Evangelical...and Reformed
10 comments | PermalinkIt’s good to see that there are still some Reformed people these days who embrace the label “evangelical” (see the posts by Stephen Nichols and Sean Lucas on the Ref21 site). I don’t sympathize with the Reformed trend that utterly scorns and detests the label. I have no desire to set myself apart as a “Reformed Confessionalist” who has nothing in common with evangelicalism. This separatist attitude is wrong for several reasons:Read the whole thing.(1) It smacks of spiritual pride and elitism. I consider myself to be a Christian first, then a Protestant, then an evangelical, and only then Reformed. To exalt ”Reformed” über alles is to downplay our central identity as Christians. To exalt the Reformed confessions is to downplay the primary New Testament confession that “Jesus is Lord.” I’m not a Reformed person who happens to be a Christian. I’m a blood-bought Christian who happens to believe in the Reformed understanding of the gospel. And I do not view myself as a superior Christian for having this belief. It is only by the grace of God that I understand what I do of the grace of God, and even then I betray it all too often in my practice.
(2) The current disdain for “evangelicalism” in Reformed circles is also wrong because it places the accent on the distinctives of Reformed theology and practice instead of on what we have in common with evangelicalism. But what we have in common with evangelicals (being Christ-centered, cross-centered, and gospel-centered) is far, far more important than our distinctives (our Calvinistic soteriology, our covenant theology, our view of the church and the means of grace, etc.). The distinctives of Reformed theology and practice are useful only to the degree that they undergird and clarify the gospel, the evangel.
(3) Being “Reformed” but not “evangelical” undercuts the importance of seeking fellowship, unity, and love with all Christians who confess the historic ecumenical creeds (Nicea and Chalcedon) and the basics of the gospel (justification by faith alone, substitutionary atonement), regardless of our differences over secondary matters. The apostle John is fairly clear in his epistles that if you claim to know God but do not love the brethren, then your claim is proven to be empty. Confession of Christ as the Son of God and love for the brethren go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.
. . . Instead of being too proud to call ourselves “evangelical,” we should join with those who strive to uphold the historic meaning of the term.
posted by JT at Thursday, July 24, 2008
10 Comments:
I prefer the label, Reformed and Evangelical. Thirty some years ago D. Martyn Llyod-Jones was already concerned that the term Evangelical had lost it's meaning. When the semantic domain of any word expands to the point that it covers just about everything, it becomes meaningless. Since L-J's day, the semantic domain of the word has expanded at an ever increasing rate. I really does seem to mean nothing today.
On the other hand, the term Reformed still tends to carry a specific, quantifiable meaning. When it is coupled with the term Evangelical, it is given the right balance and clarity. Yes Reformed, but tempered with Grace. After all, we might argue that the real definition of Evangelical today simply means, "One who is gracious and winsome in debate."
his point about consistency is good, but I have to say that in the circles I walk, its much clearer to say Im a reformed Christian than to say Im an evangelical.
If the term is being distorted to an almost ambiguity in some sectors of our country or world, I see a degree of wisdom in not jumping on the nametag bandwagon and just passive as far as calling ourselves that.
I would only tell someone Im an evangelical if they asked and that way i could clarify what the historical meaning acutally is and then associate myself with that definition, which is probably a lot different from the one they have in mind.
I would do the same in certain settings with calling myself reformed. Heck, i do the same thing with labeling myself a Christian.
Ive called myself a follower of Jesus or a disciple of Christ to various people as I started off conversations because I had a hunch that if I used that label, they would automatically acredit me with a system of theology and life that would be too much for me to deal with in our conversation.
Of course, they will eventually figure out these labels are equated to the label of a Christian.
And I by no means am saying we ought to be ambiguous.
But what I am saying is that it does "unity" no good when our labels get in the way BECAUSE THE LABELS arent communicating the truth accurately due to the erosion their definitions have endured in certain societies.
Im a calvinist. But I dont go back to the South where Im from and call myself that right off the bat. People will go nuts. Because many of them have a totally wrong view of what that means. So I communicate what I beleive the Bible teaches and then when they're on board with that, I say...oh yeah, and by the way, thats Calvinism and I believe it.
I see using Evangelical the same way.
If people are gonna get wrong beliefs about me or about the Bible or about Christ because I use that term so QUICKLY before I can have a chance to define it, then I have no interest in holding so tightly to it...a.k.a. the "label"
We live in a label society. And unity doesnt always come from us attaching 'labels" to ourselves.
We've been influenced too much our own advertising. Labels can be good. But they need to be explained first. Sometimes it takes a longer conversation to explain what we believe than people are willing to have with us.
So the answer is not to give them a label for us that they can assume they understand, because they most likely dont.
The answer is to have a long conversation with them. If they wont do that, dont give them a label.
Telling people Im an evangelical is not as good as Explaining to people that im an evangelical.
This is the attitude behind a lot of people wanting to quit using the term evangelical. For some its pride as Irons said, but for others its just what Ive described. Its a passion for truth and in fact a love for unity that they dont quickly jump on that term to describe themselves to a world that wont understand it rightly anyway. They know it wont.
