Ship of Fools: Ditching the adjectives

Thread: Ditching the adjectives Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030524

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

Christian, you say?
What sort of christian?

Well, Tony Campolo has, in the wake of American evangelical support for Donald Trump, decided to ditch the term 'evangelical' from his self-description. While he has good reasons for doing so, it brings to mind a wider question of what purpose do any adjectives before "christian" actually serve.

Thinking it through, if I say I'm a baptist, or you're an anglican, he's a methodist, she's an orthodox, they're liberal, those ones over there are reformed, what purpose does it serve other than trying to fit someone into a box and to then decide what we have in common (or not) with them?

Brian McLaren famously went in the deep end when he subtitled one of his books "Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian"

As much as we might like to think that by stating what kind of christian we are in a positive affirmation, identifying ourselves with a wider community, a particular affirmation or theological emphasis, is it possible to use qualifying adjectives and yet avoid the side effect of creating an us/them divide? If we want to identify with a wider community and a long, rich, painful and convoluted history why is anything more than "christian" really needed? Does it not always create a subtext that says "[I'm not like them]"?

n.b. This is not intended as a thread for bashing those who don't share the same adjectives as you; it's for discussion as to the usefulness of any adjectives.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Some of us believe some rather odd things don't we? It doesn't help very much when someone describes themselves as "Christian". I don't know whether I have met an enemy or a kindred soul when someone says they're Christian.

I compare the problem with western reporting of Islam. Where the adjectives are generally missing, and the unitary label "Islam" is associated with negative and scary things for half the population.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

At least as it is frequently used in the States, "Christian" is a loaded adjective, in my experience.

I went to a college that was affiliated with the Episcopal Church. But if someone told me that their son or daughter was looking at "Christian" schools, I'd know that my school wasn't on their list.

There is a group of attorneys who self-identify as "Christian lawyers," and attend meetings of the Christian Lawyer Society. And while I hung out with the CLS when I was in law school, I quickly discovered that I wasn't exactly a "Christian" lawyer.

And you hear it all the time on the radio- people who act the way the pastor says they should are Christians; other folks who don't follow his teachings are merely "so-called Christians."

Unfortunately, it is the divisive and tribal nature of humanity.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I think this is true of all labels-- they are both blessing & curse. I have thought about this with my son, who has some special cognitive/spatial challenges. Labeling them/getting a diagnosis was very helpful to him-- it helped explain why he struggled with things his peers did not, answered questions, helped readjust some expectations both we and he had for him to be more realistic and obtainable. It opened doors to resources to help him, helpful strategies, etc. But it also tends to put him in a box for other people-- especially those not familiar with his particular cluster of symptoms/disorder.

I think that's true of all labels/adjectives. To describe someone as "arty" or "a jock" or "nerdy" can help you know them better, gives you a shorthand to understanding their passions/interests-- but also can cause you to stereotype them, limit them to just that label and nothing else. The same is true to all the varied Christian labels. I don't find denominational/theological labels any more less prone to this sort of blessing/curse dynamic-- just pretty much the same.

I'm not really sure what the solution is, but I don't think getting rid of labels/adjectives all together is the answer. But something about the way we use/understand labels-- and the way we listen to one another and affirm our uniqueness.

Posted by catnip (# 18638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Christian, you say?
What sort of christian?

Well, Tony Campolo has, in the wake of American evangelical support for Donald Trump, decided to ditch the term 'evangelical' from his self-description. While he has good reasons for doing so, it brings to mind a wider question of what purpose do any adjectives before "christian" actually serve.

Thinking it through, if I say I'm a baptist, or you're an anglican, he's a methodist, she's an orthodox, they're liberal, those ones over there are reformed, what purpose does it serve other than trying to fit someone into a box and to then decide what we have in common (or not) with them?

Brian McLaren famously went in the deep end when he subtitled one of his books "Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian"

As much as we might like to think that by stating what kind of christian we are in a positive affirmation, identifying ourselves with a wider community, a particular affirmation or theological emphasis, is it possible to use qualifying adjectives and yet avoid the side effect of creating an us/them divide? If we want to identify with a wider community and a long, rich, painful and convoluted history why is anything more than "christian" really needed? Does it not always create a subtext that says "[I'm not like them]"?

n.b. This is not intended as a thread for bashing those who don't share the same adjectives as you; it's for discussion as to the usefulness of any adjectives.

I think this would be ideal, certainly. I'm all for accepting that a person believes in Christ and that their efforts are genuine. Truth be told, I am rather tired of the insinuation that someone else does not belong to Christ. That said, I can't politically. I cannot accept Evangelical political activism and certainly not their attempts to change our country, to make it theistic and "Christian" as they frame it.

I will grant that they are Christian--which is more than they will allow me--but I will continue to deny them and their political agendas. So, yes, very important politically.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I'm feeling a bit of deja vu-- haven't we been here already?

quote:
Originally posted by catnip:
That said, I can't politically. I cannot accept Evangelical political activism and certainly not their attempts to change our country, to make it theistic and "Christian" as they frame it.

I will grant that they are Christian--which is more than they will allow me--but I will continue to deny them and their political agendas. So, yes, very important politically.

What you are describing above is not "evangelicalism" and never has been. What you are describing is right-wing political conservatism. That many right wing political conservatives happen to also be evangelical does not change the meaning of the word "evangelical", and marginalizes hundreds of thousands of politically left-wing evangelicals such as myself.

But I think you make my point-- a very good example of the blessing/curse of labels described above.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Ditching the adjectives would make us have to listen to someone for at least a few moments before we decide that they were either thoroughly benighted or one of the good 'uns. THEN we could return to our normal programming. [Razz]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

When you hear someone use the phrase -- He/She was a 'good' Christian-- it usually means they are taking the pee in some way, because it turns out that person was especially grouchy or had been uncharitable.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

Unfortunately, it is the divisive and tribal nature of humanity.

There is no and. The divisive bit is part of the tribalism. As are the inclusive bits.
The assignation of adjectives is who we are. By being aware of the mechanisms, we can attempt to control it, but it is part of our programming, hard coded into our ROM, if you will.

Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :

To prevent conversations that go like this?

"Yes I`m a Christian."...."Really, I`m fascinated by the idea of three persons and only one God, how does that work"..."Errr, I don`t believe that I believe that Jesus was just a god, not God..."

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
why is anything more than "christian" really needed?

I remember when I signed up for the Ship thinking very hard about whether to but "Christian" or something else as my religion in my profile. "Christian" is my word of identity. It's how I'd naturally describe my faith. It certainly means more to me than "Anglican" does. I just didn't think, in this context, it would be terribly informative. I ended up putting "Anglican" because it said a bit more about the tradition I'm coming from. In another context, I'd simply say I'm a Christian, though.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Some of us believe some rather odd things don't we? It doesn't help very much when someone describes themselves as "Christian". I don't know whether I have met an enemy or a kindred soul when someone says they're Christian.

As one of those who believe some rather odd things, I would agree and say that adjectives aren't always used as a way to exclude or condemn - they can be very helpful in some ways.

I'm happy to accept whatever definition someone else is using when they identify themselves as a Christian and I hope they're willing to accept mine when I identify myself as one. But if I were to invite you to join my denomination or even just attend a worship service, a simple description of "Christian" would be woefully inadequate in letting you know what to expect. Wouldn't you want to know whether I'm Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant? Or, as is the case in my situation, none of the above? Wouldn't you like to have some sort of clue that I'm inviting you to something well outside the mainstream? However, if my invitation is to a Swedenborgian service, then you at least have a chance to ask me what sort of a denomination it is.

On the other hand, if you don't identify as a Christian yourself, then maybe I don't need to include any adjective.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure we can avoid labels. In my experience some of the groups which claimed to be non-denominational ended up being more denominational than the denominations they criticised.

Of course, labels can create barriers, but pretending that differences don't exist doesn't necessarily help either.

Like anything else, it all depends on the context.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm feeling a bit of deja vu-- haven't we been here already?

quote:
Originally posted by catnip:
That said, I can't politically. I cannot accept Evangelical political activism and certainly not their attempts to change our country, to make it theistic and "Christian" as they frame it.

I will grant that they are Christian--which is more than they will allow me--but I will continue to deny them and their political agendas. So, yes, very important politically.
What you are describing above is not "evangelicalism" and never has been. What you are describing is right-wing political conservatism. That many right wing political conservatives happen to also be evangelical does not change the meaning of the word "evangelical", and marginalizes hundreds of thousands of politically left-wing evangelicals such as myself.

But I think you make my point-- a very good example of the blessing/curse of labels described above.

I think, Cliffdweller, that Catnip and the OP are using "evangelical" as it is actually used in most of the english-speaking world today. Clearly it is not what the word used to mean, but today using it in the old way just lead to confusion when everyone knows that it means what Catnip assumes. It's a pity, but as many have noted in many other threads on many subjects, the language changes and there's very little that holding tightly on to a dictionary definition from however long ago will do to change what actual people today actually mean.

John

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

"Most" only means the USA. Not Canada, the UK, Australia or any other place where the Left owes more to Methodism than to Marxism.

You can pry the Social Gospel from my cold, dead hands.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Tony Campolo has been among a large group of people fighting a valiant rear-guard action to hold onto the traditional meaning of the word "evangelical". Several people here have been doing much the same in our own small way. The problem is we have a word that has centuries of heritage, that has been the self-descriptor of choice for a large number of people with similar attitudes and convictions (as described in the famous Bebbington quadrilateral). But, it's a word that has been hijacked by a small minority of those who hold those convictions, and arguably in a lot of cases hold them with a particular interpretation that the majority of evangelicals down history would have struggled to recognise. That vocal minority have managed to change the perception of the meaning of the word as held by the general population, such that it no longer generally means what we mean by it.

