- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (4/8)
- Next Post »A La Carte (4/9)
What's In A Name?
- 04/08/08
- 30
Joe Carter recently declared that he would be the last evangelical in America. He was being a little tongue-in-cheek of course, but the point was clear. He thinks the label “evangelical” is a good one and and one worth holding on to. “Naturally, I understand why some of my fellow evangelicals prefer not to be saddled with the label. The negative connotations imbued by both our friends and our enemies have weighted it down with unnecessary baggage. But I don’t think we should drop it altogether, especially for higher-level terms like ‘Christian’… I think being an evangelical is the best way for me to be Christian; for better or worse, I’ll never abandon the tradition or the label.”
I found this interesting because I’ve been reading the forthcoming book by David F. Wells and in this volume he suggests that perhaps it is time to let go of the “evangelical” label. Here is his defense and his proposal of an alternative:
Those who still think of themselves as being in the tradition of historic Christian faith, as I do, may therefore want to consider whether the term “evangelical” has not outlived its usefulness. Despite its honorable pedigree, despite its many outstanding leaders both past and some in the present, and despite the many genuine and upright believers who still think of themselves as evangelical, it may now have to be abandoned.
If the word “evangelical” has outlived its usefulness, what is the alternative? Here, I am flummoxed. My own labels are too ponderous to be used widely. I am reaching out for help. I am advertising for a new label!
…
In this book, I am … going to think of myself as being a biblical Christian first and foremost, as being in continuity with Christians across the ages who have believed the same truth and followed the same Lord. The period in which these truths were brought into the most invigorating, health-giving focus was the Reformation. I therefore think of myself as reformational in the sense that I affirm its solas: in Scripture alone is God’s authoritative truth found, in Christ alone is salvation found, it is by grace alone that we are saved, and this salvation is received through faith alone. It is only after each of these affirmations is made that we can say that salvation from start to finish is to the glory of God alone. These affirmations do not stand simply as solitary, disconnected sentinels but they are the key points in an integrated, whole understanding of biblical truth. It is this which gives us a place to stand in the world from which to understand who we are, what the purposes of God are, and what future lies before us. These are the things that historic Protestants believe and that is what I am.
And this is what I think offers the only real hope for our postmodern world. Not only so, but it carries in it the best help for the evangelical world in its wounded and declining state today. I do not know what the evangelical future will be but I am certain that it will have no good future unless it finds this kind of direction again.
This will take some courage. The key to the future is not the capitulation that we see in both the marketers and the emergents. It is courage. The courage to be faithful to what Christianity in its biblical forms has always stood for across the ages. So, let’s begin exploring what this might mean for us today.
I’d love to know what you think. Is the term “evangelical” saddled with too much baggage? Is it time just to let it pass into history like so many words and labels before it? Or, because it is a word with such a noble heritage and with such a profound meaning, is it one we should cling to? Is it a label you wear proudly or with shame?
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (30)
Let's follow precedent and listen for what the pagans and heretics are calling orthodox believers and just go with that.
As long as it contains no outright profanity, what they detest may be worn as a badge of honor, and without all the extra effort of fighting for a name. "Puritan," "Methodist," and yes even "Christian," all seem to have got their start that way.
If believers in the New Testament apostolic church gave up "followers of The Way" (think what it must have meant to them in light of Jn 14:6, Jn 10:9, Mt 7:13-14, etc.) for the label "Christian," certainly none of our labels are so sacred as to be clung to until they are removed from us along with the fingernails still stuck in them.
I think I have to agree with Wells here. While I understand the heritage of the term "evangelical" and value that heritage greatly, I'm afraid that in postmodern America the term has taken on so many other meanings and connotations that it doesn't clearly identify much of anything. Depending on the context where the term is used, it can be viewed as a political affiliation, a narrow and bigoted religious community, a cultural phenomenon, a market segment for exploitation, or any combination of the above.
Here's a real-life example that's kind of humorous, but not really. I am a member of an Evangelical Free Church (EFCA), and a few years ago someone came to our church to check it out because they thought the name meant we were "free" of any of those right-wing gospel-preaching Bible-thumping "evangelicals." Boy, were they disappointed when they got there!
Wells makes a point in the intro to his book "No Place For Truth" regarding evangelicalism. He states that there never really was an evangelical movement, since there never was a central body of truth and doctrine that everyone who used the label subscribed to. I think this is correct, and even more so today. When the term is applied to leaders ranging from Joel Osteen to T D Jakes to John MacArthur, there is very little common definition of evangelical truth amongst them. I, like Wells, prefer to call myself something more like a Biblical Christian. At least that might prompt questions to help further define what I mean.
How about something simple and clear like..
"Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN" ??
Thabiti Anyabwile had a good post on this about a year ago, in the wake of Dr. Beckwith's return to the Roman Catholic Church.
So, again, what is an "evangelical"?http://purechurch.blogspot.com/2007/05/so-again-what-is-evangelical.html
i don't see why it matters what we're called as long as the gospel of christ permeates our lives.
James makes a great point about the source of our labels. There seems to be something transformational about taking the criticism heaped upon us and wearing them with humility until what is meant as a slur becomes a name of respect.
On the other hand, that may get in the way of our branding efforts.
"Evangelical" certainly has baggage, as well as heritage. Originally it represented a convergence of something we DO (share the gospel) and something we BELEIVE (conservative, Biblically-based theology). The biggest baggage evangelicals have is
1. That many of us have ceased to be either evangelistic or conservative.2. Some of us have figured out how to use the label to make a lot of money.
I do find the whole thing interesting as labels seem to mean so much less than the once did, though they're still vehemently used. Forums debate what it means to be "Reformed" and Baptists are wrestling with the nature of the true essense of Baptist identity. Evangelicals have wrestled with open theism.
So much of this we just sort of know intuitively or in our gut, but it's interesting how labels seem so fluid. Rush used to say (and maybe still does), "Words mean things," which is true, but do they mean the same thing to everyone? In communication theory terms, who defines the meaning, the sender or the receiver? Who gets to define the terminology?
We know the winners get to write history and I wonder how this plays in to definitions and establishing boundaries.
I'm a missionary in South America and it didn't take too long to figure out that the Spanish equivalent "Evangelico" is understood by most people, at least in this city, to mean Pentecostal. I never have found another term I like better but I normally tell people that first I'm a Christian and then second that I am Protestant or "closer to Evangelico" or something like that.
When unbelievers mention that they see I'm a religious kind of guy, I never say I'm an Evangelical. I share that I am a Christian, and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and I have been a believer since 1984.
I don't know what a new term could be, but I'm "flummoxed" as well.
To help people understand where I'm coming from, I sometimes say I'm reformed, or a Calvinist, or a servant of the Lord, a sinner saved by grace, a born again Christian, and others, but we need to have a few sentences, or even a couple paragraphs, of accompanying words to let people know where we are coming from.
I remember visiting door to door once, and shared with the woman of the house that we were a local church in the community, and she liked that, and her and her husband were thinking of joining a community church. i shared more how we support the Gospel being preached in Nepal, and how pagans are coming to the Savior, and becoming Christians, and how the Gospel of Christ is the essential foundation of our church.I saw she changed her countenace, and she seemed to reject this. I suppose she jsut wanted a place to go where she could have her needs met, and feel comfortable, and didn't particularly care for this Gospel preaching thing.
Bebbington's Four Characteristics of Evangelicals:
1. Conversionism2. Activism3. Biblicism4. Crucicentrism
The problem, though, is that evangelical has come to mean a certain understanding of these terms.
Conversionism has come to mean "raise your hand and come down the aisle and you're saved" or the sinner's prayer.Activism has generally come to mean supporting the republican party in America.Biblicism has lead to 6-day creationism being a hill to die on.Crucicentrism, thankfully, has not been lost so much in the evangelical circles, although the decline of the PSA could be seen as such.
Because I don't hold to these understandings of these terms, evangelical is not a terribly useful label for me.
I think the term now means so many different things that we can't be sure people will know what we mean when we say we're "evangelical". Just today I saw an article about John Hagee taking his dispensational show on the road to Israel and the headline in the Associated Press said:
"US Evangelicals March Through Jerusalem".
In the body of the article it said:
"American televangelist John Hagee led several hundred flag-waving followers across Jerusalem on Monday, a colorful display of the growing alliance between Christian evangelicals and Israel."
Clearly "evangelicals" means the hyper-dispensationalist "Christian" Zionists who follow John Hagee to the author of this article.
I'm sure there are many more examples where the term "evangelical" is used to describe people and things I would not want to be associated with, things that in many ways are un-Biblical.
It seems if the purpose of hanging on to the term is to properly describe who we are, then we no longer have a reason to hang on to it. However, what to replace it with, I don't know.
As long as we focus on the Reformed theology of the Evangelical Fathers and not the present liberal theologies of contemporary evangelicalism, I think we should be fine for the most part with the name "evangelical." I'm not opposed to Wells' pursuit, mind you; I'm just saying that the name "evangelical" can be taken with a historical perspective, while dumping the baggage of the present day perspectives in postmodernized evangelicalism. Sometimes I call myself a "Reformed evangelical," but even that can be excessive. If I align myself with the thoughts of John Newton and George Whitfield and Andrew Fuller, I know my mind will be in good hands.
As a born-again, trinitarian, Reformed, credobaptistic, non-Charismatic, NCT-leaning, historic premillenialist who affirms inerrancy, complementarianism, the fundamentals of the faith, a literal 6 day creation, a young earth, and the greatest sports teams (i.e., Cardinals, Cowboys, Lakers, Aggies, Stars, Mavericks), I often wish I had just one term to describe me
That way it would be easier to find the other 4 people on the planet like me.
ever talk to someone and they use the words evangelical and evangelistic interchangeably?
As a former Reformed pastor (35 years) I must confess I feel I'm getting into a swirl of anarchy when I "mix" it up with contemporary Protestants. I spent 22 years in the AF and Army chaplaincy and we had to conduct "general Protestant" services. Years ago I first became uncomfortable with the Evangelical label, and being, Reformational, I was one. It was the chaos- "Babel"- that I also struggled with. The issue is not what's our "name" but how do we achieve unity. Impossible? Then I wish Christ had only told us so. I do appreciate your concern; it was an obsession with me as a pastor. What is shocking is that others don't seem to be equally troubled. Thanks. forestphilosopher.blogtoolkit.com
"As a former Reformed pastor (35 years)..."
Does that mean you are formerly reformed or formerly a pastor or both? ;-)
On a related note, would a "formerly reformed" person be called "deformed?" Or would it be "dereformed?" I don't think "unreformed" works because that implies that, perhaps, one never was "reformed." Yes, I think I like "dereformed" the best.
Words move on. I still want to fight for 'evangelical' though, as it does mean something here in Sydney.
When forced, I will use the expression 'reformed evangelical' to clarify, although a friend cheekily suggested 'genuine evangelical' as the much better alternative.
DAVID WROTE:1. Conversionism2. Activism3. Biblicism4. CrucicentrismThe problem, though, is that evangelical has come to mean a certain understanding of these terms. -----------I agree, these terms need to be redefined, esp. the first. I would say
1. Regenerational - a person must be born again2. Cultural - a person who, contrary to pietism or fundamentalist isolationism, believes that Christians are to be involved in culture, it's institutions, and their formation.3. Biblical - Biblicism smacks of hyper-biblicism, the kind of literalism that makes no note of historico/cultural hermeneutics. Biblical is also non-specific enough to mean that, while we regard the bible as authoritative and inspired, we must not hold to strict plenary inerrancy.4. Missional - I guess Crucicentrism refers to Jesus' substitutionary death, but I don't think that this is unique to evangelicals. I think what is more unique in many ways is that, coupled with our Cultural involvement and service is our evangelistic impulse. Though not unique to evangelicals, it is a central part of our heritage.
As a post-Charismatic reformed Christian, I'd say that evangelical fits fine, although what is missing is whether or not that means I am a dispensationalist cessationist or not (I'm not), since the term is used both for non-charismatic bible christians as well as the larger born-again community which includes pentecostals and charismatics.
