More Thoughts on Evangelicalism

In an earlier post I gave an LA Times link to an interview with Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary. I graduated from Fuller in 1991 with a Ph.D. in Historical Theology and earned an M.Div. in 1985, both back when David Hubbard was still President. I shared in that post that I wonder at times where I fit, and whether I fit within the evangelical camp. A visitor to the site left a comment and told me not to let others define where I belong. I took that to heart and thought I'd think outloud a bit more.

I've read enough about Evangelicalism/evangelicalism to know that there is no one definition that fits everyone. That fact has led some to wonder whether the term is of any value. After all, a mainline church like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America uses the term in its older/broader sense in relationship to the Reformation/Protestantism. Garrett-Evangelical Seminary is a Methodist Seminary related to Northwestern University. You see how difficult terms can be to nail down.

But in American religious life, Evangelicalism describes a certain segment of the Protestant population (though Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum, both Roman Catholics were hailed by Time as among the important American Evangelicals). Evangelicals take the Bible seriously, they believe in a personal relationship with Jesus, and passionately seek to bring others into relationship with Jesus. For many this means affirming a doctrine of biblical inerrancy (something I've been unable to do) or at least biblical infallibility (something I've tried to do). As Jim Wallis will tell you, being evangelical doesn't mean being politically conservative, though a majority are. The Reformed doctrine of Penal Substitutionary atonement plays a big role, and most would agree that salvation depends on making a confession of faith in Jesus Christ in this life (though there are a few who disagree even on this). Evangelicalism is doctrinally conservative, though it has shown itself to be very entrepreneural.

My thoughts on evangelicalism were stirred today in part by my reading the chapter of Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, 2004), which deals with his own relationship to Evangelicalism. Although there is some ambivalence about that relationship, ultimately he hitches himself to that wagon (after all Zondervan is his publisher). McLaren considers himself a small e evangelical. In defining his evangelical sensibilities, the part of evangelicalism that he finds most attractive is its passion.

On evangelical passion toward God, one's neighbor, and the Christan mission, McLaren writes:

"When evangelicals (at their best) sing, they sing. When evangelicals pray, they pray. When evangelicals preach, they preach. When evangelicals decide something is worth doing, they do it. They don't tend to establish committees to study the feasibility of doing it. They don't ask permission from the bureaucracy to do it. They don't get a degree that qualifies them to do it. They just do it -- and with passion" (p. 130).

Back in the 18th century, good upstanding Anglicans called such fold "enthusiasts." The Wesleys and Whitefield were considered "enthusiasts" and it wasn't a compliment! Although McLaren recognizes the dangers of such "do it" enthusiasm, he is right to remind us that faith must have some passion or it will die.

In the end of the chapter McLaren raises the prospect of being post-evangelical. Such a state of existence isn't a repudiation of evangelicalism, but there is a recognition of both continuity and discontinuity. There is in such a state a passion for God and God's creation, but there is also a recognition that we must move beyond narrowness. After all, evangelical etymologically comes from the Greek word "evangel," which means good news. In that sense I too am an evangelical, for I believe in the good news of Jesus!

Comments

Popular Posts