I am an evangelical Christian. Now that I have said that, some of you will be deleting this blog. Unfortunately, the media has fostered the characterization of evangelical as - politically conservative, judgmental and negative, narrow-minded, concerned with "souls" but unconcerned with justice. Some persons who call themselves "evangelicals" help perpetuate the stereotype.
Recently persons within the Christian movement, but who reject some of these stereotypes have attempted to redefine "evangelical" into nice people that are non-threatening, who are all about "love"--again defined as "accepting of everyone's values and opinions" as equal to biblical values, and concerned about feeding the poor primarily, but confronting no one about spiritual matters.
I like what Scott McKnight says about this:
"To define "evangelical" we need to pay attention to those who have made it their life study to come to terms with this movement, and two scholars have done just that: Mark Noll in the USA and David Bebbington (The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon And Moody (History of Evangelicalism) ) in the UK. They agree on this: an evangelical is a Christian Protestant for whom the central ideas are the leading authority of Scripture, the necessity of personal conversion, the centrality of the death of Christ on the cross as a substitutionary atonement, and the importance of a life of active following Jesus, seen in such things as Bible reading, prayer, church attendance, and deeds of compassion and justice. That is the standard definition of evangelical. This definition summarizes those who care about getting this term accurate. It is not a definition designed to exclude some of whom they are worried. It's big tent definition, but it bears no ill-will toward others.
Now my observation today: I'm seeing a baffling desire by many who almost never talk about any of the above four ideas (as central to what they believe) but for some reason want to be called "evangelical." They make a point to say they are evangelical. To be committed to justice or compassion as the central pursuit in life does not make one an evangelical, though evangelicals should be committed to justice and to compassion -- and shame on those who aren't. But what makes an evangelical is a commitment to the above four ideas (Bible, conversion, cross, discipleship)."
Steve continues ... in my next posting I will tell you I am willing to called an evangelical despite the bad press.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I just read McKnight's post and then saw yours. This is a good subject. I think it needs to be the way that Noll and Bebbington define it.
ReplyDeleteYes, the term has taken on baggage, but we need to keep it what it really is and I frequently remind friends (evangelicals) who have become wary of the distinction what it really means.
I stand behind the traditional distinctions and under that tent, I am happy to be an evangelical.
Over the years any movement that involves a fallen humanity exercising their free will takes on baggage. But when we acknowledge that our lives (and the "movements") belong to a sovereign God, we will be committed to dealing with the baggage so that it does weigh down our mission. Sometimes dealing with baggage means reaffirming its original intent.
ReplyDelete