The difficulty is to know what to call ourselves instead. Something that conveys our convictions (evangelical was good because it encompasses the good news of the gospel), is not some massive mouthful, and not going to be misunderstood. "Bible believing" is already taken; "red letter" doesn't work for me, we hold all of Scripture highly, not just the words of Christ. Besides both of them centre on Scripture which is just part of the quadrilateral.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Perhaps, though for centuries there has always been the English-Canadian struggle for cultural expression in the face of a massive media source to the south. The chief bulwarks of this were and still are religion and politics. The fact remains that the Christian Left has had more power in Canada and more time in power than the Christian Right has ever had, including the present day.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Tony Campolo has been among a large group of people fighting a valiant rear-guard action to hold onto the traditional meaning of the word "evangelical". Several people here have been doing much the same in our own small way. The problem is we have a word that has centuries of heritage, that has been the self-descriptor of choice for a large number of people with similar attitudes and convictions (as described in the famous Bebbington quadrilateral). But, it's a word that has been hijacked by a small minority of those who hold those convictions, and arguably in a lot of cases hold them with a particular interpretation that the majority of evangelicals down history would have struggled to recognise.

Of course, some Lutherans I know would likely quibble about what the traditional meaning of "evangelical" has been down through history, though they likely would agree about the struggle to recognize their own convictions in some modern uses of the word. But it does seem to me to be a word for which there have been a number of shifts in meaning—some more subtle, some less so—over the centuries.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Well when I say "I am Orthodox" it means I have been accepted into a particular body of intercommuning churches with a particular common set of beliefs and practices and a particular common history. It's a statement of fact about who I lick the spoon with. It's not intended to denigrate or insult or divide; it just states a fact.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm feeling a bit of deja vu-- haven't we been here already?

quote:
Originally posted by catnip:
That said, I can't politically. I cannot accept Evangelical political activism and certainly not their attempts to change our country, to make it theistic and "Christian" as they frame it.

I will grant that they are Christian--which is more than they will allow me--but I will continue to deny them and their political agendas. So, yes, very important politically.
What you are describing above is not "evangelicalism" and never has been. What you are describing is right-wing political conservatism. That many right wing political conservatives happen to also be evangelical does not change the meaning of the word "evangelical", and marginalizes hundreds of thousands of politically left-wing evangelicals such as myself.

But I think you make my point-- a very good example of the blessing/curse of labels described above.
I think, Cliffdweller, that Catnip and the OP are using "evangelical" as it is actually used in most of the english-speaking world today. Clearly it is not what the word used to mean, but today using it in the old way just lead to confusion when everyone knows that it means what Catnip assumes. It's a pity, but as many have noted in many other threads on many subjects, the language changes and there's very little that holding tightly on to a dictionary definition from however long ago will do to change what actual people today actually mean.

John

Sure, I get that, and admit that sooner or later I'll probably have to give up on the label. But for now, it really isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. There are whole large groups of people, whole denominations that self-identify as "evangelical" who simply don't fit that description.

And it's just not true that what catnip described and that only is "the way it is actually used in most of the english-speaking world today." We are in a weird place where it's transitioning, possibly to something I don't want it to be, but it certainly is not there yet. Rather we are in a space where it's used in multiple ways in different places and at different times. And yet there is a fairly clear and distinct "official" definition that exists, as well as several denominations and organizations that bear that name and absolutely no resemblance to catnip's description.

Yes, it's a weird place. And the time may come when we officially see the meaning has shifted, and those denominations and organizations will have to choose another name. But at this point we don't have that other name, that other identity, and still bear "evangelical" label.

But again, my point was how catnip's post pointed exactly to what I was describing in the prior post-- that labels can be both blessing and curse, that they can make things clearer or mislead.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not intended to denigrate or insult or divide; it just states a fact.

It is a tribal identifier, It does not need to have any negative connotations, but that it will is almost impossible to avoid.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not intended to denigrate or insult or divide; it just states a fact.
It is a tribal identifier, It does not need to have any negative connotations, but that it will is almost impossible to avoid.

This is true of any word that groups humans. But humans come in groups. Whatcha gonna do?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not intended to denigrate or insult or divide; it just states a fact.
It is a tribal identifier, It does not need to have any negative connotations, but that it will is almost impossible to avoid.
This is true of any word that groups humans. But humans come in groups. Whatcha gonna do?

Always fight against the negative aspects of this. It will never go away completely, but it is possible to minimise it.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

I think there are at least 3 uses of the word 'evangelical' commonly used:

1. In America - where it denotes very socially conservative/fundamentalist views
2. In UK Anglicans - where it is used to describe a sub-part of the CofE which typically the GAFCON group and Holy Trinity Brompton
3. In UK non-conformists where it is a much broader term encompassing both social conservatives and liberals, but which typically does not refer to any part of the CofE.

There may well be others, but those are 3 I come across most often.

I think my question really is about cost/benefit. I don't deny that an adjective (such as mousethief's 'big O' Orthodox) do have positive connotations, but we can't ignore that, almost magnetically, most adjectives tend to draw negative connotations too. So at what point do those negative connotations outweigh the positive?

The prevalence of point 1 is probably the most pertinent to this question in modern western christianity, though almost any adjective you choose will have some negativity associated with it, typically as a result of those who use the term being oh-so-human, screwing up, hurting people and getting the wrong end of the theological stick.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In the UK, IME, the term 'evangelical' is not too much of a problem within the church. The problem is outside the church.

The church I'm at know I'm an evangelical, although most of the congregation aren't. They know that means I come to Scripture with a particular viewpoint that's reflected when I preach. They know that I believe in preaching the gospel, if necessary using words, and that people need some form of conversion experience to fully realise the Christian life, and that my sermons will often come back to what Christ did for us on the Cross. They recognise those distinctive attitudes as being evangelical, even though many of them would have different perspectives. They also know that evangelicalism is broad - so they have no cognitive difficulty with knowing I'm evangelical and knowing that I'm not a YECist, that I support marriage equality, that I no longer spend my time in open air evangelism and knocking on doors to tell people about Christ, that I'm politically left of centre (if I couldn't vote SNP I'd vote Labour under Corbyn but wouldn't have done so under Blair, Brown or Milliband), concerned about the environment, trade injustice, third world debt, workers rights etc.

Within the church it's recognised that this doesn't make me a particularly unusual evangelical (in the UK at least). However, for people at work who have no church connection, that would seem to be a totally incompatible combination. I've given up calling myself an evangelical outside church circles, because it's a label that just causes too much confusion because people assume what that means, and get it wildly wrong.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
2. In UK Anglicans - where it is used to describe a sub-part of the CofE which typically the GAFCON group and Holy Trinity Brompton.

The late Michael Saward, writing in "The Post-Evangelical Debate" about 20 years ago, drew a sharp line between the "traditional" thoughtful and fairly broad Anglican Evangelicalism which he held (think All Souls, Langham Place) and the much more Fundamentalist type which he felt was on the increase. And I would say that the Gafcon/St. Helen's Bishopsgate approach would certainly want to distance itself from HTB and it's ilk.

FWIW David Coffey, late General Secretary of the Baptist Union, distinguished between about a dozen different (and largely non-communicating) Evangelical "tribes" in Britain. Myself, I'm very much with Alan Cresswell - however, although I'm attracted to Corbyn, I think I shall keep on voting LibDem.

[ 20. September 2016, 12:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that's a very good point, Alan.

@Sipech, I'm not sure I'd agree with your third point about non-conformist evangelicals, insofar as I don't think the term used among them necessarily excludes Anglican evangelicals as you seem to be suggesting ... if I understand you correctly.

FWIW, from my own UK experience I would modify your three points as follows:

1. In America - where it TENDS TO denote very socially conservative/fundamentalist views
2. In the UK as a term which encompasses those non-conformists, 'new church' people and Anglicans who most closely conform to Bebbington's Quadrilaterals in terms of belief and practice - irrespective of their political or social viewpoints.

I've lost your third point because I've incorporated elements of it into the second. You will notice though that I have incorporated your broader point about social and political liberalism or conservatism in my second point.

Why have I been so pernickety?

For a kick-off, there is more to Anglican evangelicalism than the GAFCON and HTB elements - these just happen to be the most visible aspects beyond the CofE. I'm sure you are aware of that but by highlighting just these two elements it could sound as if there is a pretty monolithic or binary aspect to Anglican evangelicalism ie. they are either Reform types or HTB types. It's not as neat as that.

Just as, within UK non-conformity there is no one single expression of evangelicalism. Some Methodist or URC congregations, for instance, could be considered mildly evangelical - and even contain some strongly evangelical individuals - whereas others appear to have no discernible evangelical element whatsoever.

So I don't think things are as neat and cut-and-dried as your three points might be taken to imply.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

(My post and Gamaliel's posted simultaneously! And infinite apologies for the apostrophe in "it's", for which I deserve to be sent into utter darkness).

[ 20. September 2016, 12:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
2. In UK Anglicans - where it is used to describe a sub-part of the CofE which typically the GAFCON group and Holy Trinity Brompton.
The late Michael Saward, writing in "The Post-Evangelical Debate" about 20 years ago, drew a sharp line between the "traditional" thoughtful and fairly broad Anglican Evangelicalism which he held (think All Souls, Langham Place) and the much more Fundamentalist type which he felt was on the increase. And I would say that the Gafcon/St. Helen's Bishopsgate approach would certainly want to distance itself from HTB and it's ilk.

Sure, and I'd add that whilst I think he was right that fundamentalism was on the increase and that some Anglican evangelicals have lost their marbles and their bearings over the last 20 years, I don't think Anglican evangelicalism divides so neatly into those two opposing camps.

Whether Anglican evangelicalism as a whole is in a 'good place' or a 'bad' one is another issue.

The position is pretty mixed.

Same as it is anywhere else.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I think there are at least 3 uses of the word 'evangelical' commonly used:

1. In America - where it denotes very socially conservative/fundamentalist views
2. In UK Anglicans - where it is used to describe a sub-part of the CofE which typically the GAFCON group and Holy Trinity Brompton
3. In UK non-conformists where it is a much broader term encompassing both social conservatives and liberals, but which typically does not refer to any part of the CofE.

There may well be others, but those are 3 I come across most often.

I think my question really is about cost/benefit. I don't deny that an adjective (such as mousethief's 'big O' Orthodox) do have positive connotations, but we can't ignore that, almost magnetically, most adjectives tend to draw negative connotations too. So at what point do those negative connotations outweigh the positive?

The prevalence of point 1 is probably the most pertinent to this question in modern western christianity, though almost any adjective you choose will have some negativity associated with it, typically as a result of those who use the term being oh-so-human, screwing up, hurting people and getting the wrong end of the theological stick.

Point 3 is not true IME. In Baptist circles (baotist Union) the Bebbington Quadrilateral is clear, even if unacknowledged. The statement of principle regarding our relational nature is built around scripture: a lot of churches have specific references to evangelical in their governing trust deeds.

A lot of Baptist wouldn't consider Campolo to be evangelical - for them the final crossing of the rubicon was his support for SSM.

I'm a Baptist and what would probably be described as Con Evo Charismatic (open to and embracing renewal). I'm also very left wing a position shared by a lot of people in my home church which is also con evo.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, although Evangelicals in the URC and (perhaps) Methodist churches feel that they are out on a bit of a limb; as do "liberals" among the Baptists.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I think there are at least 3 uses of the word 'evangelical' commonly used:

1. In America - where it denotes very socially conservative/fundamentalist views
2. In UK Anglicans - where it is used to describe a sub-part of the CofE which typically the GAFCON group and Holy Trinity Brompton
3. In UK non-conformists where it is a much broader term encompassing both social conservatives and liberals, but which typically does not refer to any part of the CofE.

There may well be others, but those are 3 I come across most often.

I'm not going to attempt to speak for how the term is used in the UK, but #1 is certainly not the only way the term is used in the US, and really not even the primary way. As Gamaliel notes, there is a tendency to associate the term with social & political conservatism, but again, not the primary meaning for reasons I outlined above. Evangelicalism is not fundamentalism (see Marsden's excellent Reforming Fundamentalism) nor is it the Republican party. Some people get that, some people don't. But the term is still used in the US in it's "official" capacity (e.g. Bebbington quad.) and there are so many exceptions to that colloquial meaning that most people with any ecclesiastical affiliation at all understand the broader meaning of the word.

Of course, the bigger question for this thread again is how this works as an example of the blessing & curse of labels:

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:

I think my question really is about cost/benefit. I don't deny that an adjective (such as mousethief's 'big O' Orthodox) do have positive connotations, but we can't ignore that, almost magnetically, most adjectives tend to draw negative connotations too. So at what point do those negative connotations outweigh the positive?

Even w/o the negative connotations, there are negative consequences-- labels tend to limit conversations, tend to limit our view of people to just those labels. No human being is an "evangelical" and only that-- just as no human being is just a jock, scholar, artist, scrabble-player or jogger. But labels tend to place people in a box.

But... as noted above, labels are essential. It is a normal cognitive function-- in fact, "labeling" or categorizing is essential to learning. From the earliest age, our brains are working, noticing similarities and differences, so we can start learning what a "cat" is vs. a "dog", or what a "chair" is vs. a "table". Labels can be quite helpful in understanding behavior & needs of different people.

I think the biggest thing we need to fight against is not to avoid using adjectives/labels. They are normal and helpful. The thing we have to fight against is the tendency for adjectives/labels to be the end of the conversation-- and therefore the end of our learning about particular individuals.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I disagree. I think that #1 is far and away how often it is used in the US, especially among unchurched people. It was a fatal error for the church to get involved in politics in this country, and now they're going to pay the price, alas.
The only solution is to ditch the word 'evangelical' and rebrand with a new term. In current usage it stinks now, of racism and misogyny. Perhaps after the first week in November they'll get it in gear.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
#1 [where it denotes very socially conservative/fundamentalist views] is certainly not the only way the term is used in the US, and really not even the primary way. ... there are so many exceptions to that colloquial meaning that most people with any ecclesiastical affiliation at all understand the broader meaning of the word.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I disagree. I think that #1 is far and away how often it is used in the US, especially among unchurched people.

Which looks like my observation in the UK, in which people within the church and outside it have different understandings of the word 'evangelical' also holds in the US.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I also think that the British media's reportage of the American Evangelical scene has affected the way in which the man or woman in the British street understands the term.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I disagree. I think that #1 is far and away how often it is used in the US, especially among unchurched people.

And among churched people (with the exception perhaps of Lutherans) who do not self-identify as Bebbington quadrilateral-style evangelicals.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is easy to declare that we need to reclaim the word back again from denigrators, or that usage needs to change. In fact it will not change; language is a living entity and is as difficult to shift as the flow of a river.
If you want a new usage, invent it and make it stick. 'Evangelical' is lost now for our lifetimes, befouled beyond cleansing by Westboro and Trump. If we do not take care 'Christianity' will also be lost.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I also think that the British media's reportage of the American Evangelical scene has affected the way in which the man or woman in the British street understands the term.

I think that's true, but I think it's also broader than that in that the forms of US evangelicalism that tend to shout the loudest as the stereotypical forms that we are most familiar with.

Heck, I've come across American RCs and Orthodox online who are only aware of the louder, brasher and more stereotypical forms of US evangelicalism and who would be as surprised to find someone like Cliffdweller as they would be if polar bears were discovered on the far side of the moon.

It's easy to point the finger at the media, but I think it goes wider than that.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've also come across US Christians online who are surprised to learn that there are any evangelicals in the UK at all. They think we are all MoTR Anglicans or atheists.

Or else are under an Islamic yoke and subject to Sharia Law ...

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Is there, then, no place any more for 'Mere' Christianity?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there is, Eirenist. I don't think it's ever gone away.

However, neither have labels.

We can't avoid them. As to whether they cause offence or divisions ... well ...

If there's an Orthodox Church then it logically follows that there are churches considered orthodox (small o), heterodox or heretical.

If there's a Roman Catholic Church then it follows that there are churches which are seen as neither 'Roman' nor 'Catholic'.

If there're Baptist churches then it follows that there are non-baptistic churches in that sense ...

Incidentally, I've been told that the term 'Catholic' has the sense of working 'towards' catholicity rather than having fully achieved such a thing ... which I thought was interesting.

So, no, I don't think that there is no scope for Mere Christianity, but neither do I believe that we can do away with labels either.

Labels may be provisional and will certainly be irrelevant at the final 'restoration of all things ...' as it were but for the time being they serve a purpose - but they cut both ways of course.

A label can give you a paper-cut.

Posted by catnip (# 18638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm feeling a bit of deja vu-- haven't we been here already?

quote:
Originally posted by catnip:
That said, I can't politically. I cannot accept Evangelical political activism and certainly not their attempts to change our country, to make it theistic and "Christian" as they frame it.

I will grant that they are Christian--which is more than they will allow me--but I will continue to deny them and their political agendas. So, yes, very important politically.
What you are describing above is not "evangelicalism" and never has been. What you are describing is right-wing political conservatism. That many right wing political conservatives happen to also be evangelical does not change the meaning of the word "evangelical", and marginalizes hundreds of thousands of politically left-wing evangelicals such as myself.

But I think you make my point-- a very good example of the blessing/curse of labels described above.

Excuse me? On a forum I certainly have the right to deny their political agendas as being "Christian". And that does not mean I approve of labels and I stated that clearly.

You will never catch me going around telling people they aren't Christian if they say they are.

Posted by catnip (# 18638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm feeling a bit of deja vu-- haven't we been here already?

quote:
Originally posted by catnip:
That said, I can't politically. I cannot accept Evangelical political activism and certainly not their attempts to change our country, to make it theistic and "Christian" as they frame it.

I will grant that they are Christian--which is more than they will allow me--but I will continue to deny them and their political agendas. So, yes, very important politically.
What you are describing above is not "evangelicalism" and never has been. What you are describing is right-wing political conservatism. That many right wing political conservatives happen to also be evangelical does not change the meaning of the word "evangelical", and marginalizes hundreds of thousands of politically left-wing evangelicals such as myself.

But I think you make my point-- a very good example of the blessing/curse of labels described above.
I think, Cliffdweller, that Catnip and the OP are using "evangelical" as it is actually used in most of the english-speaking world today. Clearly it is not what the word used to mean, but today using it in the old way just lead to confusion when everyone knows that it means what Catnip assumes. It's a pity, but as many have noted in many other threads on many subjects, the language changes and there's very little that holding tightly on to a dictionary definition from however long ago will do to change what actual people today actually mean.

John

To be clear, I almost mentioned that myself--that "Conservative" and "Evangelical" were once synonymous. But then I decided that in very recent years, perhaps the last decade, it became a designation that reflected the divide over LGBT issues and lost its original meaning and gained a reputation as a rejection of "Liberals".

That is all a big mess now. Talk about hating labels (adjectives)!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Is there, then, no place any more for 'Mere' Christianity?

But who gets to say what is "mere" and what is extraneous? My "mere" includes the Nicene creed and the fact that the eucharist is well and truly the body and blood of Christ. There are many here in this very thread who would not include those in their "mere."

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by catnip:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm feeling a bit of deja vu-- haven't we been here already?

quote:
Originally posted by catnip:
That said, I can't politically. I cannot accept Evangelical political activism and certainly not their attempts to change our country, to make it theistic and "Christian" as they frame it.

I will grant that they are Christian--which is more than they will allow me--but I will continue to deny them and their political agendas. So, yes, very important politically.
What you are describing above is not "evangelicalism" and never has been. What you are describing is right-wing political conservatism. That many right wing political conservatives happen to also be evangelical does not change the meaning of the word "evangelical", and marginalizes hundreds of thousands of politically left-wing evangelicals such as myself.

But I think you make my point-- a very good example of the blessing/curse of labels described above.
Excuse me? On a forum I certainly have the right to deny their political agendas as being "Christian". And that does not mean I approve of labels and I stated that clearly.

You will never catch me going around telling people they aren't Christian if they say they are.

