# Should we as Reformed Identify as Evangelical?



## Ray (Apr 5, 2018)

With being Confessionaly Reformed in the 21st. Century should we as Christians identify ourselves as Evangelical? Since the term is widely used by modern heretics and false churches. And what is your definition of Evangelical?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 5, 2018)

I identify as evangelical, but not as an evangelical.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 5, 2018)

See:
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH02/04e.html

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/catholic-evangelical-and-reformed/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/evangelical-reformed.62703/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 5, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See:
> http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH02/04e.html



Outstanding, Patrick....thanks for posting this!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Apr 5, 2018)

No, I would go with evangelical, but not Evangelical.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 5, 2018)

The word "evangelical" is problematic these days and gets used in many ways I don't want to be associated with. But when that word came of age in the middle of the last century, it denoted a believer who might hold any of various convictions about worship, church polity, politics, etc., but was (1) distinct from mainline liberals by professing a repentant, personal faith in Christ as the Savior from sin, and was (2) distinct from fundamentalists by seeking to engage and improve the culture rather than despising and disengaging from it.

By THAT definition, I am very much an evangelical. I also think it would be a handy category/definition to keep around, though I fear it has largely been lost already.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 5, 2018)

Also, let's say I hear of a typical non-denominational and broadly evangelical church. There are a number of ways I will probably disagree with such a church. But still, I tend to think first of the unity I share with believers in that church as together we confess Christ as Savior and Lord, rather than first thinking of the ways we are different (or the ways they must be wrong).

This probably makes me an evangelical in spirit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Apr 6, 2018)

I highly recommend the book Evangelicalism Divided by Iain H. Murray for an in-depth look at the emergence of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism in the US and the UK.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 6, 2018)

Ray said:


> With being Confessionaly Reformed in the 21st. Century should we as Christians identify ourselves as Evangelical? Since the term is widely used by modern heretics and false churches. And what is your definition of Evangelical?


Yes, and my definition would be a person who upholds the cardinal truths of the scriptures, but is also engaged in dialog and debating current biblical scholarship/theological/cultural trends.
Essential, old time Fundamentalists, but also within emphasis on engaging and impacting culture and other religions, instead of just separating and cloistering up.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 6, 2018)

Edward said:


> No, I would go with evangelical, but not Evangelical.



FYI, in the Christian publishing business, the word _evangelical_ is generally written in lower case unless used as part of the name of a specific church, denomination, or organization (for example, _Evangelical Free Church_).

I often appreciate the wisdom of _The Christian Writer's Manual of Style._ It gives a definition similar to mine above, plus some helpful usage tips:

Although those who describe themselves as evangelicals do not always agree on its definition, it is most often used to mean those Protestants since the Reformation, and especially since the time of John Wesley, who stress the importance of (1) the four gospels, (2) the inerrancy of the Bible, (3) personal conversion, and (4) salvation by faith in the atoning death of Christ. Their worship tends to focus on preaching rather than ritual, and they emphasize evangelization. Use the term _evangelical_ with caution when writing for general readers. People outside the church often view _evangelical_ as synonymous with _fundamentalist_ or _the religious right_. Some readers think _evangelical_ means any Christian who evangelizes, sometimes in insensitive ways. People inside the church accept the term more as a more general description of a theological viewpoint.

Hudson, Robert. _The Christian Writer's Manual of Style: 4th Edition_ (p. 464). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.​

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Haeralis (Apr 8, 2018)

The term historically meant that you embraced the good news of the Gospel. For many decades, it was a wonderful term which Protestants of all denominational affiliations used that designated their unity in Christ.

The term is basically meaningless today, but that is not a reason to cede the word altogether, anymore than we should forsake the term “catholic” because of its association with the false Church of Rome. The goal should be to recover the historic meaning of the term from the idolaters.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ben Mordecai (Apr 9, 2018)

I was reading the Puritan Hugh Binning's book Christian Love where he had a brilliant and sobering statement that was to the effect of, "We should not be ashamed to call brothers those whom Christ was not ashamed to call brothers."

"Evangelical" as a term often serves the position of whipping boy for a group of Christians who are either too shallow or too conservative, despite the fact that it is probably the best term that we have to describe the healthiest kind of ecumenicism possible between Protestants of differing theology. There is a substantial agreement that we can have between the Reformed and gospel-beliving Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, non-Reformed Baptists, Non-denominationals, and Anglicans that we cannot share with Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, or liberals. Yet is also makes sense to have formal divisions to avoid transgressing one another's consciences and allowing us to uphold the deeply held theological distinctions we all believe to be biblical. 

