likely in ways we do not appreciate.

Campolo presents a potted history of those American believers who seek to base their faith on the teaching of the Bible over the last century, but it seems incomplete. The word Evangelical has been used to describe the faith of believers at least as early as the 18th century when Andrew Fuller and his cohorts were described as Evangelical Calvinists, and it was also a term applied to 19th century Protestants in the UK.  At the latter end of the spectrum, one wonders where the impact of the Charismatic Movement should be fitted into the equation.  On the other hand the essential politically orientated nature of his argument may be served by this simple dialectic rendering a better understanding of the history unnecessary.  What, more importantly, may prove too simplistic, is his line of argument that appears to imply that early 20th century Fundamentalists are the same as mid-20th century Evangelicals, and are now 21st century Red Letter Christians.

British Evangelicalism is not yet associated with the radical right of any British political party and will only become so if we fail to define ourselves as previously suggested.  Remember that the various wings of the American church have done just this and have positioned themselves politically where they want to be.  If British Evangelicals become associated with American Fundamentalists, being linked with the Tory party may be the least of our concerns and not where we end up being positioned at all!  The right wing of the Republican Party might not be accommodated within the British Conservative Party.

The heart of the matter is whether or not those who found some resonance with the Billy Graham Evangelicalism described by Campolo will see, as he does, that being a Red Letter Christian is now their natural home. 

It strikes me that the primary focus of Tony Campolo’s ministry has been the poor, and I have no doubt that the poor are an important focus of the ministry of Jesus.  That the poor are the primary focus of the ministry of Jesus seems to me at least theologically questionable.  I would at least want to consider the possibility that the primary focus of Jesus’ ministry was the Cross, and by extension therefore the Lost.  This is a plank of Billy Graham Evangelicalism I for one wish not to lose.  That said, I personally agree completely that the call to discipleship is a call to a radical, Christocentric lifestyle that must engage at every level of the social and political spectrum without being identified with one strand of political thought to the exclusion of all others.

Campolo’s comments about the “superiority of the teaching of Jesus” are interesting and raise an issue that I suspect does not interest him too much.  Half of my sermon last Sunday (Philippians 2.1-4) is the teaching of Paul while the second half (Philippians 2.5-11) is Paul’s reinforcing his teaching by an appeal to the example of Jesus.  A reading of nearly all Paul’s writings reveals the consistency with which he has to argue for his own personal authority to gain a hearing from his readers.  Paul has no doubt that his wisdom is insufficient and requires the support of the example of Jesus.  Indeed in 1 Corinthians 7.10-12, Paul makes clear that the advice being given is his and not “the Lord’s.”  The explanation that Paul does not consider his teaching to be on a par with that of Jesus and that the teaching of Jesus is ‘superior’ strongly suggests itself.  The reason that this question has not been of any great importance is simply that there are no discernable occasion when what Paul teaches contradicts what Jesus teaches.  Further, however much Paul struggled for acceptance in his own day, this is no longer true as the teaching of Paul, having found its place in a Bible considered in its entirety to be ‘the Word of God’ by Bible-believing Christians (of all depictions), now carries that authority and seal of approval.

In a parody of former President Clinton, I like to remind folk that “It’s all about Jesus, stupid!”  There is a tendency (also American influenced) I have noticed in our young people to speak of God, and our Youth Pastors also have this tendency.  I constantly remind them that our need is to speak of Jesus because his is the name above all names and the only name under heaven by which we are saved is the name of Jesus.  In a country in which the president ends every statement with the words ‘God Bless America’ and everyone knows precisely whose blessing he is invoking, this may be OK.  However, in multi-ethnic UK, this is less clear, and God is the acceptable generic face of religion.  Talk of God offends none.  That is why we must talk of Jesus, and his name must be on our lips.  I welcome, therefore, the emphasis on the life, ministry and teaching of Jesus of which Campolo speaks.  There is no doubt that evangelicals have historically spent more time with the words of Paul than the words of Jesus and any correction is welcome.