???? I am not sure what it is you think I'm saying but I'm pretty sure it's not what I think I'm saying??? Are you thinking that I'm objecting to your criticism of right-wing Christians or that certain right-wing political agendas are unChristian??? Because I'm certainly not suggesting that-- at all. I'm not seeing how your comment here followed what I was saying???
[Confused]

Again, just to clarify/bring us back to OP: the point of this tangent was not to come to agreement about the meaning of "evangelical" or to decry the way language changes over time. The point was simply "evangelical" as an example of what the OP is talking about-- how labels can be both helpful and hurtful. If we want to debate the current range (and yes, there is definitely a range) of meanings of "evangelical" that is probably best done on a separate thread.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

Adjectives are necessary because differences are real. If we can't describe them we can't talk about them. More importantly if we can't talk about the differences we'll carelessly hurt one another. Imagine an evangelical with an open-table memorialist approach to Communion attending a Roman Catholic Mass. They see no problem in receiving but could deeply offend their RC brothers and sisters if they did so.

Of course that's hypothetical because even if we could instantly wipe all adjectives from people's mind so that they referred only to Christians and nothing else, in about five minutes new ones would be created. That's just how our brains work, we create categories and sub-categories.

The trick is to use the categories but be aware of them and particularly of the danger of "othering". And where, as here, the categories are groups of people, we need to be very aware of the respect we owe one another as human beings created and loved by God, and strive to disagree well.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Is there, then, no place any more for 'Mere' Christianity?
But who gets to say what is "mere" and what is extraneous? My "mere" includes the Nicene creed and the fact that the eucharist is well and truly the body and blood of Christ. There are many here in this very thread who would not include those in their "mere."

In effect 'mere Christianity' is just another label, or certainly can be. Usually a label for Christians who don't want to be labelled. It happens to be a label that isn't clearly defined yet, and means a lot of different things to different people but as it becomes more popular as a tag it will gain substance through usage, as some "mere Christians" look at other "mere Christians" and decide whether or not they're actually "mere Christians".

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

(Emerging from the shadows for a moment...)

One of the most freeing things I have ever done was to cast off the mantles of labels. I came to a point (some 30+ years ago !!) where I realised that I was an "Charismatic Evangelical" and had adopted all sorts of things solely on that basis. I listened to the "right" kind of Christian music. I believed the "right" kinds of things. I went to the "right" kinds of festivals. Etc etc etc....

In so doing, I found that I had lost myself. I didn't know who I was any more. So I stopped giving myself labels. I just tried to be me - whoever I was. And I found such freedom in that - freedom to be something other than a label. It baffled friends because I stopped listening to the "right" kind of music and started listening to things that really interested me, like Blues and World. It worried my friends because I stopped going along with all the stupid fads and fashions of the Charismatic Evangelical world and started thinking outside the box and asking awkward questions.

I don't think you can get away from labels altogether. I would love it if I could just describe myself as "Christian" with no qualifying statements. But that's not reality. For some people it is important to know that I am Anglican. For others, it is important to know that I am NOT Evangelical (although my roots still show sometimes). Labels can assist, if held loosely. But never let the label define who you are or what you do. To change the metaphor - colour outside the lines!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Is there, then, no place any more for 'Mere' Christianity?
But who gets to say what is "mere" and what is extraneous? My "mere" includes the Nicene creed and the fact that the eucharist is well and truly the body and blood of Christ. There are many here in this very thread who would not include those in their "mere."
In effect 'mere Christianity' is just another label, or certainly can be. Usually a label for Christians who don't want to be labelled. It happens to be a label that isn't clearly defined yet, and means a lot of different things to different people but as it becomes more popular as a tag it will gain substance through usage, as some "mere Christians" look at other "mere Christians" and decide whether or not they're actually "mere Christians".

I think it's akin to the people's who think they're reading the Bible plainly, while everybody who comes to other conclusions about what it says are interpreting, dragging their beliefs into it, whatever you want to call it. So: people who claim to be "mere Christians" are saying "our kind of Christianity is the original, unadulterated, pure, simple form. Everything else has added something unnecessary or unbiblical, or has taken away something, or like that. We've got the real deal. You who are different from us do not."

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

With my 3 uses above, I would defend the existence of the 3rd definition. If some haven't come across the idea of evangelical and Anglican being spoken of as different things, then I would suggest their experience of evangelical churches is not as broad as they might think. It's very interesting that where this a narrow overlap, it tends to only be two particular congregations (HTB & All Souls Langham Place) that get cited.

I'm quite familiar with the latter (went to lunchtime services for a while) and it was noticeable that all the evangelicals who went there described it as an Anglican church, while all the Anglicans described it as an evangelical church.

quote:
Labels can assist, if held loosely. But never let the label define who you are or what you do.

Very well put, Oscar the Grouch.

On the 'mere christianity' I think it can/has become a label, but I think that's a corruption of what CS Lewis was on about. He recognised the value of his particular strand of christianity but also that it wasn't the be all and end all. One's own tradition is like the flavouring on a dish, and he was trying to see what the raw ingredients were. The issue is then that some people become obsessed with the idea that raw is best or what was intended.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I liked Lewis's analogy of a house. He declared he was describing the basic structure, the roof and walls. If you wanted to come in, you were in the hall. But if you wanted to live there, you ought to come in deeper, into one of the rooms -- a denomination.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Crumbs, there are enough varieties of evangelicalism here in the UK to confuse anyone!

