Confessing Evangelical

As an antidote to John Spong's poisonous ramblings about John Stott (as highlighted by Josh and ably demolished by the Pontificator), here's a more constructive recent piece from the Houston Chronicle, by David Brooks: Inquiring Dems need to know: Who is John Stott?

Brooks (not himself a Christian) criticises the media's habit of selecting only "Elmer Gantry-style blowhards" such as Jerry Falwell as representative of evangelicalism, whereas "people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored."

Brooks continues:

[I]f evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott is the person they would likely choose. He was the framer of the Lausanne Covenant, a crucial organizing document for modern evangelicalism. He is the author of more than 40 books, which have been translated into over 72 languages and have sold in the millions. Now rector emeritus at All Souls, Langham Place, in London, he has traveled the world preaching and teaching.

One of Stott's most distinctive features is the "voice" you encounter when reading his work, one which has had a huge impact on evangelicalism ("over the years I've heard hundreds of evangelicals who sound like Stott"):

It is a voice that is friendly, courteous and natural. It is humble and self-critical, but also confident, joyful and optimistic. Stott's mission is to pierce through all the encrustations and share direct contact with Jesus.

Probably the most important comment, and one which explains the impact that Stott has had over the past 60 years, is this:

Stott says that the central message of the Gospel is not the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus himself, the human/divine figure. He is always bringing people back to the concrete reality of Jesus' life and sacrifice.

Brooks quotes this wonderful passage - absolutely typical of Stott at his best - on the subject of why evangelicals insist on sticking to the scandal of particularity:

It is not because we are ultra-conservative, or obscurantist, or reactionary or the other horrid things which we are sometimes said to be. It is rather because we love Jesus Christ, and because we are determined, God helping us, to bear witness to his unique glory and absolute sufficiency. In Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ God's revelation is complete; to add any words of our own to his finished work is derogatory to Christ.

He concludes with a lesson for Democrats who are busy trying to rebuild the party's electoral appeal post-Kerry:

Politicians, especially Democrats, are now trying harder to appeal to people of faith. But people of faith are not just another interest group, like gun owners. You have to begin by understanding the faith. And you can't understand this rising global movement if you don't meet its authentic representatives.

Not Falwell, but Stott.