Is evangelicalism weird?
First, I want to outline fundamentalism in its historical context. Second, I will share a short anecdote. Third, I want to ask the question, "What is evangelicalism?"
Fundamentalism is a movement that emerged in the early 20th century in response to some liberal tendencies developing in seminaries. Materials were published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1909 and was sent to ministers throughout the U.S.A. These materials listed the five fundamentals of Christian faith:
In regard to scriptural inerrancy, Fundamentalism is not the same as Literalism. Literalism, as the name suggests, believes the Bible to be literally true--there is no room for myth, saga, etc. Fundamentalism, however, operates with an understanding something like, "The Bible is to be understood literally except where it states otherwise." The problem with this idea, of course, is the question of how a writer would say, "This is not literal."
I am sure that most people who read this blog would classify themselves as evangelical. And evangelicalism started as a middle-way between fundamentalism and liberalism. Obviously this is a wide range of people--from weirdists like me (quasi-jokingly having some of my considerations referred to as 'weirdism' recently) to whatever the opposite of weirdism would be! If evangelicalism is home to so many, what does it mean?
I would like this to be open to any and all who find their home in evangelicalism. When you say you are evangelical, what does that mean for you? So, hopefully we won't get sidetracked or bogged down. So, if you consider yourself evangelical, what does that mean coming from you?
Fundamentalism is a movement that emerged in the early 20th century in response to some liberal tendencies developing in seminaries. Materials were published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1909 and was sent to ministers throughout the U.S.A. These materials listed the five fundamentals of Christian faith:
- Inerrancy of the Scriptures
- The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
- The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
- The bodily resurrection of Jesus
- The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)
In regard to scriptural inerrancy, Fundamentalism is not the same as Literalism. Literalism, as the name suggests, believes the Bible to be literally true--there is no room for myth, saga, etc. Fundamentalism, however, operates with an understanding something like, "The Bible is to be understood literally except where it states otherwise." The problem with this idea, of course, is the question of how a writer would say, "This is not literal."
I am sure that most people who read this blog would classify themselves as evangelical. And evangelicalism started as a middle-way between fundamentalism and liberalism. Obviously this is a wide range of people--from weirdists like me (quasi-jokingly having some of my considerations referred to as 'weirdism' recently) to whatever the opposite of weirdism would be! If evangelicalism is home to so many, what does it mean?
I would like this to be open to any and all who find their home in evangelicalism. When you say you are evangelical, what does that mean for you? So, hopefully we won't get sidetracked or bogged down. So, if you consider yourself evangelical, what does that mean coming from you?
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:28 PM
26 Comments:
I guess the main thing I mean when I say I am evangelical is that I believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and I have a motivation, a responsibility and a privilege to share Him with others.
You are asking the question that I have been trying to answer for a year now. Perhaps I will be able to determine whether or not I can own the label "evangelical" partially based on what is said by this readership community.
I like Bebbington's four evangelical markers:
(1) Biblicism--i.e., sola Sciptura (however defined)
(2) Crucicentrism--i,e., an emphasis on the atonement as the central doctrine of Christian faith which organizes the rest
(3) Conversionism--i.e., having a "personal relationship with JEsus Christ" often with a clear memory of when one's conversion took place and an emphasis on evangelism
(4) Activism--i.e., an emphasis on social justice (e.g., abolition of slavery, the temperance movement, women's suffrage, etc.)
He writes of 18th-19th century Britain. But I think these markers remain true.
Where are you going with this AP?
CG
I concur with Matthew
If I am being honest I would use the term evangelicalism more for what it means to others than for what it means to me. I never describe myself as evangelical, shoot, I hardly ever describe myself as Christian any more. If someone calls the office and asks me what kind of church this is and I think they would have any idea what I'm talking about I say it's a Protestant (although if you want to be historically sticky you could argue that), evangelical, holiness church.
The problem with Matthew's and Benson's open definition is it describes "Christian" better than it does "evangelical." Many Christians--whether Reformed or Lutheran or Mennonite or Roman Catholic or Orthodox would accept the definition Matthew uses as applying to them and at the same time utterly reject the term "evangelical."
For more on this, various works by Noll, Marsden, Bebbington, etc.
CG
When I say I'm "evangelical" I will sound a little like CG (but not nearly as intelligent). Because I'm evangelical, I point to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation for the death of my sin and my new eternal life. The teaching and works of Jesus, along with the rest of the Bible, build the framework for my lifestyle. That lifestyle is best expressed as a life that worships God in spirit and in truth, that seeks to share the Gospel message in order to share eternal life with other Christ-followers, and that is expressed through just stewardship of God's world.
tim, when did you become Lutheran, and how now, brown cow (@ UD, no less?)?
if a term is defined by its use, then i just wonder what it means.
i think matt's definition is probably the one that captures your average person who considers themselves evangelical--from many denominations.
aj--let me rephrase the question. do you consider yourself evangelical? (i understand not using it, for multiple reasons, in conversation.) if you consider yourself that way, what does that mean?
