Allow me to pick out one common thread among the various posts today on this topic: Dr. Moore isn’t much interested in whether he’s actually an evangelical or not, pointing out that its meaning is largely contextualized. Frank Turk grants that some people need the label for sociological purposes, but doesn’t much have an interest in it otherwise and would prefer Proclaimers instead.
All well and good, and I largely agree with most of the substance of their points. But here’s my defense for why we should care: isn’t “evangelical” largely a term that the rest of the world uses to identify us, and don’t all our theological distinctions get lost amidst that? I don’t think I’m on board with the Jesus P.R. movement, but I’ll grant them this: the label matters because, like it or not, it makes people think certain things when they meet me. If it’s not a part of my self-identity, isn’t it a part of my identity in relation to the world? And don’t the sociological aspects of the definition matter as a result?
I’m not sure where I’m headed here, but it seems we potentially leave aside the sociological element of evangelical to our own detriment by allowing it to shape perceptions of us in particular ways (which the unChristian folks made worse, unfortunately).
October 19th, 2009 | 5:11 pm | #1
The only reason I hate starting a new high-profile blog is that it consumes my day. Blech.
Just as a clarifier, I would prefer a term which itself is a clarifier. The word “evangelical” is an otherwise-arcane word — nobody outside of churches knows what an “evangel” is, or knows if something is “evangelic”. I’m just saying that if this is our label, let’s use one that people will “get”. Like “Proclaimers” — or how about “messengers”? I also like “scum of the Earth,” but while it starts amazing conversations it lacks curb appeal.
Now, that said, if “evangelical” makes people think you burn books, or “hate fags”, or are militant homeschoolers (disclaimer: I’m a homeschool dad), or want war to defeat Islam, or that you wiggle on the floor like a snake during worship services, then let’s be honest: it doesn’t mean what it meant in the 1530′s.
And if that’s the case, let’s move on. Let’s find a label that works — that tells people who we really are.
That’s all I’m saying: there’s nothing biblically-mandated which says we must be “evangelicals”. I think fighting to preserve a term like that is one of the reasons Fundamentalism got subdued.
October 19th, 2009 | 5:44 pm | #2
That’s all I’m saying: there’s nothing biblically-mandated which says we must be “evangelicals”.
Agreed.
The word “church” is an otherwise arcane word as well. It conjures up all kinds of ideas for those “outside.”
But, like gospel, it is a good biblical word that has life in it. (Not meaning to be spiritual here, just saying it can be useful still.)
I like fighting for the word “evangelical” the same I’d like keeping the word “church.” It’s cosa nostra. :-) Worth preserving, if possible.
But definitely abandon-able if necessary. (The label, that is, not what the label signifies.)
October 19th, 2009 | 5:46 pm | #3
To say it much more succinctly: My preference is to work hard at rehabbing the word than do the easy thing and ditch it.
October 19th, 2009 | 6:05 pm | #4
I’m not sure “church” is a negotiable word.
We’ll let Joe arbitrate whether or not that’s a topic for the future. ;-)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact