The following is a post by Emergent leader, Tony Jones. You can find the orignal at Belief Net.
“I 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…”
Not to boil it too much down to a side point but this was my response.
“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?”
Ah, you do have a point. Many of the ‘emergent’ folks are beginning to repeat the same mistakes that modern religious folk have already made. But that’s because religion is not what faith is all about. Jesus touched upon this one or two times.
BTW – concerning the quote above your banner: Jesus never honored the Bible because when he walked the earth there was no Bible. He did have scripture, he was a Jewish rabbi. But the Jews have never taken scripture literally at all times nor have the labeled it ‘inerrant’. I’m willing to be that those two fellows are not ‘emergent’ because they are just too darn religious.
Hey Christian, thanks for stopping by. You do bring up a couple thoughts…..
I still hold on to hope that sometime we will reclaim the correct definition of “religion” instead of distance ourselves from the word.
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1: 27
Another though is you baffle me by the comment about the Jews not thinking the Scripture of the Old Testiment (as we know them know). You would have to explain yourself better. There are many references to Christ refering to these texts and it is very evident He treated them as truth and not something fluid. I think this point doesn’t have a lot of foundation. Even if some jews felt this way, I would look to Christ and his apostles for my example instead of the religious leaders who lost thier way.
And lastly, on the allegation you make against the authors of the quote, I would caution not making the mistakes of others in the past where they make bold statments about something they no little about. I did not speak a word concerning Emergent without experincing and studying it myself. There are many in Emergent circles who compliment this book, not because they agree with the theology issues but becuase the authors have spent a great deal of time in research and are careful to give credit where credit is due and not just slam the whole movement because they are uptight.
Prayfully my answers don’t come off too blunt or rude. That is not my intent as much as answering some of your statments fully.
Stop by anytime! Blessings!
No, not at all. I’ll admit I’ve never read their book but I have read some very favorable reviews. Many of the parts that the reviewers liked best were just those parts I took exception to. It is possible that I am reading them out of context but I don’t think so. I think there is an idea running around many circles, inside and outside of the emerging church, that to be young and culturally relevant means that you would be good candidates for emergence. I seriously doubt this, as the surge in young members of the Reformed
As an aside the word religion is based upon the Latin words ‘re’ and ‘ligare’; ‘return’ and ‘to bind’. Jesus came to free us from bondage.
Jesus obviously felt scriptures were important. But the suggestion the two fellows above make seems to be based on their idea that many emergents are disregarding scripture because they do not interpret it in a consvervative fashion. Just because Jesus mentions Adam does not mean that he sees Adam as other than allegory.
Well, let’s face it: Evangelicals haven’t exactly done a good job of trying to distance themselves from conservative politics. Some evangelical groups have even tried to encourage the connection. So, it really shouldn’t come as a surprise to us when the media (or anyone else) gets the two confused.
For a time, even I bought into the idea that all evangelicals are conservatives–and I grew up in an evangelical church and attended an evangelical high school. It wasn’t the media that shaped my opinion of evangelicals, it was my pastors and teachers. And when my political views started to move away from those of my church, I no longer felt welcome there and I left. I knew I was still a Christian, but no longer considered myself an evangelical. So I looked around at some of the mainline denominations, but while my political views aligned more with theirs, I just couldn’t accept a lot of the theological differences.
Then I came across a book, Letters to a Young Evangelical by Tony Campolo, that changed my whole perspective on the issue. In the book, Campolo discusses exactly what it means to be an evangelical (sadly, something I never learned in all my time attending an evangelical church) and separates the theology from the politics. It was only after reading that book, I was able to once again call myself an evangelical.
If it took *me* that long to figure it out, is it any surprise that the media doesn’t get it?
Hey maudin,
Interesting thoughts….I’ll have to check out that book sometime. I like Tony Campolo even though sometimes we match up theologicaly and sometimes not so much. I’ll add it to my list of books to read.
