The other day I received an email asking me how I would differentiate between evangelicals, fundamentalists, and charismatic Christians. Great question!
In providing an answer, let me say that I am speaking only for myself. There can be significant differences in how to respond to such a question and others, no doubt, will vehemently disagree with me. I've tried to answer to the best of my ability but I'd appreciate hearing how others would answer it themselves.
First, let me begin by clarifying that:
a) The terms are fluid -- While these labels represent a core set of beliefs and values, we have to be careful not to define them too narrowly. Like the term "Democrat" -- which is used by people as diverse in views as Howard Dean and Zell Miller -- the application of each label can cover a divergent group of believers.
b) The terms are not mutually exclusive -- These labels can be used in conjunction with each other (for example certain Pentecostal groups would claim to be charismatic fundamentalists) or on their own (some fundamentalists shun the term evangelical and vice versa).
c) The terms are often loosely defined -- Even those who use the labels in reference to themselves often have a difficult time defining what they mean. Outside the core beliefs, the labels are unhelpful when used to define beliefs (evangelicals, for example, can be either politically liberal or conservative).
Now, as for the specific definitions:
Evangelical -- The best definition I have found is based on that of the British historian David Bebbington who notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion:
conversionism - the belief that lives need to be changed;
activism - the expression of the gospel in effort;
biblicism- a particular regard for the Bible; and
crucicentrism a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
(Note: Both charismatic and fundamentalists share these traits even though they may not self-identify as evangelcial.)
Charismatic -- Refers to a movement which places special emphases on the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit such as glossalia (speaking in tongues) and healing. It is also marked by an exuberant worship style.
Fundamentalist -- This is probably the most misunderstood category of the three. In the early 1900s a conservative movement sprung up within Protestantism in reaction to liberal theology and the form of Biblical interpretation known as higher criticism. A series of articles was written and collected into a four volume work called The Fundamentals which was intended to outline the key doctrines, the fundamentals, of the Christian faith. The movement eventually moved away from its intellectual roots, though, and by the end of World War II it had receded from the culture at large. The term fundamentalist now has become synonymous with a strict conservative stance that is in opposition to both the secular world and the "apostate" branches of Christianity.
She also added a follow-up question:
How do you feel about mainstream Protestants who don't agree with the tenets of your faith, or your particular means of expressing them?
The question is difficult to answer without knowing what is meant by "mainstream Protestant." I have an uncle, for example, who is both theologically conservative and an elder in a mainline Presbyterian church. While he might not care to use the label "evangelical", I have no doubt that he would agree with all of the tenets of evangelicalism.
Now if you mean the "children of Schleiermacher" -- Protestants who deny the divinity of Christ -- I would say that I take exception to their choice of classifying themselves as "Christian." I think that at some point, certain Protestants have to admit that their faith has strayed so far from the historical Christian faith that it should be called something else entirely.
Oddly enough, I probably have as much, if not more, in common with Catholics as I do most mainline Protestants. While we may have profound theological differences, there are enough core similarities that I can relate to the orthodox Catholic faith. Rev. Shelby Spong and I may both fall under the category of "Protestant" but I identify more with my hero Pope John Paul.
1
JP,
Nice work. I would only add that to embrace the tenets of evangelicalism is basically the same as being "Born Again" (as per Jesus' words to Nicodemus), though, one would, of course, still have to take the individual step of making that decision. In other words (Today work too much. Not type good.), to describe onesself as an Evangelical Christian is to indicate a belief in the necessity of being born again.
Amen re: people who stray far afield from the pale of orthodoxy, and yet insist on calling themselves Christians. A friend of mine had a cheesy (and yet effective) bit along those lines. "Christian Scientists" he said, "are like Grape Nuts. Grape Nuts aren't grapes, and they're not nuts. Christian Scientists aren't Christians, and they're not scientists."
There you have it.
posted on 12.03.2003 6:12 PM2
Hey Jared,
I agree that all evangelicals are technically "born agains" but not all "born agains" are evangelical.
Since I had to start somewhere,I've used the findings of the Barna Research Group in determining the differnce in those who classify themselves as "Born Agains" and those who consider themselves "Evangelicals".
posted on 12.03.2003 6:43 PM3
Your definition of Evangelical would also include the Neo-Orthodox and the Christian-rite existentialists.
Evangelicals proper are the Lutherans.
In generic use, Evangelicals are orthodox protestants holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, the content of the ecumenical creeds, etc, and insisting on sola fide over and against sola fiat or fide et aqua that characterize the other remaining orthodox Protestants.
posted on 12.04.2003 12:15 AM4
Umm...not all evangelicals would agree with your statement that they hold to the inerrancy of the scripture. While that is a widely held tenet of the movement, it is not an absolute requirement.
posted on 12.04.2003 8:04 AM6
Your comments seem to be pretty accurate. I would only add that in a lot of cases the differences are more cultural than theological. In other words, the difference between a "fundamentalist" and an "evangelical" might be that the former wears a lot of flannel and works at wal-mart and the latter drives a Honda and works for IBM. They both may believe identical things but find that they have little else in common.
posted on 12.04.2003 3:07 PM7
JP, it is an absolute requirement. See the two declarations of the Council of Chicago and the Lausanne Covenant.
Apparently there are some Neo-Orthodox who wish to be called Evangelicals, in spite of the negative associations of the term, and in spite of not -being- evangelicals.
But then neo-orthodoxy is part of the descent into non-reason, anyway, so why expect rationality?
posted on 12.05.2003 11:03 AM8
Fundamentalism within Christian circles has become a monniker for those living in what has been called "The American Revivalist Culture" and are also typically very separatist.
Evangelicals hold to the same doctrines, but do not practice separatism.
Neo-Orthodox tend to hold, mostly, to the creeds, but view the Bible as more of a quarry of religious experiences, a place to meet Jesus, but not read His Father's actual words (translated into vernacular, of course)
Christian-rite Existentialists, such as self-described 'post-evangelicals' like the form of Godliness, but deny its substance. They like the music, the worship services, the group identity, but it doesn't affect their personal or public moral lives, and they don't really believe it is true the way 2+2=4. And they can have an existentialist experience, which they can chose to call 'an encounter with Jesus'.
posted on 12.05.2003 11:07 AM