Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineI had a long chat with a reporter yesterday. She's writing a story for News 21 about the changes afoot among "evangelical" voters in the coming election. I put scare quotes around "evangelical" because much of our conversation revolved around the usefulness of that term.
In short, I find the term "evangelical" almost completely unhelpful.
Here's why: to most evangelicals - at least those who've been to a Bible college, a Christian college, seminary, or been involved in the leadership of an evangelical ministry (e.g., Young Life, Campus Crusade, FCA, InterVarsity) - "evangelical" is a theological category. It represents what one believes about the Bible, about Jesus, about salvation, and about the afterlife.
But to the mainstream media, "evangelical" is a cultural category. One is an "evangelical" based on whom you vote for, whether you listen to Christian radio, shop at Christian bookstores, contribute to evangelical ministries, and vote for certain candidates.
So there's a great disconnect.
When doing our PhD work at Princeton, my friend Andy Root and I were reading lots of sociological work on evangelicals in America. Andy suggested that instead of the usual sociological markers like whether one considers oneself "born again" or attends an "evangelical" church, we would put together a list of fifty items, including
Chuck Swindoll
Christianity Today
Young Life
Youth for Christ
James Dobson
Wheaton College
Etc...
Respondants would check any of these names, organizations, and periodicals with which they affiliate, and they would receive a score. Then we would determine a threshold and, if your score is above that threshold, you are an "evangelical." At least that would make journalists, sociologists, and pollsters happy.
Evangelicals themselves, however, would still be unsatisfied. As the recent Evangelical Manifesto attests, evangelicals still want to be classified theologically. Too bad that document didn't get nearly the media play that I assume they hoped for...
Subscribe
The Church Basement Roadshow: A Rollin' Gospel Revival is rumbling across the U.S. this summer, bringing good fun and good news to anyone who will listen.
Tour Schedule
Watch the YouTube Videos
Read the Press Release
The Roadshow on Facebook
The Roadshow on Myspace
Tony Jones at the Beliefnet Community
Comments
Great idea. But i think that labeling a group simply by how they are percieved (especially by the media) is going to be more detrimental than beneficial. The same could be done to most any denomination or religious group as the media seems to focus on negative media instead of positive media.
i think you know the results you'd get anyways.
Posted by: Adam Lehman | July 6, 2008 1:54 PM
I agree with TJ, that the term "evangelical" is all but worthless and find it striking that those who signed the manifesto (some I admire and consider friends) think it's a term worth reclaiming or holding on to. What possible good comes from such a document (and term) other than to do exactly what Jesus appears to do over and over again - to make it harder and harder to know who's "in" and who's "out"?
Posted by: Sean Witty | July 6, 2008 8:02 PM
Tony,
These "labels" like "evangelical" and "fundamental" were originally created as a way of declaring what a person or group agrees with in the face of extra-biblical teachings that were circulating at the time. The problem is that through a period of time these labels took on new meanings as dictated by those who sought to put their own extra-biblical beliefs into the group.
I definitely would consider myself one who believes the inerrancy of God's Word, the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the call to personal holiness in our world and the physical return of Christ to earth, but I would not call myself a fundamentalist due to it's newer connotations.
Posted by: Rick | July 8, 2008 6:44 AM
Whatever you want to do with "labels".....Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the person who takes a jab at the "evangelical" were hoping to get media coverage (as if they were doing it more to be in the press than to stand for their beliefs) is the same guy who started his blog by saying he working with a reporter as part of a news story (I assume he MAY be mentioned in that story?).
Kind of a pot calling the kettle black?
Posted by: Tom | July 14, 2008 8:23 PM
Both perspectives are completely supportable! On the one hand, we can learn a lot from the ways a group defines and describes itself. This is the "emic" perspective--the insider's viewpoint. On the other hand, outsiders tend to be more objective, and their "etic" perspectives are frequently even more useful than insiders' perspectives. I think the most important question, though, is: Why? Why is the term used, what are the local (or textual) contexts of its use, and what is to be gained or lost by that specific use. Otherwise, we could miscommunicate!
Posted by: JP | July 23, 2008 9:04 AM