This essay is the third and final installment in a trilogy of essays entitled as a whole “Evangelicalism and the Kingdom of God.”
I stopped identifying as an evangelical in late 2021 or early 2022. I had been contemplating my relationship with the term for a while given political trends and especially with the breaking in early 2021 of the Ravi Zacharias scandal and cover-up,[1] but my own processing in listening to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill podcast by Mike Cosper from Christianity Today solidified the decision for me to not identify as an evangelical. There was a certain irony to the decision, though, because I continued to attend a church that roughly fell into the evangelical sphere, later decided to attend an evangelical seminary, and then interned at a different church that was also evangelical. In other words, despite myself not identifying as an evangelical, I continued to move in more-or-less evangelical circles for my religious affiliations, if for no other reason than that I did not know where else to go.
I suspect that I am not alone in this circumstantial predicament, which raises the question: for those of us who do not fully resonate with the evangelical label but don’t feel like there’s an adequate alternative, what are we to do? For people like me who identify as Christian but not evangelical (I prefer the term “postvangelical”), the meaning of remnant living might help us navigate the path of living as faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ in the current cultural milieu.
Defining the Problem
First, one has to define a problem in order to think about how to respond to it. If we are going to think soundly about how to relate to the evangelical church, we have to think more about what went wrong with the project of evangelicalism in the first place. Critiques of evangelicalism have abounded recently given its political trajectory, the stories of church hurt it has produced, and its structural flaws that seem to give rise to numerous other problems, but there are two critiques that seem to me to get at the core of its systemic (not structural) issues.
Evangelicalism and Orthodoxy
First, I believe that the evangelical church uses the notion of orthodoxy to support its gatekeeping in defining who is in and who is out as a means of exerting worldly power, thereby making orthodoxy a proxy for power struggles. In his book Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, Mark Noll makes these statements with a positive tone, seemingly unaware of the problems posed in these descriptions:
An unusually important place in Christian history has been occupied by the saints who lived… during the era when Christianity moved from being an illegal and culturally despised sect to becoming a formally recognized religion of the Roman Empire. Their challenge, in what might be called the church’s first intellectual breathing space, was to summarize the faith in authoritative short statements that could specify what Christianity was, define a curriculum for new converts, provide formulas for use in worship, and build barriers against false teaching.[2]
Note the language that Noll, who himself is no stranger to criticizing evangelicalism, uses here: “summarize”, “authoritative”, “specify what Christianity was”, “define”, “provide formulas”, and “build barriers.” From a Christian viewpoint, are these good things? These are the terms used for propositionally erecting barricades between “us” and “them”—something I call “othering” others, which stands exactly contrary to the mission of Jesus.
This does not mean that gates themselves are always problematic. Even prior to Constantine’s actions, candidates for baptism had to affirm certain things prior to receiving baptism and entering into the fellowship of the church,[3] but as church historian Donald Fairbairn points out: “The focus of creeds in the early church was not initially on what we believe but on whom we profess. . . . [B]eing a Christian was and is fundamentally about allegiance. To bear the name of Christ is to be ultimately in allegiance to him rather than to any earthly power or authority. Thus the Christian initiatory rite of baptism was marked by the candidate’s profession of allegiance to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit prior to receiving the water.”[4] So to be clear, gatekeeping is not always wrong, but it needs to center on the person of Jesus, not propositions.
At the root of the problem with the evangelical church’s approach to gates, though, is that it makes faith all about affirming orthodox propositional statements, which then gives primacy to orthodox thinking, which becomes all about worldly power, because what is permissible to think is inherently a question that involves power dynamics. Of course, abuse of this power is exemplified in church history with endless iterations of excommunication between political enemies based on differences in theological beliefs. For example, Athanasius of Alexandria was “exiled five times by four different Roman emperors and would spend seventeen years in banishment. He would hardly be alone, as many other bishops would also face exile in the constantly shifting political winds of the mid-fourth century.”[5] While such moves might not seem as common today (with emphasis on the word “seem”), this dynamic is rooted in and fundamentally enabled by an assumption that is elucidated when one asks the question: is it possible to be a heretical Christian? Answering this question in the negative enables ungodly othering of a sister or brother in Christ simply by labeling them a heretic. On the other hand, answering this question in the affirmative allows one to recognize certain beliefs as heretical and still recognize that a brother or sister deserves to be treated with dignity and respect as one of Christ’s own. These principles are exemplified with a case study of how evangelicals typically relate to Mormonism.
I confess that for the longest time I would have maintained like most evangelicals that Mormons are not Christians, but recently, I realized a glaring inconsistency in the evangelical position that led to a shift in my own. When a close Christian friend of mine told me about his experience inviting Mormon missionaries into his house after they knocked on his door, I learned that Mormons affirm that Jesus is Lord. To me, learning this was pivotal. Given that Mormons do indeed affirm that Jesus is Lord[6] and that he was resurrected,[7] this puts evangelicals’ denial of Mormons’ faith in a rather hypocritical position given that the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 10:9, “[T]hat if you confess with your mouth ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (LEB). If evangelicals believe that every word of the Scriptures is fully inspired, and if Mormons affirm the above-mentioned tenets, then why do evangelicals not recognize them as brothers and sisters? It is because the notion of orthodox theology has been used to define ungodly barriers based on authoritative formulas that summarize and specify what it means to be a Christian based on propositional statements. The dark irony here is that I have personally seen Christian evangelism groups tell and get strangers to repeat Romans 10:9 after them without the strangers knowing fully what they were doing or affirming, all in the name of getting people saved. If a repeated recitation is good enough for some people but a sincere confession of Jesus as Lord is not good enough for Mormons, because they mean something different when they say it, how is one to make heads or tails of the situation? The only way to make sense of it is that it revolves around an ungodly abuse of power, which gates protect and consolidate. Lest this illustration be misrepresented, this is not an endorsement of Mormonism, but it is an argument that the “othering” of Mormons by evangelicals can expose certain hypocrisies in the evangelical approach to orthodoxy.
Evangelicalism and the State
Second, I believe that the evangelical church is complicit with the state. Noll correctly identifies the pivot point of all this when he talks about the Constantinian embrace of Christianity on behalf of the Roman Empire, or perhaps better put, the imperial co-opting of Christianity to serve the purposes of the worldly state. Whatever language one prefers for those events, I believe that Noll is right about the pivotal nature of that time.
As a highlight of this point, not all Christians realize that actually two different churches exist in China, not just one. Many Christians know of the underground, house church in China, which is intensely persecuted. What many Christians do not know is that there is another church in China that is not persecuted: it is the official, state-endorsed church of China. As a TGC article explains, “Christianity in China is legal, and yes, churches can meet publicly under the TSPM banner. But this comes with consequences. The TSPM [which is under the control of the Chinese Communist Party] reserves the right to censor and control their churches to the extent they deem necessary and appropriate.”[8] In China, the state-recognized church is allowed to meet openly, but it also pays a price for this privilege.
In the United States of America, some might say that things are different than the situation in China. But how different are they? In the U.S., each church effectively must register as a 501(c)(3) religious non-profit organization, and this comes with certain benefits. Tax-exempt status and the ability to operate as a state-recognized, non-profit corporation might not seem like much, but maybe they change the situation more than we realize. Evangelical churches often pray thanks to God for being able to meet in a country openly without fear of religious persecution, but note this: whose flag is in the sanctuary? It’s not just the Christian flag—which is a whole other can of worms—but it’s also the American flag. If the evangelical church were to start seeking to give its whole allegiance to Jesus Christ, even when doing so meant defying the wickedness and injustice of the state, even the United States of America, how do you think things would change, and how much longer could that prayer be uttered?
The long and short of it is this: I believe first that the evangelical church has equated faith with orthodox thinking, which it has made into a proxy for exerting worldly power, and second, that the evangelical church is in bed with the state. There are a lot of other problems that one could point to with the evangelical church, or even the church more broadly, but I believe that fundamentally, the question is one of allegiance.[9] Do we give our allegiance wholeheartedly and unreservedly to Jesus?
The Call and Our Response
Given these critiques and this situation, what is the call in this situation? When it comes to the question of leaving evangelical spheres, it seems like there are a host of compelling reasons to do so. But what if the impulse behind that response could itself perpetuate the problem?
