Thursday, August 10, 2006
When A Term Loses Its Usefulness...
So, for me it started when I saw this post from iMonk. Michael begins be trying to define "evangelicalism":
Then I read Bonnie's post at Intellectuelle in which she tries to define the term "evangelical":
But it was a little personal poll post entitled Will Evangelical Christians Split from the PCUSA? that sealed the deal for me. I think the term evangelical has lost its usefulness, at least in any religious sense.
iMonk seems to agree with me in his post above. See, I've been hearing the term for decades now and I always thought of it as a term designed to unite us as Christians. By being defined by some bottom-line "Mere Christianity" evangelicals rose above their denominational affiliations in common cause to bring Christ to the world. But of late, and I think particularly in the blogosphere, evangelicals have begun to argue about who really is and is not a genuine one. Rather than being inclusive, the term has become exclusive. As iMonk says
While I like iMonk's sentiment a great deal, I do not think the term "post-evangelical" is useful either, it still divides, it is negative in connotation. We need something that unites us, not divides us - we need a term for what we share, not what we don't.
My opinion, we should leave the term "evangelical" to be a purely political one - one that means simply "politcally active, conservative Christian." Let it be defined by the politics, not the theology. The term is spent as a theological and ecclesiastical force.
Let's find a new term to define that of Christ which we all share in common.
Related Tags: evangelical, evangelicalism, faith and politics, religion, terms, meaning
By evangelical, I do not mean, as some on the Internet have labored to prove, a line of Christianity extending from the Reformation through Calvinism to a handful of modern day independent Baptist fundamentalists. Nor do I mean, as Lutherans have the perfect right to historically assert, that Lutheranism has the right to the term evangelicalism.He then goes on to describe why he thinks of himself as a "post-evangelical" - we'll get back to that in a minute.
Then I read Bonnie's post at Intellectuelle in which she tries to define the term "evangelical":
Regarding interdenominational relations (or even intra-denominational relations), I?m not sure that an evangelical ought to "win the world" yet lose those within his or her own ranks - ranks meaning fellow evangelicals, and beyond that, fellow Christians (Catholics, Orthodox). What good is it to win over a non-believer but alienate other believers?AMEN!
But it was a little personal poll post entitled Will Evangelical Christians Split from the PCUSA? that sealed the deal for me. I think the term evangelical has lost its usefulness, at least in any religious sense.
iMonk seems to agree with me in his post above. See, I've been hearing the term for decades now and I always thought of it as a term designed to unite us as Christians. By being defined by some bottom-line "Mere Christianity" evangelicals rose above their denominational affiliations in common cause to bring Christ to the world. But of late, and I think particularly in the blogosphere, evangelicals have begun to argue about who really is and is not a genuine one. Rather than being inclusive, the term has become exclusive. As iMonk says
I mean that I reject the idea that the primary role of a minister is to define other Christians as wrong. I reject the idea that ministers, no matter how large their profile in their own subcultures, are immune from the death of evangelicalism.I do not blame the current crisis surrounding the term solely on internicene theological squabbling; however. I equally blame the mainstream media that has sought a label for Christians that did not sound "too" religious and I blame politicians that have tried to co-opt faith into political action, and make of us a voting block. As these outsiders assigned secular power to the term, a scramble for that power was inevitable.
I mean that the death of evangelicalism opens the door for a return to the sources and a fresh examination of the meaning of Jesus.
While I like iMonk's sentiment a great deal, I do not think the term "post-evangelical" is useful either, it still divides, it is negative in connotation. We need something that unites us, not divides us - we need a term for what we share, not what we don't.
My opinion, we should leave the term "evangelical" to be a purely political one - one that means simply "politcally active, conservative Christian." Let it be defined by the politics, not the theology. The term is spent as a theological and ecclesiastical force.
Let's find a new term to define that of Christ which we all share in common.
Related Tags: evangelical, evangelicalism, faith and politics, religion, terms, meaning
