Evangelicalicious
Posted on May 6, 2008 by Halden
There are, I think few more contested definitions than those applied to the term ‘evangelical.’ However, attempting to define evangelicalism in a precise or pleasing way is, I think, not all that important. What is important, however, is to know how people who use the term understand it. So, with that in mind, let me hear it. What do you think of when you think of the word ‘evangelical’? At the lowest level, what does such an epitaph conjure up on your mind?
Filed under: Evangelicalism
I think you’re correct in your perception that the actual term “Evangelical” doesn’t precisely mean anything except a vague grab bag of stereotypes.
That said, sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason.
Here’s my stereotypes when I think of Evangelical in this year of 2008, in no particular order:
1. PowerPoint presentations.
2. Drums and guitars, lighting… full-on multimedia, basically.
3. Republican in a vague-yet-emphatic way.
4. Zondervan publishing company.
5. Fairly well-read in the Bible.
6. Anti-sacramental, or simply ignorant of sacraments altogether.
7. Sola-scriptura in a talismanic way.
8. Utterly ignorant of any church history.
9. Homogenous by congregation (pretty much everyone in a congregation being the same age-and-class, though not necessarily the same race.)
10. Super specific study bibles (”The Brunette Thirtysomething Southern Woman’s Study Bible”–see item #4)
11. Friendly and welcoming.
The first thing that comes to my mind is “low church”.
I’m partial to Doug Sweeney’s historical analysis of evangelicalism as an essentially gospel oriented ecumenical movement spawned by the Great Awakening.
What comes to my mind: Positively, zealous commitment to a rather personalized form of Christian belief and piety; Negatively, a culture that is rather frustratingly impatient with nuance, subtlety, and complexity.
me.
Ben, I love your list. For the “cutting edge” evangelicals I’d add reading “emergent village” and “emerging church” literature and anything by Shane Claiborne.
America TM
If you’ve read The Purpose Driven Life, you might be an Evangelical.
At the lowest level? “Lutheran.”
That wasn’t meant as a jibe or something, by the way…I was just saying that the term “evangelical” originally was the term Lutherans used for themselves (with “Protestant” being attached to them by their opponents). I’m never clear.
Evangelicalism is an experiment in being the church marked primarily by theological eclecticism and historical dislocation. Well, at least this is what I argued in a paper I wrote during college, and it still sounds good to me.
“Evangelical” with a big ‘E’? A specific sub-culture in America that came out of a particularly Protestant context in the 19th century that has been hijacked by the Religious Right in the latter part of the 20th century that suffers from that hijacking to the present day.
“Evangelical” with a small ‘e’? A specifically Gospel-orientated way of living our Christian faith out that is universal to all Christian traditions.
Oddly enough I still consider myself an Evangelical, though I’m not sure what I really have in common with historic Evangelicalism (other than the historic 19th century Evangelical zeal to help the oppressed and disenfranchised), I’m even less convinced I have much in common with contemporary Evangelicalism.
Whether I actually even am an “Evangelical” is highly debatable, but, if nothing else, I consider myself emphatically “evangelical”.
At best… (well, the ways I describe myself, of course! I am a Methodist with an evangelical streak, among other things)
1. Scripture is the authority on all matters of faith and practice
2. Creedal orthodoxy (thinking Nicene and Apostles’)
3. (Short of exclusivism, but typically) Experience of conversion—through Christ, reconciled to God (justification) and on the journey of restoration in the image of God (sanctification)
At worst… (why, the things I reject of course!)
1. Marginalized sacraments at best
2. Faux “high view” of Scripture — the view may intend to be high, but since the biblical cultures from which the texts arose didn’t conceive of truth in texts like these in terms of “inerrancy” and since theology is usually done by arranging Scripture into verses patched together like an appeal to a legal document, I fail to see it as a “conservative” approach to Scripture.
3. Lacking the robust gospel of Scripture (and again, ironically given the self-claim, less biblical)
4. Escapist (and therefore, Gnostic) theology (following the ironically less/unbiblical theme)
5. Used in certain contexts, right-wing Republican lackey
6. Poor listening and uncooperative with other Christians. In particular, some conservative evangelicals can have a hard time hearing that the kids in your church have a vital relationship with God (read: mainline church with moderate evangelical streak) because the language isn’t the same.
I tend to think “evangelical” is a term that is no longer useful (see Jamie Smith’s reflection on the recent ‘Evangelical Manifesto’ - http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com/2008/05/evangelical-manifesto.html).
If forced to define it, I would want to support something like Jon’s little-E evangelical; though, we would then want to determine what is a “Gospel-oriented way of living.”