elusive is a consensus on a definition of "evangelical." But in necessarily using
the term as an adjective to qualify ministry, I would put the subject at hand in this
way: Can we describe in adequate fashion the contours of ministry that can be
characterized as evangelical?
There is a sense here in which I prefer contours to boundaries, for the term
suggests shape rather than territory. And this discussion will seek to examine
the shape, the contours, of ministry appropriate to evangelicalism. One particular
nuance of the term boundaries is pertinent. The term does suggest a line drawn
in the sand, which when stepped over may put one in very different territory. I do
want to draw on that imagery to some extent, not so much to identify
contemporary ministries that are "out of bounds," as to rather explore ministry
territory mandated for the church which we have yet to occupy effectively as
evangelicals. In other words, at what points are we failing to be fully evangelical
in ministry by default?
In considering evangelical boundaries in ministry, I have taken a cue from Millard
Erickson who has asked elsewhere how we might determine whether a given
theological position is evangelical or not. He acknowledges this is a sticky
question, but he recasts it in terms of what he calls a "theological version of
Zeno's paradox" in reverse. The question becomes one of "how far one may
move, or how many times one may halve the distance between things and still
remain within the original group." As he works out the implications in theology,
he concludes that "surely there must come some point where the line has been
crossed, and at least a hybrid must be present."
When applied to ministry--that is, to practice in addition to profession--the
question has an additional dimension. By this I mean that it is possible for one to
sincerely confess evangelical doctrine but then turn to ministry and apply some
other criteria. It is appropriate to ask, Is this ministry evangelical? Or has some
line been crossed? In seeking an answer we must assess ministry not only in
terms of doctrine, but also methodology. Is the methodology a fruit of sound
theology, or is it the result of the conditioning of the culture, or is it simply a
product of the flesh? The consequences in ministry are as importand and distinct
as "gold, silver, costly stones," and "wood, hay or straw." Even among those of
us who seek to be fully evangelical in our theology, there is always the danger of
practicing ministry on some other terms. And we may indeed have non-
evangelical ministry, or some hybrid.
Another challenge is the rapidly shifting face of ministry in our time. As just noted,
in terms of form, how we "do" ministry at the beginning of the 21
receive a flurry of attention, and then give way to the next wave, it is difficult to
absorb the literature describing them before they disappear. Intentionally and