Evangelicalism
What is its meaning today?

At a recent meeting of Reformation For Today [RFT] we discussed the article in Touchstone about the state of Evangelicalism as assessed by six self-proclaimed Evangelicals. There are many today who believe the term is archaic having died the death of 1000 modifications so that it has no coherent meaning today.

In our discussion we examined 11 questions arising from the article. They are as follows:

1.Is evangelicalism a term you use? If so, how do you define it?
2. John Franke says: It [evangelicalism] does not reflect a specific confessional commitment so much as it indicates a general outlook of the Christian faith that can be situated in a broad range of church traditions." Do you agree with his statement?
3. D. Hart says evangelicalism is a symptom of "anti-formalism" that is the prevailing notion in the Christian community. Agree or disagree?
4. Do you see evangelicalism as a "mellow" fundamentalism?
5. Has political involvement watered down evangelicalism by requiring a "bigger tent" mentality?
6. Is religious pluralism, feminism and Open Theism properly part of evangelicalism?
7. D. Hart asserts evangelicalism is least common denominator Christianity that fails to do justice to the fullness of Biblical truth. Agree or disagree?
8. M. Horton believes evangelicalism is reaching the lost but losing the reached. Agree or disagree?
9. Is evangelicalism an aid or detriment to the Church?
10. The contributors outline the "best of evangelicalism". Which positions do you see as its best? Do you see a different best?
11. Is evangelicalism a term without meaning that should be relegated to at the ash heap of history? Why or why not?

The conclusion of our discussion was that the term “evangelical” is not an issue for the basic believer in a local parish. It is not a term of identification for orthodox, Bible believing folks. The group concluded that the term had been co-opted by the media and political types to identify blocks of voters who bought into a particular agenda. It is salt that has lost its flavor, so should be disregarded and placed underfoot. Today, evangelicalism has little to do with the “evangel”, the Gospel or good news, and any set of coherent, identifiable beliefs. Its context is not associated with the church or Scripture today.

One other conclusion seems to be that no “new” term is needed. Christian, or more particularly Biblical Christian, seems to be sufficient for identification purposes. The lesson learned is that any term must be defined with affirmations and denials. The latter are so unpopular today that we can only be categorized by what we agree upon and that leads to such broad categories as to be useless. There is no distinctive in evangelicalism, ergo, there can be no distinctions in any other term today.

What do you think? The Touchstone web site is www.touchstonemag.com to access the article which is from the November, 2007, issue.