« Why Beauty Is Important |
Main
| What’s in a name? »
What is an evangelical?
If you're like me, it's easy to take the term "evangelical" for granted. It's also easy to accept a general, vague understanding of it. "Evangelical" is an umbrella term for all who believe in the Great Commission (Mark 16:15): go and preach the good news of salvation in Christ Jesus to all creation. However, as described at Wikipedia, it has several distinct meanings:
1) the definition just given, i.e. belonging or related to the gospel (Greek: evangelion)
2) a general designation (of mainland Europe, specifically Germany and the Scandinavian countries) for churches adhering to beliefs of the Reformation (otherwise known as Protestantism), e.g. Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Reformed Church, or Evangelical Methodist Church, in contrast to Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. In this sense, it comprises everything from a liberal state church to a conservative free church in the Baptist or Pietist tradition. This designation also applies to US churches descended from mainline European churches.
3) a separate designation, in German, for Protestant -- specifically, Lutheran and Reformed churches (evangelisch), and evangelicalism (evangelikal).
4) an adherent of evangelicalism (in Australia, Canada, the UK and the United States).
Wikipedia defines evangelicalism as "a tendency in diverse branches of Protestant conservative Christianity, typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically-oriented faith, and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, Protestant people, churches and social movements have often been called evangelical in contrast to Protestant liberalism."
The Wiki reference states also that sometimes "evangelical" is mistaken for a synonym of "Pentecostal," but that this is far too narrow a use of the term. And certainly the history and meaning of the term "evangelical" are far more complex than indicated by the general definitions given above.
I myself was converted in a non-denominational evangelical setting although I grew up in the United Church of Christ. The churches I attended during childhood had strayed a bit from tradition and orthodoxy, but I had no perspective on that at the time. Nor did I learn the real meaning of the gospel nor what agape love was. I came to understand those things later in college with the help of friends involved with Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. Since that time, I suppose I've considered myself an evangelical of the first and fourth variety, with a bit of (2) thrown in for Pietist influence. (I've also been influenced by Catholicism and Anglicanism.)
After becoming involved with the blogosphere (some two-plus years now), though, I realized that there's a lot more to the term "evangelical" than meets the eye. This is of course due to the incredible variety of folk who come under that umbrella. But there are huge differences amongst evangelicals, differences far larger than I ever imagined when I naively assumed that they had to do with whether or not tracts are effective; whether altar calls or house calls are better; whether expressive worship is preferable to reverent liturgy; whether a praise band is preferable to hymns and organ music; or whether we should give to oversees missions or open a local soup kitchen. Etc.
In other words, I saw differences as preferences, not as deep theological differences. With a mind toward ecumenism (along the lines of Romans 12) and the unity of true believers irregardless of denominational traditions, I saw these traditions as derived more from historical influence and place (geographical) than from theology.
I had no idea that there were huge theological rifts between various evangelical Christian believers. I did not go to seminary nor was I privy to any discussion that would have alerted me to the fact that you can drive a Mack truck through the theological space between, for example, Reformed and Arminian believers. (I had never heard the term "Arminian" and didn't know that present-day "Reformed" put so much emphasis on certain aspects of Calvinism.) Call me stupid! Or ignorant, or idealistic, or naive. Or all four. I never looked for this divide and never saw it until discovering it here in the blogosphere. And still I was slow to appreciate its size and prevalence. That happened only after I crashed into the rest of the iceberg via some innocently-asked questions.
Some may say that these differences are neither here nor there, because we're all still evangelicals. But I'm aware that some on each side of the divide call the Christianity and/or salvation of those on the other side into question. Of course the majority do not condone this, nor go to such extreme. However, mistrust and mistreatment, or at the very least, prejudice, still persists and is widespread, in much more subtle form. This form can be summed up by a quote from Donald Miller in a post at Out of Ur (HT to The Dawn Treader):
We sometimes take a Darwinian approach with love; if we are against somebody's ideas, we starve them out. If we disagree with somebody's political ideas, or sexual identity, we just don't "pay" them. We refuse to "condone the behavior" by offering any love.
...We don't interact with people who don't validate our ideas. There is nothing revolutionary here. This mindset is hardly a breath of fresh air to a world that uses the exact same kinds of techniques.
(Put this on a banner and hang it in every Christian church, on the mantel of the doorways of every Christian home!)
An even more subtle form of prejudice, innocent and sub-conscious though it may be, is seen in the paucity of inter-denominational dialogue. At least from what I've seen (though I've no doubt missed a lot, and I look forward to being made aware of what I've missed), beyond a natural and innocent identification and affiliation with a particular denomination, much if not most of the commentary on blogs arises out of said affiliation. Now I suppose this is natural too, but it is also naturally limiting, especially if it stays there.
It can also be misleading, because the evangelical-based claims of one evangelical may not match the evangelical-based claims of another, and therefore may create confusion as to just what the "evangelical" position is on a particular thing. Or, more importantly, confusion as to what is really important about an evangelical claim.
Actually, it's not just inter-denominational dialogue that appears to be sparse, it's dialogue, or discussion, in general. Perhaps many don't see the evangelical blogosphere as the place for those kinds of things. I'm not sure how we engage people if we don't dialogue with them at least to some extent, though, and I'm not sure how we find truth if we don't discuss things. Although I realize that for some, and for some times, it is better to read and ponder than to engage. But for those whose thinking and writing has influence and helps define opinion, it is probably important to be open to exchange.
I also wonder, is there place for questions in the blogosphere? Or only for answers? Is the nature of a blog post merely that of an op-ed piece or article, or can it be more? Should blogs in general allow for more interaction than they do (especially in the fast-moving, on-to-the-next-thing pace of blog updating), or is the blogosphere mainly about reading and writing?
It's apparent that bloggers stick mainly to the "big names," and the "big news," whether it be cultural, political, or within their particular affiliation. The natural explanation is that those are the things that interest them and are important to them as members of that particular affiliation. Also the big names are very smart and engaging, and their topics are what's timely. But timely can be timely for good reason, or merely for reasons of fashion or trend-setting (or -riding). Not that these things are altogether bad. But there is a huge amount of thought of a more classic or outside-the-trend nature out there that is important and relevant. It's being missed, though, or rather, not being entertained nor invited into discussion except in very limited circles.
Perhaps this is a good thing -- there are the meta-posts (or meta-discussions) and then the smaller or more localized ones that are just as important to those who participate in them as the meta-blog activity is to those who participate in that. Yet the influence in general goes from "big" to "small" rather than both ways, which is a shame, because there's probably a lot being said by the smaller voices that deserves to be heard by the bigger ones, who are the ones that set the trends for thought and discussion.
(I don't mean to shift direction toward a discussion of the blogosphere because this post is supposed to be about what an evangelical is. But the evangelical blogosphere exists to evangelize, I think, or at least it got started with that purpose in mind. Therefore, even if evangelicals blog for reasons other than direct evangelism, they represent evangelicals in the blogosphere. I wonder, though: is the blogosphere representative of the general state of evangelical belief, or does it exaggerate certain aspects because of the nature of those individuals who are drawn to blogging?)
It's not unreasonable to expect that a blogger of a certain denomination will have a denominational blogroll on his or her blog. But should a blog's links be limited to the blogger's denomination or general theological affiliation? Is there good reason to link to those of other denominations yet not actually engage or discuss them very often on that blog?
When it comes to 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? What does it show the non-believers when the believers themselves treat each other as described in the quote by Miller above? It's bad enough when we have examples like Mel Gibson's recent gaffe, but what about our own example? (Note that these questions are also directed to myself.)
Perhaps there's a rift in the evangelical world as serious as the ones occurring in some of the mainline denominations -- not over tradition or orthodoxy vs. progressive liberalism, but over theological disagreement. A rift as great as the one between many Protestants and Catholics, which itself is very unfortunate. I'm not saying that everyone has to agree, but why can't we disagree yet still love one another? (Not necessarily "get along"...but love one another?)
We speak of the need to discipline other believers by denying them fellowship for unrepentance, and I believe this is necessary in certain instances. But I also think it's necessary to not deny fellowship, even subtly, to those of the fellowship of Christ for reasons of theological disagreement or some other form of, basically, not tickling our fancy. In other words, we deny fellowship on much more subtle and lesser terms for reasons that are nowhere near as egregious as the egregious examples we lack the courage to discipline.
Bottom line is that we ought to be evangelical to one another. We ought exhibit Christ to one another: to our family members, neighbors, church members, whomever we are in contact with or come in contact with. We ought honor, appropriately, any and all of the relationships we find ourselves in. We ought to show appreciation to those who take the time to interact with us.
It was recently brought up that there shouldn't be distinction made between singles and married people when discussing godly living. I agree with this to an extent, just as there is, in many important ways, no distinction between Jew and Gentile, male and female, Negro and Caucasian, Protestant and Catholic, young and old. This is not to ignore the differences, but it's also to not make more out of them than ought be made.
Likewise, I don't think there ought to be a huge distinction, in terms of love, between "us" and "them" when it comes to differences of Christian stripe, or even when it comes to believers and non-believers. We ought to love everyone, period. We will naturally have fellowship with believers (or ought to, anyway) and not with non-believers, in the same way that a married person might have fellowship with his or her spouse in a way he or she will not with another person. But this does not mean that we make distinctions between whom we will love -- we must love everyone, according to what's appropriate. True evangelism at its root is love*. The gospel message is the ultimate example of love, and cannot be separated from it.
I offer that an evangelical is one who presents the gospel in one form or another to all of creation -- all of the time.
May we all be evangelical!
*not the sentimental type, but agape love.
(edited 8/8/06)
...an evangelical is one who presents the gospel in one form or another to all of creation - all of the time.
Well said, Bonnie. This is an important post. The Great Commission calls us to "make disciples" and "teach" what we have learned from Jesus. That witness to the truth should serve as a core life discipline for all who call themselves "evangelical."
But it should go without saying that this witness has to be done in the servanthood, self-denying, agape love of Jesus. We witness with kindness, with grace, with the knowledge that we are all adopted sons and daughters, equally indebted to God's generosity.
And, in the model of Paul, we need to step out of our cultural comfort zone and make contact with people who don't share our views. One of the things I thought as I read your comments about the way we clump together in the blogosphere in denominational or theological birds-of-a-feather groups is that most of us, myself included, are fairly narrow in our Christian experience. We tend to believe the way we were taught in the church we grew up in. We often have no idea about how or why other Christians see things differently, and are too often closed-minded about discussing those differences.
It would do us all good to get out and about more in the Christian blogosphere, to see what other Christians of other stripes are talking about. It would do us good to be less rigid in our theology and more open to listening for God's truth from other Christian voices who have come up in quite different traditions.
Jesus called us to unity. The practice of being one requires that we reason together and look for ways to resolve our differences.
"We sometimes take a Darwinian approach with love—if we are against somebody's ideas, we starve them out. If we disagree with somebody's political ideas, or sexual identity, we just don't "pay" them. We refuse to "condone the behavior" by offering any love.
...We don't interact with people who don't validate our ideas."
wow. ohwow. This post of yours really says it. And I could add that if the starvation technique doesn't work- there is always the "slapdown" with protocols. Delivering an attrition of accepted place within the group.
...on evangelical as defined by Wiki. I was surprised that it could be taken as "Pentecostal". I wouldn't have had that definition myself, but one I would add in is the political flavor of "Christian Right". I don't know how many times I've seen the two interchanged. It's one of those things I think is mistaken, but in use, anyway.
Why can't we talk oftentimes in the blogosphere? Good question. Sometimes I think it is a matter of expectations. Some like to have the community of familiarity and "strokes" and that isn't bad, but it can be disrupted when a debate comes galloping along.
the points you make about how we act as Churchmen ( I don't know how else to put ) is just a carryover of how so many of us are encouraged to live our lives in our churches. I know I became very disconcerted about ten years ( maybe it was more like 15 now) in how enclosed I had become in all the many busy "events" that kept me locked into just my own little church group- every night of the week. I had to just quit everything and start over. The internet helped me interact with people "on the dark side" and I took belly dance which put me in contact with unbelievers and pagans in real life... and rebuilt the ability to connect as a believer in an unbelieving world.
I love that about the internet. But one caveat from me: I don't think the internet or the blogosphere is good for actual evangelization. It is a mental arena, it is good for breaking thought barriers, presenting ideas, bouncing things off others minds. but you can't really show love, not as you ought to, and you can't exhibit the fruit of your life. Talk means nothing in those portions of a Christians walk. That is just my opinion, and anyone is free to disagree and many have. but there it is.
On the other hand... the type of love in action that you and Charlie speak of can be exhibtied in the blogsphere,etc. I just think we are more limited than we suppose sometimes and then get all frustrated.
I completely agree with this medium used as in your last statement: we can reason together, we may be able to resolve some things, and it would put us further toward unity in Christ if we could at least give it a try.
I'm so glad to be privileged to read your thoughts here- I will say that.
...this does not mean that we make distinctions between whom we will love – we must love everyone, according to what’s appropriate. True evangelism at its root is love*. The gospel message is the ultimate example of love, and cannot be separated from it.
Love is a slippery word in English. All too often it is reduced to not offending people. In particular, challenging wrong belief and evil living is said to be unloving (at least when the evil living is politically correct).
The bible defines love for God as obeying him. It also defines love for our brothers as obeying God. (1 John 5:2-3) Such love will vigorously challenge wrong ideas about God and point out that those who put them forward are wrong. Love will seek to persuade people to obey God, because that is what pleases him and is best for them, because of the terrible consequences of disobedience. Jesus, who is the embodiment of the love of God, spoke more about hell than any other person in the bible.
There are things that should be covered over in the name of love, especially sins againgst ourselves, but they do not include wrong doctrine, because that can lead people to hell. The only way to be saved is to repent and believe the gospel. Any so-called Christianity that opposes that -- and too many do -- should be condemned, out of love.
ilona
I completely agree with this medium used as in your last statement: we can reason together, we may be able to resolve some things, and it would put us further toward unity in Christ if we could at least give it a try.
OK. But unity for its own sake is no good. If it involves not challenging false teaching, it is opposed to God. He wants unity based on what he tells us. "How can two walk together unless they are agreed?" (Eccl) If we are all obeying Jesus, then naturally we will agree together and with him.
I can't disagree with what you've said, Oliver, but I sense that there is some context here that is unspoken. Namely, our tendency to major in minors- or the way we tend to put secondaries on our priority lists of "right doctrine". There are primaries and there are secondaries of doctrinal importance.
We can have unity though we differ in the doctrines on secondary matters. I think that is what is unspoken but meant in this post, and usually by the majority who plea for unity and love of the brethren.
There are degrees of challenge based upon the importance of the matter. Some would hurl anathemas, when a gentle rebuke would do. That has to be recognized in this type of discussion, I think.
I agree with that, Ilona.
It also matters who you are dealing with. A gentle rebuke in private is appropriate for a less mature brother, but a leader must be challenged publicly (Gal. 2:11).
"...I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock."
Too many leaders and public figures claim that any criticism of them is opposition to God. Anyone who claims that is almost certainly a wolf.
We also need to look at what the bible classes as secondary, which is not what most people now have agreed to call secondary. In the bible it refers to those who have a tender conscience about what they eat or about special days. It certainly does not refer to core doctrines like baptism or the reliability of scripture or indeed the need to obey God.
"I have exalted above all things my name and my word."
"...most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished."
"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken)..."
Anyone who contradicts Jesus in this is a wolf; common examples include the nature of the church itself, leadership, church government, evolution/creation, sexual morality and far too often money. However the majority of people would not agree.
Oliver, I see what you're getting at, yes. Is this what I thought was being dealt with in Bonnies post? No, I didn't see it that way.
"public figures claim that any criticism of them is opposition to God. Anyone who claims that is almost certainly a wolf." That is an example of emotional blackmail, and it is too bad that we see it invoked. I rather think that if it has to be verbally invoked in that way, the power of implementation is not behind them.
but you raise another issue:
"a leader must be challenged publicly "
I personally would handle that very, very carefully. If one is truly a leader - there should be a respect for the position and what it represents. Who should do the challenge (rebuke) ? There are points of order in the scriptures to address this very thing, but I don't think our efforts at unity and exhibiting the merciful love of God puts Church discipline at risk.
That love is what I took from this post. It's message stands on its own I believe, although your points are all completely valid in their own context. I take from this that you are reminding us of the precarious position we sometimes find ourselves in this modern and licentious age... is that right?
It is a point well taken, and the balance to what we are able to give, to keep the peace and unity of fellowship in Christ.
but you raise another issue:
"a leader must be challenged publicly "
I personally would handle that very, very carefully. If one is truly a leader - there should be a respect for the position and what it represents.
Yes, we should respect our leaders and try to make life easy for them in a very difficult task, but a leader is in one sense just another believer and needs to be as subject to mutual correction as the newest convert. It is true that no accusation should be entertained against an elder except on the evidence of at least two witnesses, but that is about failures in their personal behaviour, which are usually not public. Wrong teaching is naturally public and should be challenged publicly (as Paul challenged Peter) otherwise the error is not corrected. If a leader can't cope with that, he probably isn't qualified to be a leader any way. It may help to understand this if you realise that the traditional sermon address from "six feet above contradiction" is absolutely not biblical. Instead, look to 1 Cor 14:26 to see how a biblical meeting runs. Everyone contributes under the guidance of the Spirit and everyone's contribution is subject to the judgement of the whole body.
Your comment seems to me to show traces of the worldly thinking about leadership that has permeated most of the church ever since the apostles died. The world sees leaders as more important and deserving respect because of their position. Jesus says leaders are to be like children and slaves, the two classes of people who have no position and no power to direct anything! Leaders should be respected because of their lives, which will be examples of how to walk with Christ. If they demand respect because of their position they are already failures.
I take from this that you are reminding us of the precarious position we sometimes find ourselves in this modern and licentious age... is that right?
Yes. The bible warns us over and over that the main threat to the church is deception, indeed, that by the end of this age most of the church will be apostate. This is already happening! Knowledge of the bible is in serious decline and the number of "itching ears" is growing by the day.
It is the job of the elders of a church to protect us from deception and that is a key reason why biblical churches have multiple elders. Nowadays we see instead most churches dominated by a single individual (vicar, pastor, senior elder, priest, etc.) and all too often they are being led into error. Now error is at best disabling. At worst it will lead people into hell. It is essential to realise that challenging error publicly is the most loving thing to do, for the sake of all the people who may otherwise be deceived.
The standard ideas about Christian unity are all about papering over differences as a public show, while maintaining them in reality. This is a fraud and is helping to lead to apostasy. Unity under the Holy Spirit means that all listen to and obey him and the result is real unity.
"Your comment seems to me to show traces of the worldly thinking about leadership"
Perhaps.
My experience as a Christian has taught me that the concept of authority is not one to be taken lightly. David, even though anointed, did not take it into his own hands to correct the situation with Saul. Paul apologized when he found that it was a High Priest that was mistreating him. There are steps to take to right wrong, even while preserving the respect for authority. That is a larger topic than these comments can handle.
Churches do need to find the Biblical balance on the structure of leadership. It is both pastors and elders, in the instructions of Paul. There have been imbalances on both sides of the equation.
"standard ideas about Christian unity are all about papering over differences"
I wouldn't agree with that. There is real unity to strive towards, however, but how is do believers move toward that when insisting that they are always completely right in their convictions? What leads people into hell in the final matter? That which moves them away from Christ. this takes you back to discerning what is primary to salvation and relationship with God through Christ Jesus.
I would say that condemnation is something that moves people away from Christ, and condemnation is what we should avoid as we seek toward true unity.
Getting in here late -- thanks for the comments.
Ilona, you raise an important question: is the blogosphere really conducive to evangelism? I'd like to think it is, but to what extent?
Oliver, I made sure in the post to define the type of love I am talking about -- unconditional and merciful. Merciful love carried out by persons must indeed be careful, but not careful not to offend. Careful to honor God completely. I think it takes a deep understanding of both human sinfulness and God's mercy in order to do this.
Obedience to God is summed up in the two primary commandments as spoken by Jesus (Matthew 22:37-39): Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. In John 13:34 Jesus gives the new commandment to his disciples: "that you love one another, even as I have loved you."
I don't know that wrong doctrine can lead people to hell necessarily; that's reserved for disbelief in the gospel.
I think we need to be careful as to what we ourselves condemn -- I don't believe we have the authority to condemn and rebuke as Jesus did. We are fully human, but not fully human and fully God as Jesus was. Better to point someone to God (through Jesus) Himself as to what God condemns and rebukes.
Still, there are instances in which rebuke is called for -- elders who continue in sin, those who wish to "have their ears tickled." Yet such rebuke must be administered with "great patience and instruction." (2 Timothy 4:2). Sometimes with firmness, in terms of denying worldly desires and pointing others to the blessed hope in Jesus, in which authority lies. (Titus 2) The point is not merely to correct, but to turn others to Christ.
False teaching is that which would lead one away from God -- that which would cause one to rely on something or someone other than God Himself in Christ Jesus. But it's really quite simple -- it boils down to either a trust or a distrust in God, which is a matter of the heart (even before the mind, I believe.) By heart I don't mean emotions; I mean volition.
If I myself trust in God, do I need to "correct" everyone, or do I need to show them how to rely on God? I think the latter. A teacher perhaps might be corrected, but there are myriads of human activities and roles besides teaching. That said, I agree with this:
Too many leaders and public figures claim that any criticism of them is opposition to God. Anyone who claims that is almost certainly a wolf.
As to the law, the law in Jesus is not legalism. He came to fulfil it -- it stands in order to show the standard of righteousness and how futile trying to keep it is -- no one can. Jesus goes on (after the passage you quoted in Matthew 5) to speak of how the law is not in the outward keeping but in the heart. In vvs. 43-45 He says, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven..."
Unity of believers is found in Christ alone -- II Corinthians 5:17-20. It is found in being together reconciled to God in Christ. That's it. To find cause for disunity beyond that is to indulge in the dissensions and factions spoken of in Galations 5 under "deeds of the flesh."
I understand your concern for correct teaching and against false teachers, Oliver. In my post, though, I mean to address much more broadly Christians' treatment of one another (and of unbelievers).
Today, I began a series entitled "The Grace Series: Romans 5:1 - 'The Grace of Salvation'" Part I. Here is an excerpt from the middle of the post:
"Today, I want to focus on the first verse in Romans 5. "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God." Now this word justification is not the first time we see in the book of Romans. We see it a variety of times certainly in chapter 3, "By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight. Being justified is a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." Romans 3:28, "We maintain that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law." But when we examine this term, justification, we find that it means literally "to declare innocent or free from any or all guilt." It is the language of the lawcourt. It's like a lawyer is talking. In salvation terms, it's God declaring, "You're righteous, holy, free, and forgiven." Now this term does not mean to make righteous because that is what God does in sanctification as His grace is dispensed in our lives. Sanctification is the growing in Christ's likeness. But his term (justification) means to declare righteous and holy. It's not a pardon, but rather and acquittal. "Not guilty! Free from punishment from penalty." Justification is that gracious act of God whereby he declares a sinner righteous and free from any guilt or punishment upon there putting faith or trust in Jesus Christ. That is what justification means. Christ has paid for our sins; we are free at last!"
I thought you might be interested in reading the article. Let me know what you think about it.
I don't take "evangelical" for granted. Partly because it isn't in such common usage here - "Christian" is the word. "Evangelical" is it seems common in the US. I find many definitions of it geographically specific rather than globally encompassing.
I've had my experiences with different denoms. Yes, we can love each other. In fact I do outreach with an inter-denom team.
A few people may call each others Christianity into question but the majority don't from my observation. Offline and online I've seen a great deal of good dialogue between different denoms and have engaged in it myself.
I am not sure I agree that there is widespread prejudice. How can that be quantified? It seems like a subjective call to me - which doesn't devalue that it's been observed in some settings, but my own observation differs so I can't just go along with that. No offence intended.
I see no problem with people staying in the denoms if they wish. They may be new Christians with enough learning going on in their denom, they may have left a church or denom and need to refresh and build themselves up in their new denom. They may just be very actively involved in ministry and simply don't have time. And they don't need to if they have a clear conscience about how they are utilising their time.
I think you have missed the inter-denom dialogue - which occurs all the time. Not dialogue about the differences between the denoms all the time - but dialogue between people from different denoms is going on a lot. That's been my observation over 3 years of bloging and is my own experience too. I don't find that most of the commentary on blogs arises from the same affiliation unless the blog is designed for that - and that's the right of the blogger.
What I hear in your post is a request for dialogue. And those interested will do so. The thing I see is that blogging is really up to the individual. When I started my blog I had no idea who would read it or if anyone would. I wasn't looking for solely Christian interaction and knew very little about blogging anyway. So for me it began as writing. And that's fine. I've changed what I do in some ways - but if some-one just wants to write they can.
Basically - a persons blog is a persons blog. They can blogroll who they want, comment on which blogs they like to, write whatever they have purposed about what ever interests them.
When I refer to blogging I mean everything - not just theology - but everything. Life stories, Mommy blogs, commentary, photoblogs, pundits, writers, homemaking, diarists...
I think that there is a marvellous liberty with blogging. I have a diverse blogroll myself - but I don't expect others to. It's their space and they put what they like there.
I don't think the sphere runs the danger of looking like it represents one "evangelical" view because there are so many views on any given issue a lot of the time.
My own observation from reading more blogs than I could count is that there is lots of discussion. Perhaps we visit different places. However most people don't have time for long comments, like this one, especially if they have their own posts to write and other blogs they want to read too. But there is a lot of discussion. However my caveat on that, and I just speak for myself, is that there is discussion, and then there are some "discussions" which are debacles. I think we have to face the reality that we are on the internet. We come and go, comment if we feel like it and have time. Maybe we comment and then we are busy so we never get back to the discussion. Discussion is really the domain of a message board or email group in terms of being a continual thing in a big way. In blogging it's more realistic to take it as it comes. I'm not discouraging it - but I am realistic after 3 years. A good question to ask is "how much time do I spend commenting on other peoples blogs - and how much discussion do I actually have time for on their blogs?"
And then there's the two-edged sword - engaging but when it's on a contoversial topic it can turn to custard faster than you can say "internet troll". Is there a place for questions? I would say - well if some-one makes their place available. Again I see this as preference. I think there are already opportunities for questions, exploration, and learning - with those who want to. It's time consuming when a blogger spends maybe 1-2 hours (or even longer) writing a post and then has an expectation to answer several questions that require more hours. People have jobs, families, commitments, and offline social lives. So I see this as being about a persons choices and indication of availability.
I don't think there is a nature of a blog post - there's no generic post. I think it can get over-analyzed - for me I just do it. Writing comes naturally. I'm very glad I spent the first 6 or so months not knowing much as I really got into the habit of just doing it and taking it as it comes in terms of response.