My argument is that the call here is in fact counterintuitive. I believe, at least at this point in time, that the path forward calls us to stay within the formal church while also embracing the lessons of living as a remnant. This exposes the false assumption that disaffiliating from the evangelical label requires leaving evangelical spheres. In fact, I might argue that to believe that one must leave evangelical church spheres in order to give one’s allegiance to Jesus might rely on faulty assumptions that could effectively result in giving one’s allegiance to whatever alternative one would turn to in place of evangelicalism, not to Jesus. To be clear, this argument does not mean that one should not use discernment in choosing a particular church or denomination or tradition. Rather, this essay means to argue that leaving the formal church as a whole (whether that be evangelical or otherwise) is inadvisable and that one can stay in evangelical church spheres and faithfully live as a follower of Jesus.
The Practical Point of View
From a practical perspective, Scripture instructs us in “not abandoning our meeting together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging each other, and by so much more as you see the day drawing near” (Hebrews 10:25, LEB). While some might argue that this does not require church attendance, this instruction can and should be distinguished from meeting with other Christians in an informal manner. When a Christian friend and I get together for coffee, that does not count as “our meeting together” in the same way that a gathering of Christians qua Christians does. For example, informally meeting together does not allow for proper administration of the sacraments of baptism or the eucharist,[10] which are key parts of participating in the life of the church and not preferentially dispensable elements of the Christian life. Consequently, there are some quite practical reasons for not leaving the formal church.
Deeper Reasons
Seeking to Avoid Hypocrisy
But even more to the point and apart from the practical reasons, there are deeper motives for not leaving the formal church. First, we need to be careful to not perpetuate the very same sanctimonious-ness that we criticize. Even as some people other others, the way of Jesus is to love everyone, even those supporting or actively perpetrating exploitation of the vulnerable. As my wife and I were discussing some of the above critiques, she shared the observation that there is a “deep sickness” in the evangelical church, but later she shared a parallel thought that she believes that there is a “deep sickness” in her too. I would echo that statement: there is a deep sickness in me as well. It’s called sin. As much as there might be a place for pointing out the systemic flaws and errors of the evangelical church, I believe that is best done from within, not without. In this sense, one of the reasons for not disaffiliating from the church because of its unhealthy trends can, in a sense, be grounded in Jesus’ statement to Peter: “You follow me!” (John 21:22, LEB).
Avoiding Idealizing Primitivism
Another deeper reason for not disaffiliating from the formal church is the danger of idealizing primitivism. As I have considered alternatives to the evangelical church, I have strongly considered the example of the early church, which “generally gathered in someone’s home.”[11] However, 1 Corinthians 5, where the Apostle Paul addresses a grievous sexual sin that was openly tolerated (see 1 Corinthians 5:1-2) is a sobering reminder that the past was not perfect. From my perspective, trying to return to or recreate the early church in the twenty-first century is like trying to manage one’s smartphone screen time by using a dumb phone. For some people, it might be practicable to do this, but in my opinion, the better and more effective option is to acknowledge the developments that have occurred in history. The path forward is always, by definition, forward. This does not mean that we cannot learn from the past (including the early church), but it does mean that we should not try to live in the past. That is why, in my opinion, the path forward is the path of faithful witness, which draws heavily on the Old Testament themes of living as a remnant. Learning from what it means to live as a remnant is the more powerful, positive motive for choosing at this moment to stay.
Remnant Living
A Caveat
But first, a caveat: there is a certain risk that can arise from thinking in terms of remnant living. One can begin to enter the church and look around and label people in the church according to whether you think they are part of the remnant or not, thus creating an in-crowd within an already existent in-crowd, neither of which comport with Jesus’ intentions for the church. So from the very beginning, let us be very clear: drawing upon the notion of a remnant is about what you do with your life, not about what others do with their lives. The question is not whether that personacross the aisle (literally or metaphorically) belongs to Jesus—if they claim to, the general principle is that you should take them at their word. The question is whether you are walking in a manner that evidences that you belong to Jesus and whether you are learning from the notion of a remnant to live faithfully before him.