However, is the switch from reading Jesus through the eyes of Paul to reading Paul through the eyes of Jesus as straightforward as it sounds?  I am sure Campolo has not forgotten that the Biblical Criticism he credits as giving rise to those early 20th Century Fundamentalists were motivated by a desire to discover the pure teaching of Jesus and that, in pursuit of this goal, they ditched significant chunks of the Gospels which they attributed to the editorial work of the evangelists.  The Christ of the Gospels is the Christ of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  The Jesus of the Gospels is the Jesus viewed through the prism of his disciples witness and testimony.  Check out a red letter Gospel and see how much is left out and you may consider there are some questions still to be asked and answered.  The choice given is also in need of discussion.  Are there not occasions when Paul is not interpreting Jesus, but revealing truths unstated in the Gospels?  The notion that Paul is all about doctrine and that Jesus is all about action also seems to be too simplistic by far.  The life and ministry of Paul are not presented as an alternative to Jesus but as a compliment to it.  The notion that Paul does not live and teach a radical life-style complimenting the teaching of his Lord and Master must be rejected. 

Let me conclude by saying that I am deeply respectful of Tony Campolo and his ministry and that, were I living in the US, I would long ago have aligned myself with him and his fellows - given the alternatives, though I would wish they might have thought of a better name for themselves!  Though many things travel across the pond and establish themselves here, the advent of Red Letter Christianity is not something I would welcome because it speaks of a polarisation currently absent from the British scene.  I am also aware I have argued strongly here for a need for the British church to recapture something of its 19th Century engagement in national life.  However, that engagement did not result in the political polarisation current in the US, and there is no reason it would follow a different course in the 21st Century.  What we must guard against is allowing others to define us, whether those others be our American brothers or secular forces in the UK whose agenda is the marginalisation of the church.  We have done a good job of marginalising ourselves this last 100 years and it might be argued that like a sleeping giant we should be left undisturbed.  All the efforts of many good and noble people this last century have failed to stir the church back into action, so perhaps the prodding of those with baser motives might have more success.  At the moment in the UK, the church as a whole is irrelevant and defined by its inaction, and sadly those church leaders who do have a national voice often seem to speak discordantly and at odds with society, though, if they only did so with a radical and challenging edge, this would not matter.  The media choose to whom to give voice, and once again, with rare exceptions, those so chosen serve to disappoint and rarely represent. 

This is the greater challenge to be part of a church that engages fully with society at every level without being compromised by party politics.  God Bless America and God Bless the United Kingdom.

(Editorial reminder: It is the aim of Ministry Today not to be sectarian in any sense. Our concern is the practice of pastoral ministry, whatever the theological or ecclesiological context. We published Tony Campolo's article because we feel that it gives a useful indication of one of the directions in which Christianity is moving in the USA, and it behoves us to be aware of such developments, because, sooner or later, they may arrive in Britain, for good or ill.)

Editor’s personal note:

If I may momentarily remove my Editor’s hat and instead put on my Parish Priest and ‘independent writer’ hat, I offer a brief reaction to Clive’s article.

I share all his concerns about the Red Letter Christian movement. Apart from anything else, red-letter Bibles are a highly suspect concept, mainly because we cannot be certain that the bits printed in red can be conclusively demonstrated to be always the words of Jesus. John 3.16 is the classic example. Theologically true it may be ( I don’t doubt it), but it may also be the words of John commenting on the words on Jesus, rather than the words of Jesus himself - it’s impossible to be certain.

More significantly, I want to ask Clive to reflect on whether he might be guilty of falling into the same trap as Tony Campolo and his colleagues when he gives me the (possibly unintentional) impression that he regards evangelical Christians as the true faith and the rest of us a slightly suspect. His article appears to me to use the word ‘evangelical’ as a party label, which would be to use that word in exactly the way he says that he does not want to use it - as a means of defining his relationship to other believers. As soon as we do that, we risk using the nouns as sticks with which to beat one another, or as stockades to segregate ourselves from other Christian ‘tribes’.

I, for one, would not want to describe myself as an evangelical (noun) if that means I can be claimed as a member of any particular wing of the Church. For the same reason, I reject the use of terms such as liberal, catholic, charismatic, high-church or low-church, when they are being used as nouns to define parties with the wider Church. However, I’m happy (indeed, proud!) to be described as all those things when they are adjectives used to describe aspects of my ministry. Perhaps I’m unusual (ask my wife!), but I’m catholic at the Eucharist, evangelical in the pulpit and the pub, charismatic, celtic and contemplative in prayer, liberal in my tastes and interests, and radical in my reading of scripture. Make of that what you will!

(Ministry Today welcomes further contributions to the debate raised by the Tony Campolo article. Let the discussion continue.)