Kruse Kronicle

Evangelical: Can the ‘E-word’ be saved?

—

by

mwkruse
in

USA Today: Evangelical: Can the 'E-word' be saved? (HT: Presbyweb)

Who's an evangelical? Until last year the answer seemed clear: Evangelical was the label of choice of Christians with conservative views on politics, economics and Biblical morality.

Now the word may be losing its moorings, sliding toward the same linguistic demise that "fundamentalist" met decades ago because it has been misunderstood, misappropriated and maligned.

"Save the E-Word," was the headline on a fall editorial in Christianity Today, the 50-year-old magazine founded by Billy Graham. It quoted opinion polls in England and the USA showing "the tide has gone out" on the term, increasingly seen as negative and extremist. "When I travel, I call myself a 'creedal Christian' now," says Francis Beckwith, president of the Evangelical Theological Society and a professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. …

Comments

5 responses to “Evangelical: Can the ‘E-word’ be saved?”

  1. Ken Klewin Avatar
    Ken Klewin

    What’s wrong with just “Christian”?

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    That would be entirely to easy. Surely we can make it more convoluted than that.
    🙂

    Reply
  3. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    The word is not useful. Barna (mentioned in the article) provides a somewhat arbitrary definition, but at least it’s consistent. Barna’s point was that data attempting to explain the behaviors of evangelicals was essentially junk unless the word had a standardized meaning. I see a problem with either word theft or meaning drift. (Both are factors.) The word Christian works the same way – many people desire what positive associations remain with the word, and therefore apply it to themselves without any actual belief in Jesus Christ or traditional Christian doctrines. This article mentioned a usage: creedal Christian. That might work for a while, but I doubt more than a couple of months. Look at ’emergent’ or ’emerging’ – ooh, but that’s a conversation . . . so it doesn’t have to have a meaning; of course, by that logic, then all the criticisms of it are equally true because, by someone’s definition they apply. The fact is that we need words to describe the different beliefs – that are completely contrary to one another – that go by the same name. Then the situation is complicated by the political meanings that often latch themselves on to these terms, rather like leeches. It’s ‘Orwellian’

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    In business terms, it is a “branding” problem. As soon as a name takes on a positive appeal, others try to horn in on the benefits without being the real deal. By the same token, when something takes on bad connotations some try to peg their enemies to the name even though the don’t belong.
    You are right about emerging stuff. Scot McKnight has drawn the distinction between “Emergent,” which is a loose organization of fellow travelers, and “emerging church,” which describes a raft of phenomena of which Emergent is one expression.
    No way to escape labels and still communicate.

    Reply
  5. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    ‘branding problem’ – yes, that captures the issue perfectly. I understand the reasons for it, but in order to have a meaningful discussion, we need a way around it – as McKnight has discovered with ’emergent’.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to will spottsCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading