Here goes...
The term evangelical has its etymological roots in the Greek word for "gospel" or "good news." ευαγγελιον (evangelion), from eu- "good" and angelion "message." In that sense, to be evangelical would mean to be a believer in the gospel, that is the message of Jesus Christ.
Now I ask you (Fred too)...if I have an uncompromising devotion to the story (Good News) of Jesus...the story that tells me the historical Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) and his gracious sacrifice has washed away my sins forever...what then should I be called...if not evangelical?
Fred says our devotion is more appropriately attached to the person itself rather than the story about the person. While I agree our personal devotion must be to Christ himself, I don't know how we come to that devotion without the "Gospel." My entire relationship with Christ is based on my faith that the story is true.
Maybe Fred and I can agree if I make the point (which I believe) that the story is the vehicle God uses to turn people to the person of Christ. In that sense Fred is right.
However, this is more than academic. Scripture warns us against preaching "another gospel." this tells me there are many possible stories about Jesus...some of them not authentic. The results of believing an undependable story of Christ are potentially catastrophic. So, I'm back to being an "evangelical." Getting the story right is critical.
Which story?
Romans 1:16 says "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." The power of this verse cannot be overestimated. It tells us the "Gospel" (Good News) has enough power residing within it to effect salvation for anybody who believes it. The power resides in the story (Good News)...not in the teller...simply by telling the story, the power of God is unleashed into the life of the listener. Should the listener's spirit be receptive, the story has the power to turn them toward Christ. This is huge!
I'm saying the right story is the story that is infused with the power of God...
So...in it's purist form, "evangelical" is neither theologically nor culturally based. We can be Evangelical Christians and be republican, democrat or independent. We can be evangelical and be (don't freak out) Communist or captialist. What makes us evangelical is we derive our convictions from the sacred story (Gospel). This allows evangelicals of differing views to engage in meaning constructive dialogue...because we defer to the sacred story as our authority. So, I love debating Fred because he is an evangelical (don't tell him I said so) devoted to the authentic story. "Iron sharpens Iron." I come away from my time with Fred wiser and hopefully more closely aligned with the gospel.
However, as we begin to unfold the history of the term Fred starts to get uneasy...and I respect his concern. I defer to Wikipedia...
By the English Middle Ages the term had been expanded to include not only the message, but also the New Testament which contained the message, as well as more specifically the four books of the Bible in which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are portrayed. The first published use of the term evangelical in English was in 1531 by William Tyndale, who wrote "He exhorteth them to proceed constantly in the evangelical truth."
By the time of the Reformation, theologians began to embrace the term evangelical as referring to "gospel truth". Martin Luther referred to the evangelische Kirche or evangelical church to distinguish Protestants from Catholics in the Roman Catholic Church. In Germany, Switzerland and Denmark, and especially among Lutherans, the term has continued to be used in a broad sense. This can be seen in the names of certain Lutheran denominations or national organizations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, and the Evangelical Church in Germany.
The contemporary North American usage of the term is influenced by the evangelical vs. fundamentalist controversy of the early 20th century. Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism. Evangelicalism has therefore been described as "the third of the leading strands in American Protestantism, straddl[ing] the divide between fundamentalists and liberals." However, according to Christianity Today, “The emerging movement is a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced. It is post-evangelical in the way that neo-evangelicalism (in the 1950s) was post-fundamentalist. It would not be unfair to call it postmodern evangelicalism.”
While the North American perception is important to understand the usage of the term, it by no means dominates a wider global view, where the fundamentalist debate was not so influential.
Can you see why Fred is concerned? I can. He says we need to be "re-branded" because our culture has corrupted the authentic meaning of "evangelical." My response to Fred is that "evangelical" is not a label or brand that can be removed or changed.
"Evangelical" is a product line within the framework of the Christian brand. It is an expression of Christianity based upon the sacred story. Liberal and fundamental are other product lines. These product lines can be found in other faith traditions as well. An Islamic fundamentalist is known as a "Jihadist."
This distinction between brand and product line is important. If I use the analogy of the dairy case at my supermarket I'd say Sintron is a brand of milk. I can choose from many brands and some folks would say there is no difference. However, last week as I picked up a dozen eggs a customer stopped me cold. "Don't buy that brand" he said. "They taste terrible!" Hmmmm who knew?
Some people approach religion the same way as they approach milk. All brands are the same. Islam, Judaism, Christianity. I can understand the notion...each is a religious expression that promises peace with God. We know the misperception is there, but it's not true. The brand is critical.
Let's return to the dairy case. Now that I have settled on Sintron I see that more decisions are required. I can buy chocolate milk, whole milk, skim milk, 2% milk, buttermilk. While the label Sintron makes a general promise to deliver milk, the product lines say something very specific about themselves. Chocolate milk is milk with chocolate added. If we remove the chocolate we no longer have chocolate milk. 2% is the same. If we take away fat we have skim milk...a different product all together.
You cannot fiddle with a product line and continue to have the same product.
Back to Christianity. The Crusaders were "christians." That product line doesn't work for me. Adolph Hitler was a "christian." That's a product line I cannot buy. Its a fact that he was correctly called a christian because in our cultural terminology he chose a faith expression focused on Jesus. But we call them "Chinos" (Christians in name only). Karl Barth was a Christian...but he denied the humanity of Christ. Another product line I cannot buy. Liberals redact scripture and take a bunch of the sacred story out (another gospel?). Another product line I cannot buy. Fundamentalists are pretty certain you and I need to be republicans. Can't buy that one either.
So...evangelical...as a product line is a type of Christianity that adheres to the sacred story as handed down through the church. We work diligently to ensure we have the story right. We are careful to neither add nor subtract from the text. We labor to de-conflict possible discrepancies in ancient texts. Evangelicals are devoted to a story that is historically and textually authentic. Any effort to dilute the story strips it of it Divine power. When we do that it becomes just another product line. It is only a story...and its ability to save people is suspect.
So where Fred and I diverge is he would like to divest himself of the term "evangelical" because of all the cultural/political baggage attached to it (republican, pro-life, 2nd amendment, strict constructionist, fiscal conservative, small government) The baggage was inevitable once we christians entered the political arena as a significant voter block. I respect Fred's reaction. I prefer to stand up and protest any mischaracterization of my "evangelical" product line. The moment culture...or even well meaning Evangelicals...adds or subtracts from the story they have another product line. I demand to be heard.
Why? Because we evangelicals claim to be "keepers of the sacred story." That is what the term means. I'm not trying to be presumtious or exclusive but...by definition...we are the ones who claim devotion to the authentic story. Our efforts every day revolve around "getting it right." It means we study hard. We do honest research. We labor tirelessly to ensure pieces are neither inadvertently missing nor surreptitiously inserted. If we allow ourselves to be removed from influencing the dialogue...what story (Gospel) is the world going to believe?
