The “Evangelical” Label Doesn’t Belong to the U.S

[Michie]

The “evangelical” label is hotly contested in the United States, especially during an election cycle when people debate the meaning of the term and the significance of the “evangelical vote.” What is an evangelical? What is the state of the movement? Recent books have linked white evangelicals to a pseudo-Christian nationalism, or to over-involvement with partisan politics, or to rigid expressions of patriarchy.

Multiple surveys with disparities in data raise a number of interesting questions.

• What do we make of the large number of Christians who adhere to evangelical beliefs (predominantly in minority ethnic churches) yet do not claim an “evangelical identity” (likely due to the term’s political connotations)?
• On the flip side, how do we respond to the large number of people in the United States who describe themselves as “evangelical” but rarely attend church and don’t adhere to core evangelical doctrines?
• What does it mean for “evangelicalism” in the United States when a renewal project that began in the middle of the last century—a movement that sought to provide a counterpoint both to isolationist fundamentalism and social gospel liberalism—has now become nearly synonymous with a socio-political perspective?
• What is the significance of many evangelical churchgoers who, on both the right and the left, appear to be more shaped by their cultural background and political philosophy than by the Scriptures they uphold as their ultimate authority?
• Is there any point in holding to the “evangelical” label when the “brand” (for lack of a better word) encompasses everyone from Paula White to Tim Keller, from John Piper to Robert Jeffress?

These conundrums make some evangelicals throw up their hands and deride the term. Why not dispense with the label? Why not just call ourselves Christians? Or gospel people? Or find some other way of describing the beauty of the cross-cultural, cross-denominational renewal movement we’ve inherited?

A better way may be to step back and get both a temporal and geographic perspective before rushing too quickly to shed our “evangelical” identity.

Continued below.
The “Evangelical” Label Doesn’t Belong to the U.S.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The “evangelical” label is hotly contested in the United States, especially during an election cycle when people debate the meaning of the term and the significance of the “evangelical vote.” What is an evangelical? What is the state of the movement? Recent books have linked white evangelicals to a pseudo-Christian nationalism, or to over-involvement with partisan politics, or to rigid expressions of patriarchy.

Multiple surveys with disparities in data raise a number of interesting questions.

• What do we make of the large number of Christians who adhere to evangelical beliefs (predominantly in minority ethnic churches) yet do not claim an “evangelical identity” (likely due to the term’s political connotations)?
• On the flip side, how do we respond to the large number of people in the United States who describe themselves as “evangelical” but rarely attend church and don’t adhere to core evangelical doctrines?
• What does it mean for “evangelicalism” in the United States when a renewal project that began in the middle of the last century—a movement that sought to provide a counterpoint both to isolationist fundamentalism and social gospel liberalism—has now become nearly synonymous with a socio-political perspective?
• What is the significance of many evangelical churchgoers who, on both the right and the left, appear to be more shaped by their cultural background and political philosophy than by the Scriptures they uphold as their ultimate authority?
• Is there any point in holding to the “evangelical” label when the “brand” (for lack of a better word) encompasses everyone from Paula White to Tim Keller, from John Piper to Robert Jeffress?

These conundrums make some evangelicals throw up their hands and deride the term. Why not dispense with the label? Why not just call ourselves Christians? Or gospel people? Or find some other way of describing the beauty of the cross-cultural, cross-denominational renewal movement we’ve inherited?

A better way may be to step back and get both a temporal and geographic perspective before rushing too quickly to shed our “evangelical” identity.

Continued below.
The “Evangelical” Label Doesn’t Belong to the U.S.

So what can we call Protestants that aren't exactly Fundamentalist or Mainline?

 

[Michie]

The word has been hijacked to mean something it really isn’t. Maybe they just need to take it back.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The word has been hijacked to mean something it really isn’t. Maybe they just need to take it back.

I thought I knew what it meant. But then there are 'evangelicals' who seem every bit as morally liberal as the old-line folks. It is getting kind of gray. But then again, we all used to know where Catholics stood. Not so much any more. And Hu Rah we have a bonafide Catholic in the White House. See what I mean.

I swear things get more and more complicated the older I get.

 

[Michie]

I thought I knew what it meant. But then there are 'evangelicals' who seem every bit as morally liberal as the old-line folks. It is getting kind of gray. But then again, we all used to know where Catholics stood. Not so much any more. And Hu Rah we have a bonafide Catholic in the White House. See what I mean.

I swear things get more and more complicated the older I get.

Everyone is hijacking the real definition of things and counterfeiting them. Truth be darned as far as these people are concerned. If the truth will not or cannot change, they’ll refine truth as well. Seriously, everyone is checking out of reality and creating their own versions. We are ripping out everything from its very foundation.