In the last few years many people within the faith have critiqued Christianity - more in particular evangelicalism - for being more about ‘what they are against than what they are for’. There is some truth in that. It is always dangerous when a political party, social activism, or a cause becomes more important than the Gospel.

But at the same time, we do have to draw some lines in the sand. It’s not enough to be for ‘love’ without defining what we mean by that. It’s not enough to be for ‘community’ without defining what we mean by that. Sadly, in some cases it’s not enough to be for Jesus without defining what we mean by that. I came across these thoughts from Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones’ What is an Evangelical, written in the middle of the last century.

One of the first signs that a man is ceasing to be truly evangelical is that he ceases to be concerned about negatives, and keeps saying, We must always be positive. I will give you a striking example of this in a man whose name is familiar to most of you, and some of whose books you have read. This is what he has written recently: `Whether a person is an evangelical is to be settled by reference to how he stands with respect to six points’, which he then enumerates. His definition is by reference only to what a person is for rather than to what he is against. He goes on: `What a man is, or is not, against may show him to be a muddled or negligent or inconsistent evangelical, but you may not deny his right to call himself an evangelical while he maintains these principles as the basis of his Christian position.’

Now that is the kind of statement which I would strongly contend against. I believe it is quite wrong. The argument which says that you must always be positive, that you must not define the man in terms of what he is against, as well as what he is for, misses the subtlety of the danger.

What do you think; is it enough to positively state what we are for?

(posted by NDMB)