I just tell people I'm a Christian, a born-again Christian. They can make of that what they want. If they want to talk about my views of eschatology, pneumatology, hermeneutics, creationism, or missiology, that's fine, but that's all secondary to being a Christ follower and allowing the bible and the Holy Spirit guide me to a church, a mission, and convictions about these various topics.
Wow, have you been reading my blog Tim? I've been pondering this very question. With the rise of those of us who are young restless and reformed (though it's also people of other generations), what do we call ourselves? Post-evangelical? Missional Reformed? The Resurgence? Confessing Reformed/Evangelical? Neo-Calvinist? Progressive Reformed Biblicists? It's very hard. Even Christian is hard today. It would die the death of a thousand qualifications! However, as a Charismatic Calvinist (sorry dgsincliar) I also find alignment with Reformed Baptists. Who knows what we will end up with. If any one has any ideas feel free to let me know as well. I hope you follow up on this one Tim.
"The biggest baggage evangelicals have is1. That many of us have ceased to be either evangelistic or conservative.2. Some of us have figured out how to use the label to make a lot of money."amen.
in the public arena, i'm really not sure what we ought to call ourselves. sometimes i think the day is coming when good old "Christian" will actually mean something in public again. fewer and fewer unbelievers identify at all with that label, at least here in southern California. but that will probably take time to really be useful.
in individual life, however, i think Christian tends to work well for me. "evangelical," with all its political overtones (let's face it, most unbelievers have mainly heard or read that word in political or perhaps social, not individual, contexts), is too strong a word to be used in personal relationships. i don't wish to convey what other people will hear as my "ideology" with a label, when i really mean to describe the way i live my entire life.
I went to an evangelical seminary decades ago and was happy with the name. Now I'm ashamed of the name. Most of the "evangelical" churches around me use pragmatic, man-centered methods to get new members.
I don't know what to call myself. Maybe it's enough just to follow the Lord and to tell others to trust him and follow him. Society can put labels on us. Behind my back, people probably think of me as a fundamentalist/Baptist/religious nut. Meanwhile, some of the fundamentalist Baptists would think of me as a liberal compromiser.
May God enable some of us to stand firm for truth and for unity.
The name "Evangelical" should be used sparingly and in situations in which it would benefit or not hurt. If we're going to get rid of names, let's get rid of Presbyterian and even Christian, since many bad people and events fall under these categories.
It seems to me that "evangelical" has come to refer to any professing Christian serious enough about whatever his belief system is to discuss it openly - most particularly when it's done with an eye toward converting others. The average unbeliever or nominal Christian would no doubt consider me evangelical. But I know they would also consider many who I consider highly dubious, and even some heretics, as evangelicals as well. It appears to me that the term is not descriptive enough to be of any real use at this point in history.
I can't say that I have a better suggestion. As I read through the varying lists of individual beliefs above I find many that I agree with on most points, but not all. I hold to the doctrines of grace (passionately) and believer baptism. I'm dispensational with covenental leanings, or is it the other way around? (I was busy studying this subject this very day and have been in transition for some time.) I favor an old-earth creationist view, to the chagrin of a few folks I know. I'm very close to being convinced by the cessationist position, but am actively studying this as well. I believe in a literal millenium, but not a pre-trib rapture. So, how do you come up with a name for all that?
By the way, I hear the term Biblicist is being used by both Arminians and Calvinists. I hear it a lot: "I'm a Calvinist." "Yeah, well I'm a BIBLICIST!" Then I hear the Calvinist who's trying to back down from the label for the sake of avoiding conflict call himself a Biblicist. (By the way, I don't think I've ever heard an Arminian admit to being one.)
I just say I'm a Christian. If they're saved and interested, people will then ask what church...then I can specify (non-denominational). And if they know enough theology to care where I stand on that, I'll specify further (Charismatic Reformed). If they're not saved, and they want to know exactly what I believe, I can explain without a label like evangelical or Protestant (both are too broad to really define anything these days), and fundamentalist has a vastly different meaning to the world (belief in inerrancy of Scripture) and to the church (ultra-conservative). In any case, with the lost person I want to give them the gospel--no label, however good, can do that. "Christian" is enough for starting a conversation.
I don't have time to read everyone's comments, but I'll just through out my thought from the post alone. I go to a conservative Bible college which does not reflect what I am, but when a person says "evangelical", the immediate connotations are not good to anyone here. It's not that people are close-minded, but I think that the evangelical name has been marked by so many people as a bad thing that even if there are good evangelicals, the majority sees it as a bad thing. Maybe in later years, the word can resurface and have a different reputations, but for right now I think it needs to be let alone; and we find some other way to identify ourselves, if we feel we have to have a label.
I don't see a real need to jettison the descriptive term "evangelical". Just because it has been applied to folks who I generally disagree with, doesn't force me to distance myself from the term. If that were true, we'd need to get rid of "Christian" (remember the Crusades?), "Protestant" (remember the European Wars of Religion?), and even "Christ follower" (a term that is, in my mind, tarnished by association with the vague end of the "emerging" spectrum). I'll stick with evangelical and give thanks for those in the past (the British abolitionists of the 19th century, the German reformers, and others) who wore the evangelical badge proudly. As it's Greek root indicates, "evangelical" primarily means a commitment to the Gospel. And that's a label worth having.
J.I. Packer had some very insightful things to say on this issue in the first chapter of his Fundamentalism and the Word of God. What makes his thoughts so insightful is that he is speaking from a British perspective. In descussing labels you have to consider cultural context, of course, but that often changes from country to country. What is said of evangelicals here in the U.S., including how the word itself is used, may not be said in other parts of the world. To try to lose the term altogether without considering that, I think, is a little narrow minded.
Also, he speaks from a perspective of a different time period. His issue was whether or not to accept the label of "fundamentalism." Granted, this was before the title was grafted into what I would refer to as "hyper-fudamentalism." His thought was that the term "evangelical" holds such a strong historical meaning that it would be almost dangerous to give it up. Sure, you would be denouncing liberal disfigurement (as in the case of the original fundamentalists who actually would have agreed with Packer on this point), but in giving up the name you would also denounce what he refers to as essentially the face of historical Christianity.
I come from a fundamentalist background. I realize more and more everyday the negative conotation that the title carries. However, being the stuborn Baptist that I am, I have found myself adhering closely to the Kevin Bauder school of thought that authentic fundamentalism is "worth saving." With that said, I also find myself appreciating more and more the fact that fundmentalism is simply a part of a greater, more historical movement - evangelicalism. Giving up that name, may not necessarily mean that you have to give up historical Christianity, but you sure do lose alot of history.
A friend of mine also wrote some thoughts on this issue which might be helpful.You can find it at http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/the-priority-of-identity/
The British theologian, John Stott, describes evangelical Christianity as "original, apostolic, new testament Christianity"(p 14) He also ends up saying "the evangelical faith is the Trinitarian faith"(p 34). That’s what I’ve understood evangelical to mean. The average American hears the word evangelical and thinks of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson & right-wing republicanism. I get that the overwhelming connotation is negative. Honestly, I still wrestle with wanting to cling to this moniker because of its biblical root (εὐαγγέλιον) but do understand that it may be too misunderstood or misappropriated in our American context to serve as a helpful tag anymore. orthodox protestant is how I describe myself if I know I'm among folks who would close off because of the evangelical tag.
Evangelical Truth: A Personal Plea For Unity, Integrity & Faithfulness
http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Truth-Integrity-Faithfulness-Perspective/dp/083083303X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203219730&sr=1-2
Forget "evangelical." What about "Christian?" I know, it's used in the Bible, but it's not actually given "you are this." The Gentiles first called believers this, right? And now everyone from. . . well, you, (or me) to Mormons lay claim to the name. The obvious answer to "how long should we keep it?" is "as long as it gives God glory." Can it not be said that it ceases to give God glory when the light of difference is gone?
And "evangelical" can be considered in the same light too. I would think.
Let me clarify: I am not advocating the immediate abandonment of any name. I am. . . considering. I am. . . thinking out loud. Or, rather, through the internet.