There's been great discussion on the question, "What is an evangelical?" and even "What is 'evangelical'?" both here and elsewhere, and I've been chomping at the bit to participate. Due to limited internet access, however, that's not been possible. I prepared portions of this post much earlier but wasn't able to post them. Which is probably just as well, because I can now revise according the other discussion.
In my last post I attempted to answer the question, "What is an evangelical"� Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered, because, as John Schroeder at Blogotional posits, the term "evangelical" may no longer serve a useful purpose, at least religiously speaking. John also links to a bomb dropped by iMonk: an assertion that the term "evangelical" is dead and that we are in a post-evangelical age.
Michael also spectacularly supplies 17 defining characteristics of evangelicalism (sheesh -- wish I'd have seen those before writing the previous post!) and makes a clear distinction between evangelicalism and evangelical mainline churches.
Michael sees problems with the term "evangelical" as resulting from cultural (namely, mainstream media and political) labeling as much as from "internicene squabbling." True, the media has influenced the picture of "evangelical" that the general culture holds, but I don't know that they've influenced its meaning within evangelical contingents themselves, nor have they invented it. They picked it up from the evangelical movement itself and attached their own baggage to it. And evangelicals themselves, never mind the politicians, have tried to co-op faith into political action (which I don't think is entirely illegitimate.) But never mind that; as others have stated, different individuals who call themselves Christians have different ideas as to just who and what is an evangelical.
My first thought in response to John and Michael is that I don't care to see the term "evangelical" go, though it may indeed be beyond its use. My second thought has to do with what is wrong with the current understanding of the term. First of all, it's just too diverse and broad to be concisely definable. Second of all, Catez points out something about the term in a comment on John's post. Referring to this quote of mine,
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?
Catez says,
"We are called to evangelise unbelievers, not other denominations."
and also states that one doesn't evangelize a believer. She has amended and expanded upon that statement in her recent post, On the Evangelical Question, in which she makes some very good points. Yet I would like to address the point she brought up, namely, that there's no need to preach the gospel to one who already believes it.
I don't believe there's any need to make denominational distinctions when representing Christ to other believers, nor do I believe that the current denominations themselves are problematic, but perhaps her statement illustrates the main problem with the term "evangelical:" Evangelism and evangelicalism are concerned with preaching the gospel toward the end of winning souls, i.e., conversions. They are also concerned with the sorts of activities faith in Christ leads to as compared to those dictated by the general culture, including political activity.
However, actual Christian discipleship, in terms of ongoing renewal of the mind and redemption of the heart, doesn't seem to get as much attention. There's a lot of preaching and teaching going on that's designed to help us all be "better," or happier, people, and to tell us how to act, how to think, and how to improve the ills of society in terms of programs and organized efforts. But does it teach us how to be? Back in the formative years of my Christian faith, I remember being taught to abide in Christ, in submission to Him with the whole person, in everything. In light of my observations of late, though, I'm wondering if this something that is still sought, or still legitimate to seek.
I wonder if there is enough teaching on what being a disciple of Christ might do for other people, outside of "winning souls" or social caretaking or thinking right about various issues. Is there enough exhortation to self-examination, in regards to sin, of the type so fantastically presented in this post of John's? I deeply believe that it's the effects of not committing the sins described in John's post that most influence people toward the gospel, and I believe that we have choice as to whether to succumb to these sins, or take redemptive steps.
But back to the term "evangelical" -- perhaps Catez' and my statements can serve as the starting point to finding either a better definition of "evangelical," or a new term altogether. As stated in my previous post, Christians who refer to themselves as evangelicals seek to fulfil the Great Commission. I suggest, though, that a true evangelical doesn't merely facilitate initial conversion, but continues to win individuals ever closer to Christ. This cannot happen except via true discipleship. Certainly, Christians encouraging and exhorting one another to a closer walk with Christ is evangelical activity.
In addition, as Christians we are called to be the Church, which means that we necessarily live in community with one another, and therefore are obliged to interact. I daresay that we are purposed to live this way, even in monastic callings. Therefore, we have ample daily opportunity to represent Christ to one another and indeed are obliged to. And in our daily interactions and worship we are prepared and strengthened to take the gospel beyond the church to those who do not believe it.
Perhaps part of the difficulty in discussing and understanding the term "evangelical" also has to do with the separate "languages" that have developed within various denominations, even within non-denominational evangelicalism itself. Each Christian denomination has its own way of expressing its own particular theological understandings (whether the theology is explicitly presented or not), and these are constantly in flux as shaped by particularly influential leaders, polity, and other large-scale activity within various divisions.
It is the results of some of this development and movement, I think, that have led Michael to suggest that we are in a post-evangelical age. He rightly states that we must be wary of the "posts-", yet the type of post-ecumenical, post-evangelical "mere Christianity" a la C. S. Lewis that he speaks of is one I cannot be enthusiastic enough about. I would rather not see us move beyond all the problems with evangelicalism and denominationalism, though, and I reject the idea that God is still revealing new truth. (The U. C. C. suggests that He is in their banner slogan, "Never place a period where God has placed a comma. God is still speaking.") I'd rather see us move back out of the problems and return to foundational truths. As Michael says,
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. I mean that our reverence for previous epochs and events in church history must be tempered with an awareness that the work of the Holy Spirit in the church continues, and what was believed in the past is not immune from the light that may break forth in the ongoing present.
Though of course the work of the Holy Spirit continues, I question whether new light must necessarily break forth, unless perhaps God causes previous revelation to be forgotten for a time in order to re-release it at a later time. But I believe in the gist of this statement, which from what I understand seems to be embraced in the ancient-future movement. I certainly support a practicing faith and church body that continues to honor truth revealed in the past while applying it to life today.
I long to see a Christianity that can put forth various understandings of non-essential doctrines as found in different denominations yet also be open, theologically and practically, to what each can learn from the others. I'd like to see Christian churches retain the good of past traditions while abandoning the errors, in true reformation. The problem with reform, though, is that while it may begin as reformation, it morphs into revolution. It leaves the good of the old behind and, in effect, tosses the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps this stems from a human tendency to assume that "new" thought, even that which seeks to correct an error, is better than "old" thought that may have been correct before being misappropriated, misunderstood, etc. It may also stem from a human tendency to cluster around a reform or a reformer rather than be led back to a more legitimate understanding of Christ, Christianity, and being a Christian in a Church of other Christians. (There may be some who feel that revolution is necessary. I am open to arguments for this, though I must say that I have a bias toward reform.)
Yet as Paul says in I Corinthians 12, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good....But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; or again the head to the feet [the same]...On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those...we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another." [emphases added].
I especially like this next part (v. 26): "And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it."
I remember a long time ago learning that Western thought is progress-oriented; in this view, reality starts from one point and progresses toward another. This is opposed to Eastern thought, which takes a cyclical view of reality. On the one hand it is true that time goes on, and the past, present, and future remain so. However, I think that the western tendency to look to the future as something fresh and new and better has poisoned our conceptions of timeless truth as found in God and His ways. God never changes. Human nature and the cycle of human growth never change. The tools with which we live do, as do the possibilities of things we can do, and some of our social constructs. But our responsibility to be good stewards and caretakers of one another doesn't change. Our basic spiritual needs as humans do not change, nor do the basic ways we express ourselves in worship and live out the Christian faith.
We also, in our culture, tend to value the progression of growth from infant to adult and immaturity to maturity, as well we might. Yet in the process may we not devalue the infant because of her immaturity nor the immature as inferior members of the human race. Everyone and everything has its place and is redeemable as God so desires. And only He knows and has power to decide what use He will make of anything He has created -- dare we not attempt to get in His way!
Likewise, we must never devalue the sinful individual -- which of course all of us are. Sin must be dealt with, with courage and also with caution, but may we never discard one another, believers or non-believers, due to sin.
Michael has this to say about paradigms within evangelicalism:
I mean that I believe the paradigms of denominationalism, education, worship, church growth, evangelism, Christian experience and so on that have dominated evangelicalism in the twentieth century are dead. We are moving beyond them into largely uncharted territory, and the winds that are blowing are alternately unknown. Some are dangerous, while some are winds from heaven.
While part of me wants to yell, "Yay!", I don't believe that the paradigms he refers to are dead. They may be disintegrating, but I don't think they will, or even should, die. The problem with paradigms has to do with their becoming corrupt. Were these paradigms to truly die, new paradigms would surely arise that would no doubt ultimately suffer the same fate as the current ones, etc. etc., until Christ comes again.
As to John's suggestion that we find a new term to replace "evangelical," I was going to suggest the term "Christian," but it's clear that the term "Christian" itself is not without its problems. I suppose that not much can be done, then, about misunderstandings or multiple understandings of either term -- which isn't to be fatalistic, but rather, realistic and truthful. Ultimately, the witness of Christ will occur through the name of Christ, not the name of "evangelical" or even "Christian," nor any other name, and through no witness other than the love as described in I Corinthians 13 as resulting from Christ crucified and risen, and as realized in the hearts and minds of the redeemed. This realization cannot help but be demonstrated in redemptive thought and action.