Some of your questions begin with "should" - but I don't think these things are "shoulds". There's protocol that we follow - for sure. But I don't think for example that there's a "blogs should allow for more interaction" or "bloggers should have a diverse blogroll" as satisfactory answers. People will do as they want - I don't mean that in a libertine sense, but in the sense that the "shoulds" can interfere with the purpose God has for their blog.
I don't see definite answers to some of your questions - the answer as I see it, is "yes" to each option, i.e. some have lots of interaction, some are just about writing and reading... To each his own. Blogs are whatever the person makes them.
I don't know that bloggers stick to the big names - perhaps. On the other hand - some of those big names are extremely generous and link out a lot. I don't entirely see why you raised that in the context of "what is an evangelical". But I can run with discussing it. This blog has benefitted enormously from the generosity of a well known blogger, namely Joe. The other thing is that these people are either already known for their communication of ideas/information and their blog is an opportunity for people to read them regularly, or they spend time and energy building a readership.
It seems in part to be about numbers here. I think a discussion can be valuable whether it's 2 people or 20 involved. So the whole thing about trends is a little lost on me.
The double-edged sword - engaging on issue but not alienating those in our ranks... There's the rub. While one person is fine with a particular issue being discussed, or even debated in the sphere, another will react. Because this is the internet, and because people we are not in relationship with come and go, there will be this double edge sometimes.
I'm not sure if your comments on fellowship were applying to blogging or offline relationships. I'd say blogging can give a kind of fellowship, but it doesn't replace offline church fellowship and community. David Wayne has had some good posts on that in the past. Certainly friendships and connections can form - but this is a work of God over time rather than a given I think.
Much of what I've said applies offline too - in the sense of how much time a person has and what their commitments are. Some people don't go outside their denom much because they don't have time. I see nothing wrong with that - they have a church family and build reltionships there. At the end of the day it's their church folk who are going to help them out if they need it (well I hope that's the case - unfortunately not always).
Briefly on blogs and evangelism - isn't that up to the person, and getting under that - isn't that up to God? I think it can be over-analyzed. If it's God then it happens.
Yes, we can love each other. Love has a lot of aspects. I think primarily of the verse, "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty". I'm very resistant to falling into performance pressure.
OK - well to be a tad ironic, I am out of time now!
I think Christian evangelism, at its heart, is the making of disciples. That is why I will say that blogging isn't condusive to the whole spectrum of relationship necessary to that.
I agree that blogs can be just about anything- as a writing tool or as a type of communication. It just isn't very good for making a disciple or for the real fellowship that Christianity consists of. I guess the way I'd put it is that it is an adjunct- like a telephone call or a written letter. It has some possibilities, but they are constricted by the weakness of the medium.
From the things you've said about Evangelicalism, Catez, it seems there is a cultural and historical difference inhow we understand the term. It does have a specific designation here in the States, as cited in the Wikipedia; and probably in Britain, also.
Hi Ilona,
In some ways the question of blogs and evangelism is really up to the blogger. Being a Christian is about being a disciple and I would say blogging isn't conducive to the spectrum of relationship for Christians discipling each other. Blogging is not church. Blogging can play a part - people don't have to be in relationship with an author to be affected by a book. I put blogging into that sort of category - and I read some Christian books before becoming a Christian. Your letter/phone call analogy is a good one that can apply too. I wasn't really thinking of getting into that point in depth myself - because again I see it as about who the blogger is and what they want to do. I wouldn't say everyone must do it and I wouldn't say no-one must do it either.
Yes, I'm aware of the differences regarding "evangelical". I looked into it a couple of years ago for myself. We are much more like Britain here than the US. We have strong ties with Britain as we are part of the British Commonwealth and a lot of British have immigrated here. We have a lot of different cultures with our overarching structures, process and norms being British derived. Our understanding of "evangelical" has most similarity with the UK I'd say, and the Brits are not the same as the US from what I observe. I have a strong personal connection with the UK.:)
But we use "Christian" here mainly. "Evangelical" is not in such common usage.