Thanks for the recap, Tim. Interesting stuff.
Re: Use. Sorry, that was for CG. Where I am heading is just to see what this term means so as to qualify it properly and communicate accurately--as well as to help people in my church feel at home with a word that I think conveys a valuable tradition.
I guess I don't think of myself as evangelical, my internal diologe never includes the words "I'm an evangelical. If pressed as to wether I was or not I would say yes. I would probably have in mind the denomination I am a part of more than a specific beleife system. Ultimatly I mostly agree with Matt's definition and Crusty's view of it. By that definition I know Catholic evangelicals and non-evangelical Baptists and Wesleyans.
Ok it occurs to me that I haven't given you a straight answer and then it occurs to me that that is my answer. I only learned where evangelicalism came from last week. I would say my definition (not saying it's good) is evangelicals are people who beleive in being born again.
aj, i think that "born again" language has a huge piece of what many put in the term that i hadn't thought of. thanks.
fyi: i don't particularly care whether or not one is evangelical if i know them. it's a label that is helpful only "from a distance."
warning: this is generally speaking, and i am not putting this description onto any particular readers, but just how i understand the word.
I think that the term evangelicalism implies a focus on the individual: the individual soul's state, the individual walk in grace, the individual responsibility for sin, etc. And then, the 'evangeo' part really only means---tell another individual so that he/she can have an individual experience with God.
And that is why I am uncomfortable with it. God is communal, and I am trying to be, and I think our beliefs effect the way we live, but I also think the way we live effects our belief. I think how we live is more important than what we believe---and this is not very acceptible in evangelical circles. So, if most evangelicals do not participate in civic responsibilities/politics, and if most evangelicals do not have a sense of communal responsibility for the other in the sense of "once I know about it, I should do something about it, and not leave it for someone else", and if most evangelicals are far removed from acts of charity rather than using their own two hands (give money let others do the acts of mercy), then I think the actions says a lot about how to describe what they what evangelicalism really means: individual faith in Jesus and individual wholeness.
ps. "individual (private)wholeness" is an oxymoron, from my perspective.
hey jenn, i don't particularly like terms, either, and found most labels confusing until i went to seminary and actually found the history story from which they all emerged (labels like, Modern and Postmodern; fundamentalist; liberal, etc.). i was just curious to hear what the word meant since i often hear it.
thanks for sharing jo--and sharing honestly. i tend to be not so pessimistic, but that's ok. you are definitely right that some people think what you believe to be most important. i have found in my church that a whole bunch of them really want to serve God and to love their family.
i usually speak this way--and feel comfortable doing so. the changed life of a person is certainly evidence of the Spirit of Christ at work, which is, of course, the gift which sets believers aside.
in saying, "in leading good lives, there would be no reason for them to become Christians..." i get a little confused. of course there would be all kinds of reasons for them to become Christians--not least of which would be to make sense of their lives, focus their worship, learn of God, etc. but this does not neglect that God reaps where he has not sown and disciples where there is no professed belief.
last, i agree that there is a difference between pagan and Christian. of course, the work of the prophets has always been to open the eyes of the "Christians" to their being pagans, and suggesting that those considered "pagans" were often God's children.
Careful, AP. sentences like that last one could get you (not) fired! ;) Let the reader understand
CG
Hey Tim,
You said, "Perhaps this is what you are getting at Jo: that belief and practice should not be separated at all or if you want to know what someone believes watch how they live."
Yes. That is what I was trying to emphasize.
If unbelievers live good lives are they of 'Christian' status before God....well, that is a whole other can of worms! I don't think it's my call really. I defineately agree with AP that it is evidence of the Spirit at work in their lives whether they know it or not.
I do think God's ideal is for us to know him through Jesus, his Son, and that the Spirit woos us to believe, and prompts us to act and live communally.
The words "pagan" and "Christian" still have a fundamental internal distinction to me--those who know Jesus and those who do not. How God eternally 'handles' those who do not know Jesus is up to him.
My whole point is that generally speaking, we evangelicals have a horrid concept of community and what it means to really support one another and trying to better the world, and that sometimes the non-evangelicals do a better job of that, which is a better job of imitating the triune God. Therefore, they are more "whole" (which is sort of 'holy') than we are, because they sometimes live more communally, knowing and taking care of one another, or at the very least, have a broader worldview about how their actions effect the quality of life for others across the globe. Their awareness and action is far more loving than an evangelical holed up singing worship songs and having a beth moore bible study all the while while rarely caring to be conscious of allieviating the physical/emotional suffering of others in the world.
