Evangelical Statements Aren't Possible

My discomfort with the latest evangelical statement has more to do with terms than substance.  I don't think it's possible to speak for evangelicals so a statement about evangelicalism isn't possible.  The reason I don't that is possible is because evangelical is not an affiliation, it's a descriptive term.  We don't belong to evangelicalism; it only describes a set of beliefs that fit some people.  And even then, it's rather narrow in it's theological application.  It doesn't describe a system of theology, only a cluster of beliefs. We don't join evangelicalism; the term only describes us if the shoe fits.

Statements are better issued from affiliations that are joinable because then you have an organization people have chosen to join.  There's leadership that is authorized to speak for the group.

I think the term evangelical is pushed to do more work than is realistic for such a general term.  And I think the reason the term is pushed into service so often is because Christians identify less and less with denominations.  People change churches often.  Their criteria for their choice is based less on denomination than other factors than in the past.  And "organized religion" has negative connotations, even among Christians, so the organizations have diminished as a point of identification.  People don't often say anymore, "I'm a Lutheran," or "I'm a Presbyterian."  They're Christian and happen to be going to that church for the time being, but they could easily be going to another denomination in a few years because there's something else about that church that meets their needs or interests at that time.

Denominations are good things, though, for a number of reasons, but on this topic because they are formal affiliations we make based on specific sets of belief, practice, and culture that have defined and chosen leadership that are capable of speaking for their group.  There is something much more defined about the denomination that makes it possible to issue statements that make sense for that group.  Evangelical is just too broad a term to make broad, sweeping statements about people who fit that term other than the small set of theological beliefs it is meant to describe.

So I don't like "evangelical statements" because evangelicals don't have any leadership to speak for them and we're much too diverse a group for anything more than generalities to make any sense. It doesn't make sense to me that anyone can be called an "evangelical leader."  Who chose them to speak for evangelicals?  Any evangeical can express their opinion in statements or by other means, but no one can speak for evangelicals.

Comments

[Ryan M]

>>Denominations are good things, though, for a number of reasons,>>

I know this site is not necessarily for inter-denominational dialogue, but I do have a serious objection to this statement. Surely, the fact that Christians are separated contradicts the prayer of Jesus, the nature of Truth, and the goal of Christian evangelization. Unless by denominationalism we mean differences in the expression ("accidentals") of shared essentials ("substance"). But this is not the case. Different Christian denominations believe different "essentials". The scandal of denominations is a serious issue for us at Christians.

[Ray Fowler]

Well, to be fair to the writers of the document, they explicitly state that they do not speak for all evangelicals. Here is part of what they say on page two:

"Evangelicals have no supreme leader or official spokesperson, so no one speaks for all Evangelicals, least of all those who claim to. We speak for ourselves, but as a representative group of Evangelicals in America."

[Shaun]

I support Greg Koukl as the new evangelical pope! That should solve a few problems.

:)

[alan.powers]

I'm puzzled by what those who drafted and signed the document expected the document to achieve. It's a blip in the news cycle, and then will be forgotten. It breaks no new ground, and does not bring clarity to anything. Those who signed the document were less political to begin with. They do not speak for those who ARE political, nor will they change the behavior of those who are political.

And why on earth did it take THREE YEARS to write this thing ? There is nothing original, creative, or distinctive about this document. A decent marketing firm could have done it in 3 days - with better results.

Intentions may have been good on this, but wisdom went out the window. A genuine fiasco.

[Cliff Mather]

Melinda, what you didn't say is _why_ people identify more as "evangelical" and less with denominations that you can actually "join."

Arguably, many of the mainline denominations have been systematically taken over by elements interested in watering down the theology and turning the church into a mere service organization. Anybody can start a new chapter of the Lions Club. But only the church can preach the gospel.

So I imagine many people are comfortable with being under the nebulous "evangelical" umbrella, precisely because there's no official national church body to commandeer. Once bitten, twice shy...

[Sam]

You know, I'm not sure I have a clear idea of what evangelicalism is. Every time somebody has tried to explain it to me, it's always been a little different, and it's always been a little nebulous. I've been reading "Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcy lately, and she has three chapters on it. That's about the clearest explanation I've ever heard, but I'm still not sure I have a good grasp. Maybe it's just one of those words that's almost impossible to define precisely. But from reading Nancy Pearcy's book, I've begun to think that I am probably not an evangelical. I don't know, though.

[bmc]

"Every time somebody has tried to explain it to me, it's always been a little different, and it's always been a little nebulous."

That's because Evangelicalism isn't a movement; it's a conversation.

[BillyHW]

Denominations are good things?

[francis beckwith]

I would support Greg Koukl for new evangelical pope if there were an old evangelical pope. :-)

[Francis Beckwith]

I think it is a well-crafted statement, signed by many Christians I deeply respect. It is interesting to note that neither the study guide nor the manifesto contrasts Evangelicalism with Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, though it is contrasted with theological liberalism.

If you read the manifesto carefully, it seems to have been deeply influenced by JP II's Encyclicals Fides et Ratio and Evangelium Vitae. The emphasis on theology as knowledge and the importance of the common good and the sanctity of life are virtually absent from pre-JP II Evangelicalism. Given some of the signatories--Mouw, T. George, D. Willard--this does not surprise me.

FJB

[Stephen]

Frank, I agree with everything you've said except for the "deep respect" bit. Amazing.

"It is interesting to note that neither the study guide nor the manifesto contrasts Evangelicalism with Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, though it is contrasted with theological liberalism."

In some places it seems as though the "door" was intentionally left open. Looks like you guys are winning this one!