Evangelicalism
What is its meaning today?
At a recent meeting of Reformation For Today [RFT] we discussed the article in Touchstone about the state of Evangelicalism as assessed by six self-proclaimed Evangelicals. There are many today who believe the term is archaic having died the death of 1000 modifications so that it has no coherent meaning today.
In our discussion we examined 11 questions arising from the article. They are as follows:
1.Is evangelicalism a term you use? If so, how do you define it?
2. John Franke says: It [evangelicalism] does not reflect a specific confessional commitment so much as it indicates a general outlook of the Christian faith that can be situated in a broad range of church traditions." Do you agree with his statement?
3. D. Hart says evangelicalism is a symptom of "anti-formalism" that is the prevailing notion in the Christian community. Agree or disagree?
4. Do you see evangelicalism as a "mellow" fundamentalism?
5. Has political involvement watered down evangelicalism by requiring a "bigger tent" mentality?
6. Is religious pluralism, feminism and Open Theism properly part of evangelicalism?
7. D. Hart asserts evangelicalism is least common denominator Christianity that fails to do justice to the fullness of Biblical truth. Agree or disagree?
8. M. Horton believes evangelicalism is reaching the lost but losing the reached. Agree or disagree?
9. Is evangelicalism an aid or detriment to the Church?
10. The contributors outline the "best of evangelicalism". Which positions do you see as its best? Do you see a different best?
11. Is evangelicalism a term without meaning that should be relegated to at the ash heap of history? Why or why not?
The conclusion of our discussion was that the term “evangelical” is not an issue for the basic believer in a local parish. It is not a term of identification for orthodox, Bible believing folks. The group concluded that the term had been co-opted by the media and political types to identify blocks of voters who bought into a particular agenda. It is salt that has lost its flavor, so should be disregarded and placed underfoot. Today, evangelicalism has little to do with the “evangel”, the Gospel or good news, and any set of coherent, identifiable beliefs. Its context is not associated with the church or Scripture today.
One other conclusion seems to be that no “new” term is needed. Christian, or more particularly Biblical Christian, seems to be sufficient for identification purposes. The lesson learned is that any term must be defined with affirmations and denials. The latter are so unpopular today that we can only be categorized by what we agree upon and that leads to such broad categories as to be useless. There is no distinctive in evangelicalism, ergo, there can be no distinctions in any other term today.
What do you think? The Touchstone web site is www.touchstonemag.com to access the article which is from the November, 2007, issue.
posted by WCK @ 6:51 AM
5 Comments:
I like the term "evangelical" because it identifies such people with the gospel. If some misuse the term, then they are to be corrected. It is the gospel that unites true Christians, not denominationally specific statements of faith. It is useful to have a term that accentuates the uniting power of the gospel. Dispensationalists (who don't understand that concept as laid out in Eph. 2 and unBiblically divide the people of God into two) and those who confuse the Kingdom of God with their specific denomination would probably have a diminished ability to appreciate the need for "evangelical ecumenicism".
I might also point out the incorrect use of the term "parish". Thoroughgoing evangelicals (there's a qualification!) understand that the church is made of "members" who are "partners in the gospel" (Phil. 1:1-2) who have the duty of church disciple (Mt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 6, etc.). A "parish" is a district of either the government or a denomination specifying that everyone (or everyone of that particular denomination) in that district belongs to the church in that "parish". It suggests to people (whether intentionally or not) that they are a member of the local church just by virtue of living in the region. Whereas in the Biblical church, membership only belongs to the "visible saints" (who give evidence of regeneration). Historically it is a vestige of Christendom and is a term (unlike evangelicalism) that should be discarded.
If you're interested in the long-term trajectory of evangelicalism I'd suggest:
“The Fourth Great Awakening or Apostasy?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, December 2001
John------Thanks for making my argument clear with example. Yes, parish is generally a territorial term [See LA where we have parishes instead of counties]but it can be a group or society of folks too. And, even Desmond Magee of St. Francis RCC would see his parish as those "belonging" to the St. Francis not the borough of Clearfield in the Diocese of Erie. One of the better results of seperation jusrisprudence.