I have a suspicion that much of the time gospel-believing Christians want to distance themselves from the term "evangelical" is due to the shame to be associated with the other groups.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 9, 2018)

I get why some folks don't want to have or keep the term Evangelical. However, many labels, like Reformed, Lutheran, Protestant and even Christian were given by opponents. Even so, I see no reason to jettison any of those labels. Moreover, the label Christian has at least as much baggage than Evangelical. All sorts of modifiers are piled on top of that; right-wing, left-wing, neo and onward. Evangelical is not my go to self-describer but I won't rebuke others for referring to me as one.

These days, and it is likely only to get worse before it gets better for most of us, upholding the label of Christian, Reformed or Evangelical will have negative consequences personally. Jumping around from term to term isn't going to improve things. What I hope for are conversation starters. One can get to Gospel from any of those labels.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 9, 2018)

ZackF said:


> One can get to Gospel from any of those labels.



Indeed!


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 9, 2018)

The term "Evangelical" is perfectly appropriate for an Evangelical. Because of the vast differences between what we believe and how we worship, it is a term that I distance myself from.........


----------



## Jack K (Apr 9, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Because of the vast differences between what we believe and how we worship,



This is interesting to me. I have often seen, on this board, the word _evangelical_ used to mean churches that disagree with Reformed theology and, especially, do not follow Reformed worship distinctives. It is as if part of the definition of _evangelical_ reads: "non-Reformed in worship practices."

But when I first started using the word not all that long ago (40-30 years ago, at most), it seemed there was no such thing as a defined, evangelical way to conduct worship. In fact, one main reason to use the word _evangelical_ was to have an umbrella term that could encompass churches from many different worship traditions that were nevertheless united by holding firm against liberalism. The worship might be Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, tent-revivalist, or charismatic—but we called them all _evangelical_ if the preacher proclaimed the gospel of Christ.

Is it just a quirk of this board (many here having strong views about worship) that the word _evangelical_ is used to denote a particular and non-Reformed approach to worship? Or has the word changed in wider usage, so that _evangelical_ now means more specific things than it used to mean, especially with regard to worship practices? Has the definition of what is evangelical narrowed that much?

Because back in my college days, I feel sure a comment about there being a vast difference between Reformed and evangelical worship would have sounded nonsensical.

Interested in your thoughts, folks.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 9, 2018)

Jack K said:


> This is interesting to me. I have often seen, on this board, the word _evangelical_ used to mean churches that disagree with Reformed theology and, especially, do not follow Reformed worship distinctives. It is as if part of the definition of _evangelical_ reads: "non-Reformed in worship practices."
> 
> But when I first started using the word not all that long ago (40-30 years ago, at most), it seemed there was no such thing as a defined, evangelical way to conduct worship. In fact, one main reason to use the word _evangelical_ was to have an umbrella term that could encompass churches from many different worship traditions that were nevertheless united by holding firm against liberalism. The worship might be Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, tent-revivalist, or charismatic—but we called them all _evangelical_ if the preacher proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
> 
> ...



Jack,
I agree that a good portion of Evangelicalism is against both Fundamentalism and Liberalism. Far too many (and I left one 5 years ago) Evangelical churches have a "sermon" that has much more anecdotal storytelling than preached Word and have pretty wayward doctrine. I think Michael Horton's book _Christless Christianity_ has a finger on the pulse of what I call, pop- Evangelicalism. Ironically, to the degree they are "Christ-less" is the degree they are usually liberal, too.

For me, the destructive-ness of pop-E hits very close to home.....


----------



## Jack K (Apr 9, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Jack,
> I agree that a good portion of Evangelicalism is against both Fundamentalism and Liberalism. Far too many (and I left one 5 years ago) Evangelical churches have a "sermon" that has much more anecdotal storytelling than preached Word and have pretty wayward doctrine. I think Michael Horton's book _Christless Christianity_ has a finger on the pulse of what I call, pop- Evangelicalism. Ironically, to the degree they are "Christ-less" is the degree they are usually liberal, too.
> 
> For me, the destructive-ness of pop-E hits very close to home.....



_Pop-evangelical_ is a useful word for what you describe. Certainly, many of the churches we used to call _evangelical_ have gone that direction, so that I can see why some folks start defining _evangelical_ that way.