Im not for dropping the term. But Im also not for attaching myself to it to quickly. I hope that is not what the author meant.
No label is worth having or attaching yourself too if you dont have the time to explain it or make sure that the person or people you're talking too gets it.
The label will never be the answer. Its the truth behind the label and thats what we ought to be aiming for. And if we get that step taken care of, then label me labelled.
Seems to me we do well to own all the broad labels we can - Christian, Protestant, Evangelical etc, lest we start thinking that only the Reformed are Christian.
I guess this flows along the lines of Ray Orlund's recent observations on the effect of being reformed.
Amen.
How about labeling ourselves as "the worst sinner that I know"? I'd like to try that label more often.
hmm... I tend to disagree because just like the term "Christian" means nothing anymore, the term "evangelical" means nothing anymore. I work with people who say they are evangelical, but I doubt they are even Christians.
Reformed is much more specific...
also, and i know many will strongly disagree with this, Irons describes the things we have in common (being Christ-centered, cross-centered, and gospel-centered) as separate from Reformed theology...
How Christ-centered, cross-centered and gospel-centered can one be outside of a reformed understanding of those things?
I would say a reformed soteriology is necessary for being Christ-centered, cross-centered and gospel-centered, etc...
But talk aside, how does having in common with other Evangelicals translate into action?
Do the Reformed confessionalists back out from condemning Arminianism, contrary to the Canons of Dordt? Is predestination a secondary issue? Maybe on the extent of the atonement, yes but election?? Total depravity vis-a-vis monergism??
Do Reformed confessionalists keep quiet about non-cessationism(Reformed Charismatics notwithstanding)?
Does not the Reformed tradition have more in common with the Lutheran tradition? Following the model of the ACE, much more should be done to explore ways to enhance cooperation and solidarity within the Reformation Tradition.
The distinction between official and personal relations sohuld not be lost. Else, why bother subscribing to the confessions???
"(3) Being ”Reformed” but not “evangelical” undercuts the importance of seeking fellowship, unity, and love with all Christians who confess the historic ecumenical creeds (Nicea and Chalcedon) and the basics of the gospel (justification by faith alone, substitutionary atonement), regardless of our differences over secondary matters. The apostle John is fairly clear in his epistles that if you claim to know God but do not love the brethren, then your claim is proven to be empty. Confession of Christ as the Son of God and love for the brethren go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other."
But not at the official level, you don't. Then the confessions would be relativised. Then we are no different the PCUSA that we condemned. Evangelicals are not separated brethren (Vatican 2), nor do we practice closed communion (as per LCMS, WELS) but we cannot close one eye on the doctrinal issues.
The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. She has nothing to apologise about, be ashamed about her confession.
And alas, even in so-called conservative circles (never mind the PCUSA), there is lack of clarity, silence on moral issues: Divorce and remarriage (never mind what the WCF teaches compared to the pre-Reformation position), birth control, etc. To raise these issues might be considered legalism in certain circles, and yet refusing to baptise infants is not??? Second blessing is not legalism?
Well said, Adam.
I'm afraid Mr. Iron's definition of being centered on the essential glories of Christ in the gospel is confused or pollyanish, assuming those are the province of that elusive group called the 'evangelicals,' and not what many have come to see as the soul of the reformed faith.
Perhaps reformed folk like me have refashioned what was at one time deemed evangelical into a new definition that suits our creed, but I'd like to think my deep commitments are rooted in scripture and can be traced through the ages - rather than merely a 20th century phenomenon.
While I don't recoil when asked if I'm a [fill in the blank w/ a hot-button label designed cause discomfort or compromise] sort of Christian, it's just easier and more precise to speak of specific points where the truth would unite or divide. The matter of labels is usually only a fiery subject when there are a bunch of people seeking to get away from an unpopular term. Isn't it odd how we are rarely anxious to take on new ones though?
Lee: snip snipI’m a blood-bought Christian who happens to believe in the Reformed understanding of the gospel. Snip snip
The problem I have with the statement above is that seems to infer that the Reformed understanding of the gospel is not the gospel. The Reformed understanding is the gospel.
Now, I wouldn't affirm the universal statement made some people that unless one is Reformed then they are not Christian. (Frankly, I just don't go around thinking like that).
John MacArthur said it was possible to misunderstand God's irresistible Grace and even think you could lose your salvation and still be a Christian. But, and I think he mentions a good point, that it is equally possible for Arminian or whatever non-Reformed evangelical to push their points so far that they jeopardize our confidence that they are really Christian by thinking their self-induced faith places a part and they can push you to a point whether you wonder if they really understand that salvation is a total work of God.
The Bible says we shall know Christians by their fruit. And that fruit is multi-faceted. Only the Lord knows their heart - we can NEVER know that. But we can know them by their fruit, and I think one of those fruits is who are they trusting in for their salvation.
I don't know. I just find really disturbing what I've been really reading of late because I think it can lead to a disastrous consequence where we don't contend for the gospel anymore and just embrace anyone who give some signs but doesn't clearly understand the gospel. I think we should contend for a clear understanding of the gospel. But maybe it's just me...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home