This is the question that came to my mind as I was reading Carl Trueman’s booklet, The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Particularly after this statement:
Lacking a strong doctrinal center, evangelicalism’s coherence as a coalition of institutions and organizations is about to come under a huge strain—a strain that I believe will render the coalition unsustainable in the days ahead (29).
It was the first phrase that made me think of a Tootsie Pop. After all, what’s a Tootsie Pop without the Tootsie center? Trueman raises plenty to think about as he challenges the evangel of evangelism. When we have more confessionally in common with a Roman Catholic or Orthodox than we do with some who are considered evangelicals, the word has lost its meaning. Can someone who denies the Trinity be considered an evangelical? Does it matter what their stance is on soteriology? How about social issues such as homosexuality or complimentarianism? These are all matters that have been pressed lately among so-called evangelicalism.
Trueman sees the term to be more of “a social, cultural, or even marketing term than a theological one—the only time problems arise in this understanding is when the term ‘evangelical’ is used as if it has a doctrinal meaning, when in fact it does not” (19). Of course, he is associated with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, who have a statement fencing in what platform they are speaking from as evangelicals. Whether you’re more of an orange, grape, or chocolate person, they take at least five licks to get to the center, that is, the five solas of the Reformation: “grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, and to the glory of God alone” (18).
For evangelical to continue to be a helpful term, I think that we are going to need to be more clear about our doctrinal center. But as Trueman points out, that is just more exclusive than most want to be. As we try to engage with the culture as a Christian witness, have we lost our witness? Trueman concludes:
The real scandal of the evangelical mind currently is not that it lacks a mind, but that it lacks any agreed-upon evangel. Until we acknowledge that this is the case—until we can agree on what exactly it is that constitutes the evangel—all talk about evangelicalism as a real, coherent movement is likely to be little more than a chimera, or a trick with smoke and mirrors (41).
The world may never know our message. And that isn’t good news.
Did you read Mark Knoll’s book? I read it years ago. It was one of the things that got me questioning evangelicalism. I don’t know if it’s even a useful term anymore. I think “confessional” Christian is more distinctive, because at least we can point to a confession that articulates what we mean. Nowadays, evangelical can mean anything from a Reformed Baptist to someone who denies the trinity and the inerrancy of Scripture. Strange days.
Indeed. In reaching out to have dialogue and serve with other denominations, I think it is more helpful to be clear on our doctrinal stances as we sharpen one another. As a culture, I think we are so confused. We say that diversity is a good thing, and then we pretend we are all the same. Strange days.
He made very good points that I’ve questioned about evangelicals and if you find an answer I’d love to read it
What do you mean by “confessional” Christian….I’ve come to realize that Christians have soooo many more labels then just Christian and I don’t know them all.
Trueman’s booklet is only 41 pages, so that is a good place to start. “Confessional” means that you hold to a creed about your beliefs about the Bible, God, and man. There are informal confessions, like, “I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God,” and there are formal confessions for churches to align with, like the Apostle’s Creed, the 39 Articles, or The Westminster Confession of Faith. This is a historical way that churches have combatted apostasy and affirmed what they believe the Bible says about the Christian faith. Stay tuned, and I will go into more detail about this in another book review soon.
Oh so many heaps of labels and laws we’ve put on Christianity. It’s like a football team, there are all these teams and people and every chooses a team and then roots for their team. We are all in the playoffs and wanting our team to go to the super bowl. (ok, so we just had a super bowl and this is where my analogy is going). And really we are all on the SAME team! …as a Christian I may not agree with what every other “religion” (it’s faulty anyway) believes. If only the focus were reading God’s Word and through getting closer to Him we could better serve each other. Whatever church you are called to. This really is a strange and wonderful time.
To quote from one of Trueman’s other books, “The Creedal Imperative”, “I do want to make the point here that Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and, crucially and ironically, not therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true” (15).
Something to think about.
Trueman apparently calls evangelicalism a coalition at one point and a movement at another. I tend to think the latter is more accurate. Coalitions exist when individuals or institutions have some sort of agreed upon purpose (whether formal or informal), and he accurately points out that there is no such agreement. Movements, on the other hand, are fluid and change with the addition and subtraction of members and leaders.
I think whether evangelicalism should be either a coalition or a movement is up for discussion too. Perhaps it should be something else. Or the word might have outlived its usefulness. In that case, it could stand a good chucking.
Good job helping me think through such weighty matters so early in the morning, Aimee. I haven’t even had my second cup of coffee yet!
Tim
That”s kind of the point Trueman was making, Tim. I didn’t provide all the context, but he was saying that the term lacks a distinctive category to be filed under: as a theology? organization? institution? movement? Evangelicalism has kind of been tossed around in all these categories, and lost its meaning.
Wait a sec … you mean I’m as smart as Carl Trueman then?
Naaahh.
If it makes you feel better to say that Tim
Love your banter here.