What's an Evangelical? A fuller Perspective?
I'm a a proud graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary -- M.Div. '85 and Ph.D. '91 -- and I've even taught for Fuller. One of my most enjoyable years was spent as a half-time visiting assistant professor of church history. I guess that would make me something of an evangelical, but over the years my theology and view of the world has changed. So, I often wonder, am I an evangelical? Or am I something else?
Sometimes I play with words like progressive evangelical or evangelical liberal. Gary Dorrien uses this latter term to describe Charles Augustus Briggs, the famed biblical scholar who was tried by the Presbyterian Church for heresy in the late 19th century. I've long been attracted to Briggs, so maybe that's a good place to be. But ultimately, I live in the present and not the past. Labels have their uses, and I'm somewhere on the continuum between liberal and conservative. I kind of like the centrist label -- since that kind of leaves me open to listening to all parties. But at some point you've got to jump in and join the party.
Richard Mouw is the current president of Fuller and in an LA Times article entitled "Aiming to clarify the meaning of a loaded word" Mouw offers his perspective on Evangelicalism. It's a perspective that's interesting and suggestive that maybe I've moved outside the fold. His basic definition is "to be an evangelical is to take seriously the cross of Jesus Christ as the only solution to the fundamental issues of human life. We are sinners who need to come to the cross in order to get right with God. " I believe that the cross is the solution to the fundamental issues of human life, but later when he defines this in terms of atonement theology I'm not sure I'm still on the same page.
Mouw gives a brief history lesson, rooting contemporary evangelicalism in European pietism and English Puritanism. He points to 19th century Evangelical social activism centered around slavery, poverty, women's rights. Things changed though in the 20th century when "Evangelicals became disillusioned with American culture." Then they withdrew from society -- as a kind of silent majority -- and focused on saving souls. That was until the 1980s when Evangelicalism woke up and discovered that the sexual revolution had broken around them. And so they responded/reacted and the new religious right was born.
I find Mouw's description of the contemporary scene interesting. He suggests that Rick Warren and Bill Hybels are setting the agenda not Falwell and Robertson, that the Evangelical social activism has broadened beyond just abortion and gay rights to include things like AIDS and global warming. Though Evangelicalism has become something of a "loaded word" Mouw wishes to keep it -- as an alternative to liberalism.
What I find interesting in this article is that no mention was made of Jim Wallis or Brian McLaren, also Evangelicals, but offering a somewhat different picture, or of radical righters such as Dobson who remain powerful. Falwell and Robertson may not be big guns anymore, but there are still heavy hitters with a two issue agenda!
So, am I still an evangelical? I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder!
Sometimes I play with words like progressive evangelical or evangelical liberal. Gary Dorrien uses this latter term to describe Charles Augustus Briggs, the famed biblical scholar who was tried by the Presbyterian Church for heresy in the late 19th century. I've long been attracted to Briggs, so maybe that's a good place to be. But ultimately, I live in the present and not the past. Labels have their uses, and I'm somewhere on the continuum between liberal and conservative. I kind of like the centrist label -- since that kind of leaves me open to listening to all parties. But at some point you've got to jump in and join the party.
Richard Mouw is the current president of Fuller and in an LA Times article entitled "Aiming to clarify the meaning of a loaded word" Mouw offers his perspective on Evangelicalism. It's a perspective that's interesting and suggestive that maybe I've moved outside the fold. His basic definition is "to be an evangelical is to take seriously the cross of Jesus Christ as the only solution to the fundamental issues of human life. We are sinners who need to come to the cross in order to get right with God. " I believe that the cross is the solution to the fundamental issues of human life, but later when he defines this in terms of atonement theology I'm not sure I'm still on the same page.
Mouw gives a brief history lesson, rooting contemporary evangelicalism in European pietism and English Puritanism. He points to 19th century Evangelical social activism centered around slavery, poverty, women's rights. Things changed though in the 20th century when "Evangelicals became disillusioned with American culture." Then they withdrew from society -- as a kind of silent majority -- and focused on saving souls. That was until the 1980s when Evangelicalism woke up and discovered that the sexual revolution had broken around them. And so they responded/reacted and the new religious right was born.
I find Mouw's description of the contemporary scene interesting. He suggests that Rick Warren and Bill Hybels are setting the agenda not Falwell and Robertson, that the Evangelical social activism has broadened beyond just abortion and gay rights to include things like AIDS and global warming. Though Evangelicalism has become something of a "loaded word" Mouw wishes to keep it -- as an alternative to liberalism.
What I find interesting in this article is that no mention was made of Jim Wallis or Brian McLaren, also Evangelicals, but offering a somewhat different picture, or of radical righters such as Dobson who remain powerful. Falwell and Robertson may not be big guns anymore, but there are still heavy hitters with a two issue agenda!
So, am I still an evangelical? I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder!
Comments
"Someone who has an experience of Jesus Christ as personal (but not just private) Lord and Savior, and who seeks to share that experience with others."
This does not impose a particular Christology on Evangelicals (to say that Jesus is the Christ, and is my Lord and Savior does not presuppose what any of those terms - Christ, Lord, Savior - might mean), much less impose a particular doctrine of atonement. It also does not conflate the Evangelical phenomenon in religion with a cultural or political movement, as is so often the case.
Alas, I cannot attribute that definition to its source, if it has a single source. I heard it in a college course on Modern Christianity, taught by a professor named Roy Fuller at Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, IN. If he gave the source of the definition in that lecture, I do not recall it.
I say all of that to say this: labels may be simply a socially convenient shorthand, but you still should not allow yourself to carry an impose label, nor should you allow anyone to take from you a label you wish to wear.