Most claim Their brand is the true flavour, lots can be truly bitchy about the rest and the whole sorry story is the main reason why i refuse to call myself an evangelical any longer.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, Sipech, but that's not been my experience at all. I've knocked around evangelical circles since 1981 and have never once found evangelical Anglican narrowed down in anyone's mind to just two congregations - HTB and All Soul's Langham Place.

Even if that were the case it's a very London-centric view.

FWIW, although I've only ever officially been a member of two charismatic evangelical churches, I've had dealings with the Brethren, all three of the 'traditional' indigenous Pentecostal denominations, with FIEC churches, independent Methodist churches, Nazarenes, Baptists (both BUGB and independent and Reformed Baptists), as well as Ichthus, Pioneer, New Frontiers, Covenant Ministries and its offshoots and some of the black-led Pentecostals.

To my knowledge, I've never come across the view that only a couple of flagship Anglican churches could be considered evangelical.

Rather than demonstrating the narrowness of other people's experience, might your assertion really demonstrate the narrowness of your own?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

@Gamaliel - I don't think that's what Sipech was saying. Rather, he seemed to be suggesting that people with a narrow knowledge of Anglican Evangelicalism tended always to cite those specific churches. At least that's how I read it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, if that's what he's saying then fair enough, it wouldn't surprise me if that view was the case in some circles ... But wouldn't imagine it's that common.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

Here in Australia, one of the most annoying outbreaks of misleading names is the self-styled Australian Christian Lobby (TM). It seems to comprise about 2 men, a dog, and 3 right-wing politicians, but no-one from a a mainstream church at all.

Unfortunately the media go to them for a quote (with which the ACL are ever-ready to oblige) when they want a contrary view that is not expressed forcefully enough by mainstream churches for the media to want it as a "counter" to standard humanitarian views.

The current example is the "debate" on same-sex marriage, where although the Catholic hierarchy are opposed, at least one of the mainstream churches (the Uniting Church of Australia) is quietly supportive. (See thread on dead horses).

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Tukai

quote:
Here in Australia, one of the most annoying outbreaks of misleading names is the self-styled Australian Christian Lobby (TM). It seems to comprise about 2 men, a dog, and 3 right-wing politicians, but no-one from a a mainstream church at all.

That seems to be true of some organisations in the UK - either that or they are headed by one bombastic individual who believes their own view should trump that of anyone else - IMV Christian Concern could be put into that camp.

Adjectives? I never describe myself as Christian: I prefer the term churchgoer and if pushed for an adjective would pick regular.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

We are sadly afflicted with such people in the US. To cite the Scripture to people like Franklin Graham or the Westboro Baptist people has no effect whatever. What would that Jesus guy know about it anyway, eh?
I wonder if the solution might not be trademark legislation. You are specifically enjoined from using words like 'Star Wars' or 'Mickey Mouse' in certain contexts. Clearly it is too late for words like 'Christian' or 'Jesus'. But what about the Mormons? Can any old body just gear up and call themselves a Latter Day Saint? Or Quakers?
I am currently reading a book about the Oneida community. Some truly creative interpretation of Scripture there in the 19th century. But the name itself seems to be OK, controlled by the successor organization which manufactures silverware.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

I wonder if the solution might not be trademark legislation. You are specifically enjoined from using words like 'Star Wars' or 'Mickey Mouse' in certain contexts. Clearly it is too late for words like 'Christian' or 'Jesus'. But what about the Mormons? Can any old body just gear up and call themselves a Latter Day Saint?

There are at least 4 or 5 competing groups all calling themselves "Mormons" or "LDS", including the Fundamentalist LDS" of Warren Jeffs infamy. So obviously, that's not a copyrightable term.

In reality, as noted above, you can't keep "Mormon" from evolving any more than I can keep "evangelical" from evolving. You can try to be more forceful in speaking to your own particular definition or understanding of the word, perhaps by appealing to historic definitions or academic definitions as I have. But at some point you may have to concede the term has become compromised (as some, but not yet me, have done with "evangelical") and move on to new terminology. Of course, sooner or later the new term may become compromised as well. It's the nature of language.

Ask American moderate Republicans-- if you can find any.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
"Christian" is my word of identity. It's how I'd naturally describe my faith. It certainly means more to me than "Anglican" does.

I identify with that.

It always strikes me that anyone who frets more about whether something is "evangelical" or "Catholic" or some other label than they do about whether it is Christian has got the wrong end of the stick.

Unfortunately, I suspect that such a view is a part of Anglican culture.

Maybe Anglicanism is unique in its view of its own unimportance ? CS Lewis could write about mere Christianity because he was Anglican...

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ
Maybe Anglicanism is unique in its view of its own unimportance ? CS Lewis could write about mere Christianity because he was Anglican...

Lewis was doing BBC broadcasts about basic Christian doctrine. He ran his talks by clergy of various denominations before he broadcast them, to make sure they were acceptable.

Moo

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0