c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Dale Hanson Bourke is publisher of RNS and author of”Turn Toward the Wind.”)

UNDATED _ To much of the world, the gathering of hundreds of thousands of Promise Keepers in Washington last weekend represented the solidarity of a surprising number of similar men.

But to those observing the movement from within churches, the huge Promise Keepers gathering demonstrated both a promise and a threat to the broad-based evangelical movement.

Once clearly defined by both theology and practice, evangelicals are now a diverse group of Christians who share some basic tenets, but vary considerably in their expression of faith and lifestyle.

Dozens of theological positions, worship styles and cultural norms were represented on the Mall. The group may have been united by promises, but they are divided by the company they keep after going home.

Media coverage of the event often included adjectives meant to define evangelicals but, in fact, only spotlighted misconceptions of the movement.

Right-wing was a favorite descriptive of some journalists; conservative a close second. Yet some high-profile evangelical leaders today define themselves politically as Democrats and liberals.

And according to one poll, a significant number of the men attending the rally were Democrats _ one reason to believe the assertion that Promise Keepers is not a partisan political organization. To endorse a conservative Republican agenda would risk the loss of a good portion of the group.

Another mistaken identity was defining charismatic Christians as synonymous with evangelicals. Most charismatic Christians would feel comfortable calling themselves evangelicals, but most evangelicals would not be charismatic.

The differences were once profound enough to spawn new denominations and to create church schisms, but today they are becoming less distinct.

Those who define themselves as charismatic Christians believe in the ongoing expression of the”gifts of the Spirit,”including speaking in tongues, prophecy and physical healings.

Charismatic Christians tend to worship with their hands uplifted, and were more often photographed during the rally than were their less expressive brothers who tended to stand still with heads bowed while praying.

In some evangelical churches, there is a distinct”non-charismatic”culture. Raise your hands during worship and you’ll be met with raised eyebrows.

For some of the men who came to Washington, the Promise Keepers event opened their eyes not only to their need for personal repentance, but also their own denominational provincialism.

It wasn’t just that participants learned to reach out to men from other races and ethnic backgrounds, but also Catholics stood next to Baptists and Messianic Jews stood with Seventh-day Adventists. The denominational myths and barriers evaporated and men who expressed a personal faith in Jesus learned they had more fellow believers than they had ever imagined.

Now they return to their communities with the realization that the guys who go to the church down the street aren’t really so different after all, at least on the basics.

And that is where the threat comes in for many ministers and churches.

Denominations exist because of theological differences that are often either historic or obscure. But the average evangelical today has been a member of more than one denomination and a growing number prefer nondenominational congregations.

The evangelical mega-church movement consists primarily of fast-growing congregations with either no affiliation or a very informal denominational tie.

Mega-churches tend to emphasize the basics of the evangelical faith: a personal commitment to Jesus; belief in the Bible as inspired Scripture and the source of instruction in the Christian life; and belief that personal spiritual growth and change is an ongoing process. In many ways, the Promise Keepers rally was most similar to a typical mega-church service.

For Promise Keepers now returning to their churches, there will be a renewed sense of personal commitment and a post-gathering high. But there will also be a profound sense that the common denominator of faith covered a multitude of differences.

Churches that depend on their differences to define them will have new evidence believers prefer to emphasize what they have in common. Pastors who miss this point will risk losing members to other churches where personal piety is more important than denominationalism.

The effect could be profound. For this is really more than post-denominationalism. In many ways, it is a return to the simple model found in the pre-denominational Bible.

MJP END BOURKE