The Power of Faithful Witness
The key thing about remnant living is that it does not seek to impose its allegiance on others, but at the same time, it does not surrender its allegiance to the whims of the powerful. A while back, at a dinner with a friend, we were discussing how it seems more and more likely that persecution might be on the horizon, except here it was said, “The church will be the one doing the persecuting.” Of course, here “the church” does not refer to the universal or catholic (lowercase “c”) church but does refer to the visible evangelical church, which seems to have corrupted itself with the ways of the world in a way that makes such a statement at the very least plausible. There may come a day (that may already be happening) when followers of Jesus will be driven out of the visible church, just as Jesus was forced out of the synagogues of his people (see Luke 4:28-30; John 9:22) and so also later his followers[12] (see John 12:42; 16:2), but if that is the case, we should wait to be expelled and not leave pre-emptively, just as Jesus and his followers were driven out.
In addition, it is easy to underestimate the power of faithful witness, which God can use to bring about the change he desires to see when it seems and formerly was impossible. In Zechariah 4:6, Zechariah is told, “And he answered and said to me, ‘This is the word of Yahweh to Zerubbabel, saying, ‘Not by strength and not by power, but only by my Spirit,’ says Yahweh of hosts.’” (LEB) That same Spirit is the Spirit by whom God the Father raised Jesus from the dead to resurrection life (see Romans 8:11), vindicating Jesus’ faithful obedience to his Father and inaugurating with Jesus’ resurrection a new age, the beginning of the end. Learning to live as a remnant means embracing the call to live as a faithful witness. This faithful witness does not involve seeking worldly power, and that is precisely the reason why it can resist the temptation to succumb, submit, or capitulate to the ungodly demands of worldly power. In doing so, faithful witness relies on the Spirit of God, by whom God the Father raised our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from the dead, for vindication. Faithful witness believes that God is working even when it seems like we are suffering defeat, which is premised on the joint beliefs of Hebrews that “the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and is a rewarder of those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6, LEB). The deeds and life of the remnant are based not on our own faithfulness but on the unfailing faithfulness of the One who called us.
Moving Forward Without a Home
These certainly are disorienting times, and in the midst of such confusion, it can be easy to want to create one’s own safe space, but the fact of the matter is that some of us do and may even be meant to feel metaphorically homeless—religiously, politically, or both. If this is the case for you, then know that you are experiencing on the metaphorical level what was literally true for the Rabbi we follow, who stated of himself, “Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Luke 9:58, LEB). Being socially homeless does not feel safe or comforting and involves a certain sort of death of attachment, just as David describes “walking through the valley of the shadow of death,” (Psalm 23:4, ESV), but I believe that the one calling us has been, is being, and will be faithful, even as he himself, “the one seated on the throne,” has declared, “Behold, I am making all things new!” (Revelation 21:5, LEB).
[1] “Investigation into Allegations of Sexual Misconduct against Ravi Zacharias,” Washington Post, February 11, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/investigation-into-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct-against-ravi-zacharias/63e9a565-fd61-4d7a-8c20-0f223862f837/; Daniel Silliman and Kate Shellnutt, “Ravi Zacharias Hid Hundreds of Pictures of Women, Abuse During Massages, and a Rape Allegation,” Christianity Today, February 11, 2021, https://www.christianitytoday.com/2021/02/ravi-zacharias-rzim-investigation-sexual-abuse-sexting-rape/.
[2] Mark A. Noll, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 1–2.
[3] Donald Fairbairn, The Global Church – The First Eight Centuries: From Pentecost through the Rise of Islam (Zondervan Academic, 2021), 73.
[4] Fairbairn, The Global Church – the First Eight Centuries, 91. Emphasis original.
[5] Fairbairn, The Global Church – the First Eight Centuries, 212.
[6] Joseph Smith, “The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Chapter 1,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.
[7] “Resurrection,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/manual/gospel-topics/resurrection-study-guide.
[8] Colin Clark, “What Christianity in China Is Really Like,” The Gospel Coalition, June 15, 2017, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-christianity-in-china-is-really-like/.
[9] Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017).
[10] Matthew Emadi, “3 Reasons Why Your Small Group Is Not a Church,” Crossway, June 12, 2024, https://www.crossway.org/articles/3-reasons-why-your-small-group-is-not-a-church/?srsltid=AfmBOorT4BTjMaJRH24vBBLT_XAgJpFfa5ifv89HMZTtI_I7Pj-eQZnT.
[11] Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible 36 (Yale University Press, 2008), 446.
[12] David Jacobus Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Twentieth anniversary ed, American Society of Missiology Series, no. 16 (Orbis Books, 2011), 47.