Because First Things is well-known for the highest level of discourse on the subjects it considers, I’m a little surprised to find myself here. For the last 5 or 6 years I’ve mostly been known for causing mayhem in the evangelical blogosphere, so when I received an invitation to spread some of that content here as a representative of the “evangelical” viewpoint, I was sort of stunned.
And part of the reason I was stunned was that I had to ask myself, “am I an ‘evangelical’”?
I mean: of course I consider myself a Christian, and I begrudge some people that title for various theological and sociological reasons, and of course I would count some people out of that circle (and some of them would object). But “evangelical”? What on earth is an “evangelical”?
Back when I was in college, these two Scottish lads (Charlie and Craig Reid) sort of appeared on the radio with this bawling-awesome march/anthem/ballad called “I’m gonna be (500 miles)”, and it’s a song that you have to hear to appreciate. It’s a reckless love song, lyrically and musically uncomplicated by anything but a clear enthusiasm for the person they were singing to. As I recall (and of course the internet helps me remember this very clearly) the last half of the first verse goes like this:
“If I get drunk, well I know I’m gonna be I’m gonna be the man who gets drunk next to you
And if I haver up, Yeah I know I’m gonna be I’m gonna be the man who’s havering to you”
and the refrain goes like this:
“But I would walk 500 miles And I would walk 500 more
Just to be the man who walks a thousand miles To fall down at your door”
Just to be clear, I don’t think that being an “evangelical” is about being someone who goes out and gets drunk and starts “havering” for any reason. But I bring up the Reid brothers and their song because they sort of did what they did (and they are still doing it in spite of my lack of patronage over the years) with a gusto that the name of their band proudly underscores: they are the Proclaimers.
So let me say this: I wish that, rather than being called “evangelicals”, we as a body of people who have been somehow tangled together by various sociological and loosely-theological ties were instead called “the Proclaimers”. It would make who we are and what we do so much more obvious and simpler — and it would take all the obscurity of the word “evangelical” out of it.
Someplace c. 1531 (if m-w.com can be trusted for this sort of data) being “of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels” was tagged “evangelical”, and it was a label applied to those who became Protestants (by anathema, if we still hold a grudge, which I admit I do), and eventually also to “Fundamentalists” by the end of the 19th century, and in some later cases even to those whose only key relationship to the Christian faith is an ardor for evangelism, or the bringing in of new people whether they believe what Carl F. H. Henry, J. Gresham Machen, C. H. Spurgeon, John Owen, John Calvin, and Martin Luther, and Augustine, and for that matter Saul of Tarsus, believed or not.
And in saying that, I’m voicing some trepidation for being brought to the table here at First Things as an “evangelical”. I’m not a big fan of the circus that occurs under that tent — nor am I a fan of the amount of real damage that gets done to the actual Evangel “evangelicals” are supposed to believe in because of the inordinate number of add-ons that now come with the title.
For example, if I’m an evangelical, which local church should I join? It worries me that, on the one hand, being an “evangelical” would seem to rule out certain local-church options for political reasons (would an evangelical join a church which is too small to influence local government?) and on the other hand, it still would give me no clear reason to join any church in particular (would an evangelical join a church where it’s not clear that belief and baptism are necessary for being part of the body?). For that matter, is being united to other believers for reasons other than to get a certain mix (either left or right) in the Supreme Court or in Congress or a certain man in the White House a central issue?
So since the question is being asked here, and I’ve been invited to give a few hundred words on the subject, I for one have no idea what it means to be an “evangelical”, but I do know that Jesus Christ died for all manner of human hubris in which we have replaced God with other saviors. Jesus Christ died to save sinners, Paul said to his young student Timothy, among whom I am the greatest — the Headmaster and Ringleader. And it’s in his patience and lavishness to save me that the whole world can see what kind of Savior and God he is.
And I would walk 500 miles, and then I would walk 500 more just to be the one who walked 1000 miles to say that, well, wherever it is you are right now. I want you to know me as a Proclaimer for that Jesus, because He’s the one who matters to this sick world. I’d chuck the title “evangelical” in a second if it gets in the way of that.
October 19th, 2009 | 12:21 am | #1
Frank,
You raise many important questions for evangelicals. I especially appreciate your last two lines, and your humility. I look forward to reading your contributions here.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
October 19th, 2009 | 2:05 am | #2
Frank,
This was awesome. I’ve always loved that song too, but I’m never going to listen to it the same way again. I wonder if they’d mind if we made a T-shirt out of it…
October 19th, 2009 | 9:20 am | #3
Frank,
Interesting proposition. I have wondered if it is worth trying to re-capture the term evangelical. Maybe it is too far gone by now.