CG: :)
Jo: I suppose my concern is what you'd have people to do. I don't want this to come across as "shame on you, Jo!" I appreciate your critique--and am often in your position. But sometimes the popular books are means of prevenient and sanctifying grace--places where people know God worked in/on/through them.
just to clarify, jo. i think it was the rhetoric, not the sentiment, that i was talking about.
Evangelical, hmm. Described as the "middle ground" by AP. Almost seems like we are the modern day Martin Luther, only on a much more personal level. Do we get to pick and choose pillars of the faith that we adhere to? Is that was an evangelical does? Does the definition of evangelical change with mainstream Christian thought? I firmly beleive that an evangelical reches a homeostasis between liturgy, knowledge, and scripture as a means to understand and flesh out our faith journey. I almost turned that into a quadrilateral, don't tell Outler.An evangelical has such a balanced faith that they are more apt to reach others in all walks of life. They are open minded to new Christian thought and examine it to ensure its truth. Our focus is to serve our Lord with all the faculties of our being; and to serve could be in any capacity. Through it all we must remember that it is all about Him. Hope this makes sense.
aaron,
i am not against people studying the Bible and using popular books to do so. God does heal and grow people in that. but it is incomplete. perpetually reading/studying without also participating in acts of service, and without keeping up with what is happening in society is unbalanced and therefore not 'whole.' i'm just against the untouched and preserved christian bubble mentality.
what would i have the church do? in addition to worship and study and prayer, i'll tell you what immediately comes to mind: i would have them donate their excess belongings to organizations that distribute them to people in need. i would have them train one another in job skills and help eachother find employment thru their connections. i would have them visit people who are ill or shut-in. i would have them habitually serve food to the homeless as a small group together. i would have them visit prisoners. and those in nursing homes. i would have them write letters to congressmen and participate in fundraising endeavors for the poor. i would have them hang out in city hall and go to secular community events on a regular basis--like the fireman's picnic, or the memorial day dance. i would have them recycle and conserve. i would have them adopt a child in need. i would have them become foster parents, etc. it is possible that perhaps the majority of the evangelical church is already doing these types of things and that perhaps i just don't see it or know about it. granted i only do a few of these things, but if every evangelical did a few of those things, they--the unloved, the forgotten, the needy, the lonely, the exploited-- really would know that we are christians by our love. then hopefully our doctrine would be informed by our realistic experience with the broken and hurting in this world, and they would always be formost in our minds, not in the cobwebs of our memory.
tim, i agree that there is a special place for the church and the sacraments. i mostly agree with your further concerns about baptising secular activities. that is something i need to ponder further.
ps. the above was not said in a rude or cantankerous 'tone'.
ap, thanks for provoking and encouraging theological reflection.
for me with the evangelical question...i'm in the same boat as aj. i don't often use the term or think of myself in that way, yet recognize that if my cognitive understanding of life with God were analyzed, it would most probably fall in the evangelical category as i understand it (my undertanding of evangelical is pretty similar to what others posted - i especially liked crusty guys first post).
hey jo, i would have the church do the same things. and have seen worship and beth moore help spur them to such actions. i suppose i read your statement too pejoratively. my bad.
you hit the nail square on the head with referring to all doing a little. i think that the ugly cousin of apathy is hyper-zealotry which neglects the rhythms of life that God would have us find and ends up creating gripers because no one is doing the work they should be doing.
your thought has inspired a post...which i will now write.
Hey.
I say early fundamentalism can be seen as a wonderful kind of protestant ecumenical movement. Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans (etc.) could all agree that it was dishonest to remain in possitions of leadership within denominational heirarchies if you didn't believe these 5 basics.
I'd actually locate early doctrinal fundamentalism (as apposed to the later hardened cultural fundamentalism) around pre-1925 calvinistic Princeton Seminary. BB Warfield was willing to carefully consider the possibilities for theistic evolution within the context of good ol' five point fundamentalism. Who'd a thunk it? These folks had the rich resources of covenant theology and the emerging biblical theology movement to draw on.
For what its worth, I say that biblical inerrancy within the context of covenant theology (particularly when coupled with the biblical theology of Kline, Ridderbos, Vos, etc.) is really a completely different ballgame from inerrancy within the context of dispensational theology. Inerrancy need only equal flat literalism if its couched in dispensationalism.
Ever talk to a feisty Lutheran?
They'll claim that the "evangelical" moniker is theirs and theirs alone. And they call all other protestants either schwarmers or "reformed".
When I think of "evangelical", I usually have in mind (1) low church, (2) non-doctrinal, no creed but the bible, (3) born-again-experience centered, (4) end-times oriented, (5) quiet time piety, (6) getting 'decisions for Christ', (7) Jesus is my boyfriend style worship, (8) feminine spirituality, (9) moderately charismatic.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home