Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark  I think Darryl Hart makes a good point when he says that there isn't really anything such as "evangelicalism" any more. There are two many particularities among the evangelicals to speak of a unified entity "evangelicalism" any more. |
Yes, I enjoyed Hart's book very much on this issue. My quibble with this discussion about evangelicalism is that it tends to neglect evangelicalism outside of the USA (like Australia and the UK).
The problem is that of definitions generally. Is someone an evangelical just because they call themselves one? This is what Hart assumes. However, Barth, for example, called himself "Reformed". Liberals in the PCUSA would call themselves "Presbyterian".
If we go with what people call themselves then we're dealing with a
sociological definition. If we're using the term as originally defined by Luther or subsequently by the 18 century awakenings we're using an
historical definition. Perhaps the discussion could be clarified somewhat by speaking of
contemporary versus
historic evangelicalism. For example, I'd be unhappy to be known as the former, but very happy to known as the latter.
Hart wants to abandon the term "Evangelicalism" because it's now meaningless in his context. That may be well and good. But Hart seems to abandon
the concept as well, which is a pity. He has neglected something important here: historic evangelicalism (
a la Luther) especially emphasizes that the gospel (
evangel) is not simply one doctrine amongst many, but the central doctrine of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:3-4), and all other doctrines should be defined in relation to it. Such a definition then produces critical emphases in a theological system (bible-based, crucicentric, conversion-oriented, mission-focused etc).
Every blessing.