[Previous entry: "Applying the scriptures"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Good business is where you find it"]

03/29/2004 Entry: "Evangelical?"

This is a reblog. But that's allowed, isn't it?

Can I have my word back please? I don't like to label people. Labels can be a means of wrapping people up in a word and then dismissing them. It is easy to forget that the labels we use to describe people do not define them. The Almighty has made us in such infinite variety that our labels can only ever be vague hints or approximations.You might guess from all this that today I'm trying to get rid of a label - but you'd be wrong. What I want to do is recover a label which has been (ahem) "borrowed". I want it back. The label is... (wait for it!) ... evangelical. There. I said it. I am an evangelical.My problem is, I reckon that word has been misappropriated and it's in danger of losing its meaning. It is beginning to be associated with a particular approach to the Bible, and sometimes with a particular style (or styles) of worship which have no exclusive claim to it.So what does evangelical mean? I'll quote the glossary in "An Introduction to the Christian Faith", published by Lynx Communications in Britain:

"One in whose Christian faith great importance is given to the teachings of the Bible as the basis for belief and to personal conversion as a necessity for true Christianity"

Posted by Mean Dean @ 03/29/2004 08:51 PM GMT

Once again I find myself in total agreement with you. Though I may be more conservative than you in some respects, I find the definition of "evangelical", and your use of it, to be perfect, in the Wesleyan sense (from one Wesleyan-Arminian to another). I shall be happy if the proper usage can re-establish itself.

Let's have fellowship, shall we, within and without the evangelical umbrella and not let labels be so divisive.

In fact, I even know folks who *are* evangelical but claim not to be because of the misuse of the label. They must take it to be perjorative, as the label "fundementalist" has come to be seen.

I am evangelical in the sense of Quebedeaux's "The Young Evangelicals" and Webber's "The Younger Evangelicals".

Posted by Randy McRoberts @ 03/29/2004 10:42 PM GMT

Once again I find myself in total agreement with you.
Sssh Randy! not so loud!

Posted by Richard @ 03/29/2004 11:43 PM GMT

I agree with you Richard, although I hesitate to apply labels to myself. I can think of several which I know others would use of me. I also agree that any one label tends to have a settled meaning and "evengelical" is certainly one of those. I'd probably call myself that, if I were pushed, as I agree with the definition you offer, but I'm not the same "evangelical" as others around.

I am bothered by the way that certain attitudes are pushed as being "evangelical." I'm sure we could all think of examples of this. If I don't hold to these, then surely I must be a "liberal?"

I am also bothered by the attitude that evangelicals have a stranglehold on what is considered as truth. Not so.
Shalom,
Jan

Posted by Jan @ 03/30/2004 12:01 AM GMT

Much as I'd like to fellowship within (or indeed underneath) the umbrella I'm one of those who probably won't ever be wanting the label back.

I fear that having been chewed by the neighbour's dog it's rather past its best.

Posted by Dave @ 03/30/2004 12:04 AM GMT

It's only one of a number of terms that have been hijacked.

How many of us have been asked, "You're not one of those 'born agains' are you?"

Yes - I'm born again - but no - I'm not one of those people who stand in busy places shouting angrily about God's love.

Posted by Rodney Olsen @ 03/30/2004 12:22 AM GMT

I'd like to call myself
'evangelical' (as defined by you, Richard) but both that and 'born again' are, as Dave says, so chewed over now that i have a proposition! Why don't the blogging 'fraternity' (Help! My minister would not allow that word, because she and I would be excluded!) put their blogs together and invent a new label which means exactly that, stands out clearly as just that and has no 'luggage' with it! Our bright new label could really take off and send the Good News spinning round the world!

Posted by Olive Morgan @ 03/30/2004 09:26 AM GMT

I think the only label that really fits is 'Christian'. But how frequently is this divided into the two schools of 'evangelical' and 'liberal', with all their distorted conceptions? This comes on the back of me being told (again) an hour ago that as a 'liberal' i'm going straight to hell. How have such labels come to overshadow the only one that really matters - 'Christian'? It's not only their divisiveness that worries me, it's the power and emphasis with which they're employed.

If we're gonna create a new label, let's just bring 'Christian' back to the fore, where it belongs.

Posted by Mike @ 03/30/2004 03:33 PM GMT

I dunno, Richard. I for one am not very comfortable with trying to reclaim some of this language. Once a word gets "hijacked" it can be very, very difficult to reclaim the original meaning. I think that "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are two words that will always contain negative connotations now.

For instance, even though I probably shouldn't be, I'm automatically skeptical of any organization that includes the word "evangelical" in its name or doctrinal statement. If I see "fundamentalist" I do a 180 and run like heck.

Those words can become a stumbling block to others. Why should I claim a title that sends a bad message to most people...a message very different from the one I want to send?

I think I'll just be a guy who tries to take seriously the teachings of Christ.

Posted by Jonathan @ 03/30/2004 03:34 PM GMT

Good points all - I especially liked Dave's line "I fear that having been chewed by the neighbour's dog it's rather past its best" :o)
But the tight-wad in me says that if my share in something has been taken without my consent, even if those who've taken it have spoiled it, I still want it back.

I agree with you, Jonathan, to the extent that I think "evangelical" can send the wrong message, and it's precisely for that reason that I want to reclaim it. It'll take time, but I think it'll be worth it. At the very least it will mean that Mike's "friends" have to find another reason for consigning him to eternal torment.

Posted by Richard @ 03/30/2004 04:06 PM GMT

Curiously, the full name of my own denomination is the Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America. Though it's certainly not 'evangelical' in the modern sense of the word.

It would sure help if new religious movements came up with more original names. This problem has been going on since the Catholics and the Orthodox split -- both churches consider themselves both catholic and orthodox, but there you go.

In America, though, the problem definitely got worse. All those Churches of God, Churches of Christ, those generically-named movements like Evangelical and Holiness. The only really new names are fundamentalist and Pentecostal -- I don't think any Christians called themselves that before the 20th century.

Posted by Camassia @ 03/30/2004 11:55 PM GMT

I'm sure my "friends" will find many a reason for which to consign me to eternal torment; no matter what it takes, they'll find a way, and they'll make a nice label for it as well. My favourite one recently has actually been that I 'pick and choose' when reading the bible, and therefore am ignoring God's word, and QED, it's hell for me. Not considering the fact that 'HEY, SO DOES EVERYONE!', and that believing in Canaan's curse (a lot good that's done history) is not going to make me a follower of Christ, this is yet another ill-conceived labelling that automatically stigmatises an approach that isn't necessarily wrong/bad/satan-inspired.

They're everwhere; in Camassia's post above, we have the Catholic/Orthodox labels. Now, of course, these Churches have to have names, but does it really mean that we have to say 'catholic, SMALL C!' each time we want to refer to the 'holy catholic (small C!) and apostolic Church'?

Even the use of 'New Religious Movements' in contemporary culture carries a connotation (i.e wacko cults) which isn't necessarily true.

So, given that all these labels have "been chewed by the neighbour's dog" (I like that...), I do indeed share Jonathan's scepticism. However, I admire your desire to take back what's rightly yours, Richard. Good luck with it!

Posted by Mike @ 03/31/2004 12:59 PM GMT