1

Joe,

How do you define evangelical?

I have heard some estimates that there are 100 million evangelicals in this country. My hunch is that 100 million is highly inflated.

I am interested in your definition, especially since you are the outpost for evangelicals ;-)

Thanks,

Jeff

2

I think we need to stick with the definition of the term as coined by Carl Henry and used by Francis Schaeffer, the Lausanne Covenant and the Chicago Declarations.

Orthodox Christianity holding to the three ecumenical creeds, the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, the inerrancy of Scripture in the original autographs, and the need for personal conversion to Christ, based upon the atonement Christ worked on the Cross, plus nothing. Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura Supra Omne, Sola Deo Gloria. Anything less than that is something less than Evangelical Christianity.

There are some today claiming the title, but denying the Scripture, denying the bodily resurrection of the dead, denying the Holy Trinity, and on and on. But they are no more Evangelicals than they are Martians.

Otherwise there is a bit of disingenuity going on. People and groups claiming to be something that they are not, because of its popularity.

If we can't use it the way it was used by Henry and Schaeffer, we might as well stick to the very original use, meaning Lutheran.

3

Jeff, that number sounds low -if- you take the usual poll method of asking people if they've had 'a born again experience' as though it were existentialism and not Christianity. In that case, it would be closer to 175 million Americans. If you go with orthodox Protestants who reject the half-way covenant, then maybe 50 million.

4

Puzzled, by that definition of evangelical (which I agree with by the way) we can quickly eliminate almost anyone associated with the leadership of Fuller Theological Seminary (reference to post above)

Verbal, plenary inspiration was how the seminary was founded but has long since been removed from their belief statement.

5

The definition of evangelical to me is:

Believing in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments; the Trinity of the Godhead; the creation of man by the direct act of God; the fall of man and his need for redemption; the Deity, Incarnation and Virgin Birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the tomb; His ascension into heaven; His personal, imminent return; the Deity of the Holy Spirit; justification of the believer by grace through faith; a literal devil who is our adversary; a literal heaven for the redeemed and a literal hell for the lost; the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture to be Scripture itself; and the requirement of implicit obedience to the expressed commands of Christ as the standard by which He will judge our love to Him.

6

I consider "evangelical" to be a conservative wing of Protestant Christianity characterized by aggressive outreach, informal/non-liturgical worship, and often independence from higher denominational authority (the "nondenominational denomination").

The post immedately above is too heavily "Christianese" and theological for a quick description.

Re "Evangelical Activists": Just who died and made "God-Hates-Fags Phelps" the media spokesman for America's Christians?

7

Joe,

What I'm interested to know is what is your take on the anti-intellectualism common in the more conservative churches. One of my friends is probably the most devout conservative christian I've ever met, but he is slowly getting fed up with the anti-intellectualism of the congregations he's seen and been exposed to. I've had similar experiences.

The vast majority of those going into the arts and sciences in my experience are not evangelicals. In fact, the majority of evangelicals I've met may go into business programs, poly sci or something like that, but nothing scientifically or artistically challenging.

Any thoughts on why this is?

8

My guess is that they are so far into being spiritual that they have forgotten how to be real. They take an extreme view about "the world" to the point that they flee from it into an abstract spirituality.

Which dances on the edge of the Fideist and Docetist heresies.
Fideism = "Don't think! Just BEE-LEEVE! Docetism = "Spiritual Good! Physical BAAAAAAAAD! (sort of)

I think this might have begun with Christianity's initial spread over the Roman Empire; the holistic Jewish idea of the person and the world got infiltrated by the Greco-Roman philosophical idea of Spirit/Matter dualism. (There is a reason the Christian afterlife belief is Resurrection instead of permanent existence as a disembodied soul in a spirit world -- without the body, you are incomplete. Only with Resurrection are you complete, with a body and a soul.)

And on a more personal level, I have noticed during 30 years in science-fiction fandom that the really good Christian-themed SF/fantasy came out of one of the Western-rite liturgical churches -- Catholic (Tolkien), Anglican (C.S.Lewis & Cordwainer Smith), or Lutheran. These liturgical churches seem to have more of a tradition of patronage of the arts than their non-liturgical counterparts (who concentrate on preaching and teaching from their holy book).

9

In my layman's opinion, the difference between evangelical and so-called ecumenical Christians is the strict literal intgerpretation of the Bible (KJV?) for Evangelicals, versus the contemporary subjective interpretation of the Bible for ecumenicals, based more on the current understanding of the universe vis a vis scientific knowledge and current societal norms.

My own experience with clergy is that Fuller Seminary grads tend to be more "ecumenical" than, say, those from any Southern Baptist or Conservative Baptist seminary, who I would put firmly in the evangelical category.

10

Lee, your definition has only one point that differs from Catholicism :-)

Mike, because Evangelicals are routinely failed out of science courses by bigoted faculty - based on beliefs, not classwork or exams. In the arts, there is such an anti-Christian, pro-Sodomite atmosphere that it can be very difficult. However, I know a -number- of Christians who are in the arts, majored in the arts, etc. And I know of a number of others in the present time, such as Christopher Parkening and Goretskij (sp). L'Abri has apparently generated a revival of the arts among Protestants mostly among the Reformed and Lutherans (via Gene Edward Vieth and the Cranach Institute).

Ken, your definition regards something pretty much of the past. Dr. Schaeffer and the ministry of L'Abri have worked through memetic contagion to eliminate that.

Fundamentalism has a number of definitions from the leftist 'anyone who doesn't believe like I do, underneath the cultural differences', to anyone who believes the content of the three ecumenical creeds (the original meaning), to what one of my undergrad profs called "The American Revivalist Tradition", represented by the Fundamentalist Journal of the past, legalism, tent revivals and a refusal to engage with the surrounding society, apart from evangelistic raiding parties.

John, it is a minority of fundamentalists, not evangelicals who are KJV-onlies or Textus Receptus/Byzantine text-type onlies.

Most fundamentalists and virtually all Evangelicals prefer whatever the latest UBS/NA NT is out.

11

My highly-highly abridged dictionary defines "evangelical" as "maintaining the doctrine of slavation by faith." This definition, if taken at face value, would include virtually all of protestant Christendom. Personally, the term "fundamentalist" springs to mind when I think of evangelicals, but that isn't always necessarily the case.

Now I don't claim to be an authority on the subject, having never self-identified as "evangelical," but I can tell you what meaning I take away from the term:

• Salvation by faith alone
• A duty to witness to others

12

Joe:

Personally, I'd like to see a profile on Jim Wallis. He would make a nice counterexample to the stereotypical image of an "evangelical" that most people immediately think of. I'm also a bit curious as to whether conservative evangelicals actually acknowledge and accept Wallis as a "true" evangelical, whatever that means.

13

Puzzled,

Oh really? One of the guys from one of the most conservative churches in our county was an Applied Physics major at my university, James Madison, in Virginia and he had quite a close working relationship with his professors. He was arguably the staunchest evangelical in my age group I have ever met.

As for the arts, I cannot comment there. However, I am Computer Science major and you are not going to find many religious people there. We have one or two that go to an evangelical church, but that's about it. They face no bigotry for their beliefs, in fact religion is a subject that is basically never touched on in the CS department.

This is why I call bull$hit on your argument: those evangelicals are more likely to encounter ridicule in the philosophy, poly sci and sociology departments where they often flock to. Even the businesses schools aren't necessarily friendly to them.

And you know what's even more ironic? You cannot even really prove anything in most cases in such subjective fields. You cannot take empirical evidence in a poly sci class to the dean, you can only do that in a science-oriented major. Evaneglicals often get "persecuted" because the typical evangelical argues like this:

Step 1) This is how it is
Response 1) Oh really, why is that
Step 2) The Bible says it is
Response 2) Besides the Bible, what proof do you offer, biological, phsyical, archaeological?
Step 3) Stop persecuting me for my beliefs
Response 3) All I asked for was proof besides the Bible saying so
Step 4) You hate God
Response 4) Yeah, whatever...

I cannot say that the majority of the evangelicals I have met really impressed me with their debating skills. Nor for that matter, their intellects in general. The irony is that evangelicals tend to feed the stereotypes which get them in trouble. Trust me, after having been exposed to many of them in my university, they are at best light-weights when it comes to defending their positions against their opponents, and that in no way inspires confidence among the rest of the population.

14

Mike, You need to get out more then.

There are quite a few formal debates between well know evangelicals and well known atheists/agnostics (whatever).

Maybe you should watch some of them before you generalize on how evangelicals do or do not debate. I think audio of many debates is available for free on the web too.

I am not saying the debate will sway you, but I am saying it should eliminate forever this little stereotype you attempt to paint.

Put another way..all the atheists I met at my college were drunken party animals that would steal you blind for your beer money, and do their best to sleep with your girl when you weren't around.

Have I just indicted the morality of all atheists with my little anecdotal evidence??

15

I think blog readers would be well served by a portrait of Richard Foster.

Perhaps James Dobson - agree with him or not, he is now the media's new "Jerry Falwell" bogeyman to scare non-Evangelicals.

FWIW, my bi-weekly married-couples small group (Evangelical, of course) has an MD, University physicist, systems analyst with a master's, and a newly-minted (as of 3 hours ago) Ph.D. in molecular biology. We're all pretty anti-Academy, rather than anti-Intellectual.

16

Steven:

Dobson scares us because he is, in fact, scary. :)

17

I think this is a great idea. Within evangelical circles there is a fair amount of controversy on defining an evangelical (who gets to be in vs. who gets the left foot of fellowship), but often what those debates come down to is a theological vs. a sociological definition. For example, in Mark Noll's History of Christianity in the U.S. and Canada, he uses a sociological definition of Christianity, which includes Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. - groups that would identify as Christian and have Christian origins, even though theologically Noll himself would likely not recognize them as Christian. In a similar way, the kind of series you're describing could probably benefit from a sociological definition of evangelicalism, which would include Mouw and Wallis, rather than a theological one, which would not.

18

Oops - that last sentence should read "rather than a theological one, which might not. I had in mind that many theological definitions of evangelicalism include inerrancy as a central point.

19

Some others to consider would be Greg Boyd, Jack Hayford, Chuck Colson, Hugh Hewitt, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and Erwin McManus.

20

More names to consider:
John Ankerberg, Josh McDowell, Ergun Caner, Zola Levitt, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Hal Lindsey, Hank Hanegraaff, Max Lucado, Chuck Swindoll

21

Joe,

From your section on Jim Wallis, you said:

Unfortunately, his answer for how to respond is rooted more in antiquated and discredited leftist ideas than in the Bible. Government redistribution of wealth in not a Biblical idea, yet it appears to be the cornerstone of Wallis’ response to poverty. ...[snip: section on Israel & Palestinians]

While Wallis appears to be a genuine and passionate Christian he would do well to base his political views a bit more on the Bible and a bit less on leftist ideology.

In your "About Me" section, you claim to be a "Reformed Protestant Evangelical" ... I wonder what this means? Here's why..

You deride Wallis's "leftist ideology" but I suspect that you don't know your Church history all that well...I see Wallis's ideas as being pretty firmly tied to Calvin. Most right-wing Christians (and by the way, I am one, of the Lutheran flavor, slightly right-center, with an MA in Theology and a PhD(ABD) in History) in America are not well educated in history, politics, or philosphy, and therefore assume that ANYTHING that sounds like state-sponsored poverty relief is necessarily Marxist. Most of them don't realize that the idea of state-sponsored poor relief and health care originated LONG before Marx.... Both Calvin and Luther espoused some forms of state-sponsored poor relief, and Calvin especially espoused something that looks like state-supported health care, at least for the poor. The French Revolution had as one of its tenets of Equalite, Liberte, at Fraternite the idea that health care is a basic human right...they considered it as basic as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and there is some evidence that the founding fathers of America approved of this French idea...

So please don't write off in a knee jerk fashion (as you did) state-sponsored poor-relief or health-care as of "antiquated and discredited leftist ideas" since in reality they may be none of the above...

And before anyone jumps on me, I have in NO WAY implied whether or not I sagree with Calvin and Luther on this topic...I am ONLY pointing out that the concepts pre-date Marx. I hate it when stupid uneducated right-wingers automaticallly play the Marx card...

And (only my 2 cents), I would hope that the list of evangelicals remains serious and leaves off hacks like Hal Lindsey and Ken Ham...

22

The difficulty, I believe, in defining WHO an evangelical is is in the WHO. Also, putting down a definition is basically placing borders or a fence so we'll know who the 'us' is and who the 'them' is--who's in and who out. I understand the need for defining the "essentials" (i.e., those points of doctrine that is essentially evangelical), but even there we are fraught with difficulties. Yes, inspiration and inerrancy is a fair essential (but then what do you do with Luther who despised James and disregarded Revelation?) I recall, and still agree with, a definition relating to a "what" rather than a "who" that I gained from a course I took under Richard Lovelace at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (too long ago to admit now). Evangelical is better defined as a movement rather than a person; a movement within the Church and throughout church history that seeks to reaffirm the authority of Scripture. Some have suggested I am everything from a non-believer, a heretic, and a liberal based on some of my "beliefs" and interpretations of Scripture. I am liberal to some because I have strong positions on social issues regarding the poor and economically vulnerable; some call me non-evangelical because I don't believe every church has to grow; some call me a heretic because I don't believe Scripture affirms a "rapture" or a twin-people of God (i.e., the nation of Israel and the Church). Nonetheless, I am thoroughly part of the evangelical movement of the church, for I affirm the authority of Scripture. For some, I know this doesn't help. I am not famous enough to have a profile done on me, but if anyone wants to profile me I reveal myself pretty forthrightly in my website Words'nTone (www.wordsntone.com). Peace, you'al

23

Another evangelical Christian philosopher and apologist worthy of recognition is Ravi Zacharias.

24

Don't forget to add Pat Robertson...

25

Lots of names being thrown around here. If the goal is to include the fringes then by all means I guess you need to talk about Jim Wallis and Greg Boyd.

People I would suggest as influential evangelicals:

* In Theology - Bruce Ware, John Piper, JI Packer, Carl FH Henry
* In Philosophy - Ronald Nash, Alvin Plantinga
* In Mega-Church Movement- Andy Stanley, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels
* In Emerging Church - Mark Driscoll, Erwin McManus
* Other - Louie Giglio

26

Forgot to mention the Intelligent Design guys. They really ought to be mentioned. Chief among them:

Philip Johnson
William Dembski

27

How about my mom. She is the best Christian I know and has had a great impact on people's lives--me included. I say make a profile of Judy, my mom.

28

Dallas Willard comments in one of his books that there are over 34,000 different Christian denominations and "Christian" sects in the world. In light of Jesus prayer in John 17, we should attempt to be unified under common beliefs rather than divided by sectarian differences. I was raised in a denomination which was quite legalistic, yet having grown up acknowledge that I have met many mature Christians from assorted denominations who hold the Bible to be God's revelation - both catholic and protestant.

Evangelicals share one thing that unites them. It is the motivation to share the Living Christ in such a way that those outside may see that Christianity and particularly fellowship with Christ on a day by day basis makes a tranforming difference in one's life and conduct.

The Renovare Covenant characterizes a unifying principle that most evangelicals share. It goes as follows:

"In utter dependence upon Jesus Christ as my ever living Savior, Teacher, Lord, and Friend, I will seek continual renewal through: spiritual excercises, spiritual gifts, acts of service."

Evangelicals more than any other try to live by the words of Paul in Romans 12, where He said: "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Evangelicals are transformed people whose minds have been recycled, if you will, on God's Word, the Bible. They think God's thoughts after him, learning how to love as Jesus Christ loves them. And they seek active renewal through spiritual excercises, gifts and acts of service.

29

Some influential evangelicls I suggest:

•Dave Hunt
•R.C. Sproul
•John MacArthur
•Rick Warren
•Henry Morris
•Ken Ham
•Chuck Smith

Love em, hate em, never heard of em - I think they are influential.

30

The problem with this list is that it's a bit lightweight-- filled mostly with fluff. Mind you, I think that people like Dobson deserve our respect; however, I also think we should expose believers to deep thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig.

They did mention J.P. Moreland though, and for that, I applaud them. I also echo the sentiment that Dave Hunt and Chuck Smith should be mentioned as well.

31

Mike, your criticism is simply ignorant. Christian literature is filled with the works of people like C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Lee Strobel and many others who espouse a rational, scientific and philosophical foundation for Biblical Christianity -- going far beyond the mere "The Bible says so!" mantra which you ridicule. Just watch any of William Lane Craig's debates, and you'll see that he can utterly demolish his critics with the incisiveness of his arguments.

If you're going to criticize, at least do your homework first.

32

Another name for the list: C. Peter Wagner

33

Larry Crabb is at the top of my list.

34

When in doubt, KISS. It's very simple. Evangelicals come from the Great Commission that God gave the disciples, after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, i. e., to evangelize, to go out into the world and spread the the Gospel (the Good News).

35

Could you do a profile on John Warwick Montgomery?

36

"In the arts, there is such an anti-Christian, pro-Sodomite atmosphere that it can be very difficult. "

Well, maybe if you stopped calling them sodomites, they wouldn't be so against you. Don't worry, Hitler failed out of art school too and boy, was he bitter about it I hear.

37

A list of significant/influential/representative evangelicals, and it doesn't include the most prominent evangelISTs of the age? Curious.

I would suggest consideration of both Billy Graham and Luis Palau (sp?).

38

Re:Know your evangelicals. Consider Howard Van Til, physicist/theologian.