Regardless of the term used, someone will come and claim it. Or, certain magazines, such as those whose initials are “CT” will simply apply said label to whoever they deem to be so.
In our Protestantism, we will have to continue to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus by grace alone through faith alone.
But…I feel ya!
Mark
October 19th, 2009 | 10:54 am | #4
Simply because you don’t like the term, doesn’t make you any less an evangelical.
As to those that would tarnish the name with their political gambits and self aggrandizing proclamations – well – they are not evangelicals, and we should not be afraid of saying so.
October 19th, 2009 | 11:54 am | #5
dac –
Wow. OK. :-)
October 19th, 2009 | 4:12 pm | #6
CS Lewis, if I remember correctly, had Screwtape advocate something to the effect of trying to get Christians to always be reacting against a different era’s problems, or at least putting the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABble. I sometimes get that impression when I see/hear someone speaking against the politicization of the term Evangelical, or saying ‘God’s not a Republican’, or some such.
No, of course, God’s not a Republican (though He certainly isn’t a Democrat!). No, the Gospel is not a matter of politics. But a true Christian, who has embraced the Gospel, and is truly born from above, should have his outlook on all life altered, n’est-ce pas? Such that, e.g., where he previously ‘rode the fence’ on a hot topic such as abortion (as I, to my shame, once did), he no longer does so, and can no longer countenance supporting a politician or a political party that would claim that a woman should have the legal ability to have a butcher pull her baby halfway out, stab him in the skull, and pull him the rest of the way out, dead, eh? And should not a mature understanding of Scripture drive us to recognize that statist ‘solutions’ (e.g., welfare, gov’t-run medical care, massive bureaucracies of this and that) to problems caused by human failings will only make matters worse?
What am I to say to someone who identifies himself as a Christian, or an Evangelical, and claims to trust in Jesus, but who proudly and stubbornly identifies himself with the party of death? I think Bonhoeffer knew the answer to that question.
October 19th, 2009 | 4:40 pm | #7
Doc –
That’s a great comment which, I think, has more to offer if you’re willing to play along a bit.
As a person who agrees with you in principle — that is, that abortion is not a “problem” but is in fact an “abomination” of Old-Testament Biblical proportions — how do we frame up for the person who is reading and is not “truly born from above” that using Government to restrict abortion to save lives is Christian compassion but not using government to dispence health care (which, it is said, will save the lives of those who do not get health care) is somehow also Christian?
I had to delete my answer so I could see yours first. let me know what you think.
October 19th, 2009 | 11:19 pm | #8
I have yet to see a whit of scriptural evidence that Jesus cared at all what the Government was or did. In fact, contrary to the interests of many Jews of the day, and quite possibly several of the disciples, Jesus had demonstrably no interest in governmental issues.
You would think that perhaps he had bigger concerns, but that’s probably just the evangelical in me.
October 20th, 2009 | 4:28 pm | #9
Frank:
Thanks so much for your response.
As far as responding to one who is not ‘born from above’ (a phrase I use since it is not only accurate, but different from Born Again, which now every Jimmy, Billary, and Barack claim to be), it ought to be acknowledged that there is a great difference between legally recognizing that abortion is the unjust taking of a human life, and therefore should be illegal, and making it public policy for the gov’t to take money from a waitress in DeMoines to pay for the health care of someone in Portland, regardless of whether it will be to the putative benefit of the Portlander. The issue is not how many lives will be saved by a particular gov’t policy. The issue is justice.
Besides, why should I take at face value the claims of the statists that gov’t health care will save lives? Remember Twain on statistics…
Folding in a response to DAC, above, Jesus did indeed have something to say about government and what it’s supposed to do (unless DAC is a ‘red letter’ Christian*, in which case he and I don’t have enough common ground to intelligently discuss this from a Christian basis). His Holy Spirit, through the apostle Paul, made it pretty clear, admittedly in a brief and broad outline, what government was for and why it ‘carried the sword’. The list of things that God does not want gov’t to do would be endless. It is foolish to demand that the Bible make this list explicit. Instead we should recognize that, Biblically, health care and other ‘welfare’ issues are clearly laid at the feet of family, neighbors, and the church. Law enforcement is assigned to gov’t.
*A ‘red letter’ Christian is one who claims that only the the words directly spoken by Jesus (the ‘red letters’) are authoritative.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact