Labels are dangerous things. Being "labeled" can mean that you are identified with all the others who claim that label. And if you are mis-labeled, it can provide baggage that further complicates your life. For example, my father is a pastor. People used to like to disparage children of a pastor by calling them "P.K.'s" which was often made synonymous with a little bit wild and crazy. Or at the very least, a little bit odd. My Dad, mindful of PK's perjorative use called us "T.O.'s" or "Theologians' Offspring." It was a little more dignified.
In Christianity today we use many labels to identify the stream of Christianity from which a person comes--Mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Free Church, Emergent. All of these have both theological and political foundations and implications. But Christianity has become so many things that like the word "love" in the modern English language--a label can provide a little clarification that makes at least that particular expression of Christianity less confusing.
In an earlier post I shared Scott McKnight's observation about evangelicals:
"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."
The media often uses this label to describe a Christian who is conservative, narrow-minded and judgmental, negative ... and Republican. If you have read McKnight's words carefully--none of that is to be found in the real definition.
I am an evangelical because I believe first in the authority of scripture. I do not understand the Bible to be man's invention but God's revelation. Timothy speaks of it as "inspired" or God-breathed. They are words that were given by God from His heart through the minds, experiences, and pens of human authors. These authors - Matthew, Paul, David, etc. were people committed to living as servants of God. I do not believe God robotically dictated those words. In the words of my own church denomination's doctrinal statement: "We believe God spoke, using the words of men to convey divine truth. Therefore, the Bible reflects the culture and environment of the writers as they studied and wrote. God was guiding in such a way that the written truth was his Word. It is thus the infallible authority in everything Christians believe and do." (From WE BELIEVE, p. 17)
Since God is the ultimate author of Scripture--and He is my Creator, Redeemer, Leader, and Judge--the Bible must take precedence and preeminence over all other authorities in shaping my life.
Evangelicals have typically believed in sola scriptura, scripture alone as their authority--as opposed to scripture and tradition, or scripture and culture, or scripture and human authority -- and certainly as opposed to cultural relevance. I believe such an understanding gives me an anchor in sometimes turbulent and certainly tumultuous times. The authority of the scriptures and the reliable foundation it provides are one of the reasons I am an evangelical.
Posts
First off, great insights. When I see a type caste 'evangelical' spitting judgment, I kindly think of Matthew 7: 3-5. I agree that the word itself (evangelical) should carry nothing by positive connotations, but I also understand how it's understanding has been skewed and juxtaposed to mean something bad. I simply refuse to submit to incorrect or unfair definitions that the majority may hold or believe. I suggest others do the same - it's quite freeing.
ReplyDeleteI also consider myself an evangelical, although I don't use the word. I try to mimic the example of Christ (although I fail...often). I try to spread his spirit and his word. I never fully try to convert others, but I do try to live as He did - without judgment. I try to love unconditionally (which is hard) and I tend to speak for the least of God's people. My mission work has shown me how kind, gracious, loving, and proud the truly poor and downtrodden are. The truly impoverished tend to carry a grace that is wholly respectable. In short, the poor that I've encountered in central america define what an evangelical is to me. They exhibit God's love and truly show that poverty is a position of privilege - which our society doesn't grasp. Anyway, I'm rambling now. I just thought I would respond because it is troubling to see that something so simple as a term - evangelical - can inspire feelings of dislike.
On another note, you mention the gospels as being inspired by God and I tend to agree, but what should we think of the other 40 or so gospels that weren't canonized and officially included in the standard Bible we see today? I've always wondered how a council decided which gospels were inspired by the word of God and which weren't. Thoughts?