Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Ironic?

Does "Evangelicalism" need to be saved? I was really intrigued in where this article goes by asking the question: ---so who gets to decide what the term evangelical means? Obviously, when, "people who preach values in its name didn't live up to their values in their actions and politics."
Evangelicalism has morphed into a common understanding that may not be endorsed by everyone who has been labeled as such. Many as the article suggests have tried to avoid or drop the term as a personal label yet that can only serve to further dilute the meaning of the term. Without anyone to take responsibility of the meaning of the term - without anyone to defend a correct definition - it will inevitably flounder into usage that is less intentional. It is to some extent illogical to see how Jim Wallis and George Bush could be labelled by a term that once held a very distinct and defined meaning.
But when control of the usage of term has been lost is it really possible to regain a correct definition once again? Is the need to redefine a certain type of follower of Jesus an important cultural and theological task? Is it possible to admit that the 'fight' for accuracy in the definition of the word is mostly a futile exercise? Are we willing to ignore the history that has given us the context for our faith?

2 comments:

Freezer said...

I think you have a bad link on this post.

Incoming... said...

thanks - i think its working now