Like many others, Rob has felt disenfranchised from the term "evangelical" because of the political activity in that name, as well as the general cultural distrust of that word, detailed in the book, unChristian (and others).
What's interesting right now is watching younger Christians alternatively embrace and shun the label "evangelical," which has been happening a lot longer than people have been wrangling over "emergent/-ing." In fact, there might be some parallels between the two.
Looking back now, I wish that those of us in the emergent movement would done some brand management about 5-7 years ago. We called it a conversation, because it was, and we held the name and even the logo with an open hand. No trademarks or copyrights -- more of an open source mentality ruled.
But that didn't serve us well. Our theological opponents outflanked us (to the right) -- first the academic types, like Al Mohler and David Dockery, then the crazies, like Ken Silva and Lighthouse Trails -- and, having outflanked us, they defined us. So now the popular definition of emergent among anyone right of center seems to be that emergent has forsaken truth, de-deified Jesus, and use pages of the Bible to line our bird cages. All lies, of course, but the internet noise around such things is now to loud to overcome. (Notably, Rob Bell has also repeatedly said that he's not emergent, even though those listed earlier in this paragraph don't believe him.)
So I can see why Scot and others fight for the term "evangelical," against both the apathy towards that term of people like Rob and the popular use of the term in the media. Personally, I have never considered myself an evangelical, though many others do consider me one, but I can understand those who embrace that term and their loyalty to it.
Interestingly, Scot uses the following definition, taken from a book by evangelical scholars,
But that didn't serve us well. Our theological opponents outflanked us (to the right) -- first the academic types, like Al Mohler and David Dockery, then the crazies, like Ken Silva and Lighthouse Trails -- and, having outflanked us, they defined us. So now the popular definition of emergent among anyone right of center seems to be that emergent has forsaken truth, de-deified Jesus, and use pages of the Bible to line our bird cages. All lies, of course, but the internet noise around such things is now to loud to overcome. (Notably, Rob Bell has also repeatedly said that he's not emergent, even though those listed earlier in this paragraph don't believe him.)So I can see why Scot and others fight for the term "evangelical," against both the apathy towards that term of people like Rob and the popular use of the term in the media. Personally, I have never considered myself an evangelical, though many others do consider me one, but I can understand those who embrace that term and their loyalty to it.
Interestingly, Scot uses the following definition, taken from a book by evangelical scholars,
an evangelical is a Christian Protestant for whom the central ideas are the leading authority of Scripture, the necessity of personal conversion, the centrality of the death of Christ on the cross as a substitutionary atonement, and the importance of a life of active following Jesus, seen in such things as Bible reading, prayer, church attendance, and deeds of compassion and justice.I've added italics around what I consider the most curious phrase. I get every other point, but does one really need to submit to an Anselmic interpretation of the crucifixion event to be an evangelical? That seems odd to me, since I know lots of Weslyans and Anabaptists who are fiercely evangelical, but think of the atonement through other lenses.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Let's keep it simple. An evangelical is one who believes the evangel.
Tony, you might consider differentiating between Substitutionary Atonement and Penal Substitutionary Atonement. If you generalize enough all theories of atonement can be viewed a substitutionary even if they lack all of the legal mumbo-jumbo. Cristus Victor, for instance, is Jesus being our substitutionary victor - the victor in our place since we are unable to attain victory over death on our own. If you can get beyond that Scot's definition is a bit more palatable.
Tony,
In your definition, which I think is spot on, you seemed to only have a problem with the term "substitutionary atonement" (maybe only questioning the "substitutionary" part). I have problems with almost all of this definition. To me, the term "authority of scripture" implies a systematic theology based on superstition about supernatural origins of the texts, and a type of coercive thought control designed to deflect critical questioning. Authority of scripture seems just as creepy and cult-like as the atonement language.
Are the other elements of Evangelicalism (like authority of scripture) out of bounds for questions, or are those items you've already questioned and now decided to assert your assent to those conclusions. To use a term you've used before, are you willing to "land the plane" on those issues, but not on the issue of atonement.
Thanks again for continuing your inspirational blog!
Certainly on this side of the pond Evangelical has a wider meaning. Especially if the word 'Open' is placed before it.
I would hope to be both Evangelical and Catholic, and also Reformed in the sense that I see the Church as requiring continual Reformation. I certainly value personal conversion, the central role of scripture, the lived christian life, and would see Christ's whole incarnation; birth, life death and resurrection, as substitutionary - representative, on our behalf and in our place.
However I also value the historic creeds, liturgy, narrative (or tradition) of the Church, and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist as essential for the Christian life. I would also claim that the western churches other 5 sacraments flow out of those 2 sacraments.
But I am most certainly not a Protestant. I do not protest against the Church of Rome. I fellowship, pray, serve, with and for Roman Catholics, even if we cannot share bread together.
"I have my problems with Paul"
Panthera there was this guy in the early church who had problems with Paul, he also didn't like the Old Testament, his name was Marcion, he was a heretic.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.