Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.
News of this reached the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he arrived and saw what the grace of God had done, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.
Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Because of how white evangelicals, unlike the rest of evangelicals voted in the last election, and how that tradition has become identified with an element of politics in the US, good people and leaders have either left evangelicalism, or think it should be renamed, the term in their minds ruined because of its meaning to many. I too am concerned over the connotation. No church should be given over to a political entity of this world, and known for that. Instead every church should be known for its adherence to and witness for the gospel.
But at its historical roots evangelicalism was a movement in the church born from a desire to witness to the good news, in promoting missionaries to spread the word to the nations, and from experiencing revival such as in the Great Awakening. And to this day, when such churches thrive, that is at least their ideal and more or less their practice.
What is needed, frankly, is leadership within the church which refuses and even, when necessary repudiates the example of some leaders who make it plain that their emphasis is a US political one, maybe for a given candidate of whatever party or stripe. Churches must take a stand against that if their conviction is that what they’re about is solely the gospel, the good news of the Lord Jesus. I would like it if churches would do that in more subtle ways, by simply ignoring such as they go about fulfilling their calling. But perhaps sometimes words may need to be said. Much wisdom is needed because it should never turn into something which puts something of the politics of this world into a category that identifies the church. Our kingdom is not from that place, but is from God’s grace and kingdom in Jesus. Many of our concerns might overlap political concerns of this world, for sure. But our identity as church and Christians is to be wrapped up only in Jesus and the good news in him.
That aside, we exist to grow in the word of truth, in the gospel, and to share that gospel with others. In how we live (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12), as well as what we say in our witness to the gospel. An ideal I hope is renewed and continues on in churches born of the evangelical tradition. So that we and others might know the beauty of our Lord in the good news- the gospel, in and through him.