I
suppose I should have seen it coming, but it caught me by surprise. I mentioned
to a couple of the fellows in my Evangelical Theology class that I was reading the recently released book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. I expected them to respond by asking a probing, analytical
question like, "Do you think that Kevin Bauder portrays the Fundamentalist
option vis-à-vis the Confessional option with sufficient clarity to
successfully salvage the label?" I was ready for that one. But that wasn't
the question. The question was simpler:
"So...Are
YOU an Evangelical?"
I
found myself deploying evasive measures, kind of like when I'm asked, "Are you
a fundamentalist?" It depends, I suppose, on what you mean. I'm not a Jack
Hyles fundamentalist. And I'm certainly not a Terry McVeigh fundamentalist.
Likewise I'm not a Roger Olsen evangelical. Nor do I identify with Karl Barth's
self-denominated "evangelical" theology. I prefer terms that are less
vulnerable to equivocation.
•
If you asked me about my religion, I'd say that I am a Christian:
I hold to the absolute lordship of the Christian God as
authoritatively mediated through the Christian Scriptures.
•
If you asked me with whom I am covenantally bound by mutual confession
and with whom I will share the Table in mutual fellowship, I'd say I belong to
a Baptist Church.
But
evangelical? What exactly does that word add to what I've just said? Even if, for
sake of argument, we could excise the aberrations that have multiplied under
the evangelical umbrella, does the label now have any practical value? If the question is whether I ascribe to the minimalist creed of biblical inerrancy,
justification by faith alone in Christ alone, and the reality of new birth that
issues forth in Christian activity, then yes, I'm that kind of evangelical. Which is kind of like repeating my affirmation that "I am a Christian," except
that now I have added the vital caveat, "and I really, really mean it."
But
the word evangelical usually involves connotative meanings
additional to this. Too often it goes something like this: "I adhere to the
idea that the Gospel can be preserved in isolation from the rest of
Christian orthodoxy, without any necessary reference to the Christian Church,
primarily through transdenominational venues that rally
around mere Christianity."
I'm
not aboard that cruise line, because I'm not exactly sure where it's docking
next. But I'll be in church on Sunday. Hmmm. A churchman. Now there's a
useful label.
MAS
MAS

3 comments:
What kind of Christian? What kind of Baptist? What kind of churchman?
As long as there are variations and errors there will be a need for qualifiers.
Some qualifiers like "evangelical" or "fundamentalist" has been necessary to distinguish one from (originally) Roman Catholics, (a bit later) Anglo Catholics, and (a bit after that) Modernist/Liberals and Neo Orthodoxy.
Of course, when the fundamentalists and the new evangelicals split, they had to lay claim to qualifiers and even add some more.
Every word -- even Christian and Baptist -- is vulnerable to equivocation. There is no escaping that. All you can do is explain what you mean.
Stipulation is a great response to equivocation.
Keith
I've always viewed you as a kind of fundamentalist Carl Trueman. Though I'm still not certain who is the bigger Led Zeppelin fan...
Keith, that's true, but some stipulations offer more by way of stipulation than others. It seems better to use qualifiers that have some sort of documentable meaning--a confession, a commonly held sine qua non, etc. The term evangelical doesn't offer us much in this regard.
David, I'm flattered to be classed with Trueman on this issue. But if I had to pick a British musical group I'd have go with the King's Singers instead.
Post a Comment