My point? Parish and evangelical both have differing meanings. So, it is great to use the terms if your listeners/readers understand how it is being used. But, here and now in the 21st century I am afraid we are beyond correcting misuse since any meaning has been swallowed up in a myriad of exceptions. ANd, no one can be wrong since no one is right.
Maybe you are correct that we need a Gospel uniting term...how about "Imputationist" since that is the operation and result of the "gospel that unites true Christians..."
Regards to Mary and your ball playing boys.
wck
Hi. To use the term parish of a voluntary group is to misuse the term or at least to confuse it. In your example, the "parish" is all the Catholics in the designated area. Catholics in that area are supposed to attend that church. That area is the "parish". Hence all Catholics who live in that area are "parishioners" -- even if they rarely attend, etc. But if one understands that the church is a body and the people in it are members -- visible saints about whom the preponderance of the evidence (particularly their testimony, baptism, appetite for the Word manifest at least in church attendance) testifies that they are regenerate -- then the church is no longer a department of the state (or a vestige thereof that still hasn't come to terms with disestablishment), responsible for the spiritual welfare of all who live in the designated "parish". It is only pastorally responsible for the members, while being evangelistically responsible for all its neighbors. The idea of "the parish", confuses pastoral and evangelistic responsibilities.
There's something dreadfully wrong with evangelicalism. Within the past year the president of the NAE was exposed in a homosexual and drugs scandal and the president of the ETS apostacized. But there's nothing wrong with the term. Besides, I think the popular culture does have some understanding of the use of the term evangelical. Sure, they get it wrong when it comes to the details but one does not expect academic precision in the use of terms out of the popular media.
As for "imputationists", while having the virtue of accentuating that aspect of justification that divides evangelicals from Romanists, appears to me to be a term that fails to communicate -- since most people wouldn't understand what it means. (I'm sure Catholic theologians have a kind of imputation in their soteriology too, though subservient to infusion.) Why not "regenerationists"? Of course, Catholics, et al, claim a kind of regeneration in thier "baptismal" rite but they don't really expect people to be born again. Of course, the best would be that all evangelicals admit that there is no clear indication of infant baptism in the NT, that baptizing an infant is never commanded in the NT (hence, it violates the regulative principle), that baptism always follows faith in the NT, that we know from the early church (e.g. the early 2nd century document "The Didache" that they were not baptizing babies or small children then), and that baptizing an infant at least suggests that we can do something that somehow puts some people in a better position with God than other people (even if they're not regenerate they are somehow in a "covenant" with God simply because their parents had an someone pour water on his head) -- we could all admit that and then call ourselves by another good, solid, Biblical term, also recognized in our culture: Baptists!
Problem solved!
Oi, achei seu blog pelo google está bem interessante gostei desse post. Gostaria de falar sobre o CresceNet. O CresceNet é um provedor de internet discada que remunera seus usuários pelo tempo conectado. Exatamente isso que você leu, estão pagando para você conectar. O provedor paga 20 centavos por hora de conexão discada com ligação local para mais de 2100 cidades do Brasil. O CresceNet tem um acelerador de conexão, que deixa sua conexão até 10 vezes mais rápida. Quem utiliza banda larga pode lucrar também, basta se cadastrar no CresceNet e quando for dormir conectar por discada, é possível pagar a ADSL só com o dinheiro da discada. Nos horários de minuto único o gasto com telefone é mínimo e a remuneração do CresceNet generosa. Se você quiser linkar o Cresce.Net(www.provedorcrescenet.com) no seu blog eu ficaria agradecido, até mais e sucesso. If is possible add the CresceNet(www.provedorcrescenet.com) in your blogroll, I thank. Good bye friend.
Post a Comment
<< Home