I remember him being very popular in my high school years for dating videos. I saw him speak a couple times live back then. He was very interesting. At one, where there was probaly about 1,000 kids there, he stayed there so people could talk to him one on one about issues in thier lives and pray with them. That must have taken a couple hours more for him so I thought it was very cook on his part.
Hey Christian,
I really suggest reading the book. Let me use the book “The Shack” for an example. There has been a decent amount of controversay around it and as a Christian bookstore owner, I hear it all. I have read some reviews on it and it’s amazing the spin people will give from both sides including snippets. Until I read it myself, I will basically stau quiet with any strong beliefs on it.
On the Scripture part, I guess I still can’t meet you on this one. For instance, if you want to use Adam as an example, I had a period of time that I didn’t really care if Adam was a real man or if he was just a metaphor. Then, the more I learned about the Scripture, the more I believed in Adam because ot the reverence they gave to Scripture.
For instance….
God spoke to Hosea speaking of Adam as a real man – Hosea 6-8
The Bible provides geneological lists going back to Adam to show a context for his life and story – Luke 3:38
Paul shows his belief his the Truth of the Scripture by talking of Adam’s mistake and the effect on mankind – Romans 5
Paul continues to show this thread of thought in I Corinthians 15 and I Timothy 2
Jude refers to Enoch, the 7th from Adam in Jude 1:14
The Bible stays consistant on this as it shows the belief of these early Christians believed in the Truth of what they knew as the Scriptures.
This is not to mention the many times that Jesus and others referred back to Old Testiment Scripture in thier testimonies and messages as recorded in the New Testiment including the fulfillment of the law, the stories as being fact and not fiction, and prophecies. I think, at even a casual glance, you have to admit those in the early church believed the Word of God was legit and solid.
Hey, TS (mind if I call you TS for short?) – that’s a couple of good scriptural examples you bring up. Take Hosea for instance; in chapter six God is using all kinds of allegories and metaphors; cutting people to pieces with words, judgments flashing like lightening, cities stained with bloody footprints –
It is not necessary to think that Adam (which we all know means man) was an individual for us to understand what is being said about mankind’s, particularly the Israelites, inequities.
Some say (and I agree) that the genealogies found in both Luke and Matthew (and they don’t exactly agree with each other) were placed in the Gospels to make specific persuasive points with their audiences. To accept them as being factual would require accepting that the earth is much younger than the evidence suggests. Do I need to accept this to accept Jesus as God? I don’t and I do.
The same types of arguments have been made for all the scriptures you suggest and many others. If it works for you to take these passages as examples of historical proofs then that is fine with me. But I would not assume that you are honoring the Bible less than I am because you see it differently. I think the converse should hold true as well. And I think it helps to remember that Protestant insistence upon literal interpretations, along with the biblical inerrancy are fairly recent developments within the Church.
Just because Jesus or Paul quotes Genesis does not mean that they take it literally. Often, literal interpretations will obscure the truth, one reason why poetry can reveal so much more truth than a text book.
Someday we may find out.
TS has a nice ring to it =)
I hope I did not imply I think your take the Word less serious than I do just because we have a difference in the way we see it. Far from it! It appears some of the things we are saying are simular if not the same but with different vocab. At the same time, it appears we do some things differently. I can live with that and look forward to the day that we do find these things out without looking at a “poor reflection”.
On that day, let’s stand close and keep a score card of how many each of us got right. We’ll add up the tallies and whoever losses has to buy the other lunch (I’m assuming there are resturants in Heaven !?!)
Editorial Note: Before anyone tries to take me to task that there is no theological basis for resturants or eating being in Heaven…..relax, it’s just a joke.)
TS – sorry, I never intended to suggest that of you – just addressing the quote in your masthead.
TS – after having spent 30 years in the hospitality business I would assume that restaurants would be more likely found in that ‘other place’.
Dude…….even Pizza Hut?
[...] – bookmarked by 3 members originally found by mariomario on 2008-11-04 Define “Evangelical” http://tomhypes.com/2008/07/14/define-evangelical/ – bookmarked by 3 members originally found by [...]