I'm still old-school. If someone tells me they're not an evangelical, my first thought is that they reject the gospel in favor of liberal Christianity. When I read Horton's book, I saw him calling churches back to true evangelicalism rather than labeling them evangelicals in a bad sense.

It seems an awfully large gulf between the different ways we use that word. Almost two opposite meanings.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 9, 2018)

I've had to get used to how the word is sometimes used here. In my early days on this board, I used to mention that I was an evangelical and people would start yelling at me as if I had said, "I believe worship services should have more fog machines and _Braveheart_ clips." Of course, I meant nothing of the sort. I meant I believe the gospel.

And in secular settings today, if I say I'm an evangelical people act as if I said, "I voted for Trump. Love everything about that guy!"

Sad.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Mordecai (Apr 9, 2018)

I respect the fact that when a person transitions from a shallow evangelicalism into a solidly reformed church, they are going to experience a lot of negative feelings about their previous church because of what they were missing and the errors they received. Nevertheless, if they believed and taught the gospel, they are still in fact brothers and those negative experiences do not empty the Spirit of His power in their context either. 

It is perfectly valid to consider the errors of other evangelicals to be significant, but we should be careful to distance ourselves from them only when it comes to upholding the truth, not to be needlessly divisive. Where we do have common ground is where it is most important to have common ground and that can be an avenue for ministry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Apr 9, 2018)

Jack K said:


> This is interesting to me. I have often seen, on this board, the word _evangelical_ used to mean churches that disagree with Reformed theology and, especially, do not follow Reformed worship distinctives. It is as if part of the definition of _evangelical_ reads: "non-Reformed in worship practices."
> 
> But when I first started using the word not all that long ago (40-30 years ago, at most), it seemed there was no such thing as a defined, evangelical way to conduct worship. In fact, one main reason to use the word _evangelical_ was to have an umbrella term that could encompass churches from many different worship traditions that were nevertheless united by holding firm against liberalism. The worship might be Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, tent-revivalist, or charismatic—but we called them all _evangelical_ if the preacher proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
> 
> ...



I think that that's kind of the point to my mind. Part and parcel of the modern term evangelical, in my opinion, is that things like worship and ecclesiology don't really matter all that much. That most all of them now have fallen into the Pentecostal/revivalist worship style is due to pragmatics rather than principle. The normative principle of worship is the creed of the evangelical--it's all about the gospel no matter how it gets across. Anything that might, in their minds, distract from what they see as the core gospel message--whether it be worship convictions, rigorous systematics, history, church government, etc.--is viewed as suspect.

I tend to identify as an evangelical with non-Christians (and liberals/Papists, etc) because they are thinking of evangelical in terms of things like inerrancy, supernaturalism, and salvation by faith. If they think of crazy political works too, oh well. However, with "evangelicals" I generally deny the term because ecclesiology forms a core part of what it means to be Reformed and I'm not interested in giving the impression that I share their convictions (or lack thereof) on these matters or pretending that we have more common ground than we actually have--especially in ecclesiastic/ministerial pursuits--with modern day Anabaptists.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 10, 2018)

Ben Mordecai said:


> I respect the fact that when a person transitions from a shallow evangelicalism into a solidly reformed church, they are going to experience a lot of negative feelings about their previous church because of what they were missing and the errors they received. Nevertheless, if they believed and taught the gospel, they are still in fact brothers and those negative experiences do not empty the Spirit of His power in their context either.
> 
> It is perfectly valid to consider the errors of other evangelicals to be significant, but we should be careful to distance ourselves from them only when it comes to upholding the truth, not to be needlessly divisive. Where we do have common ground is where it is most important to have common ground and that can be an avenue for ministry.



Ben,
I don't think anyone has suggested we shouldn't love our brothers from different denominations. Ray asked if we should take the name for ourselves. I'm in agreement with Chris I'm his post 21. Furthermore (it seemed to be aimed at me), it is not merely a matter that I was unhappy at my last church. The problems in pop-E run much deeper and are far more destructive than most are aware....like the absence of the gospel Lord's Day by Lord's Day, in favor of all kinds of other things to make one happy. This is office thievery; withholding the gospel from God's people. I would grant this may not be equally bad in rural areas, but in the metro areas (I'm in Chicago), this is the norm. I dont hold the laity as responsible as the officers.....I can't imagine what the Lord of the church might say to these officers for mistreating the people of God in this manner on the last day.......


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 10, 2018)

My preference would be "no", as I prefer to identify as a Reformed Catholic. In an Anglican context, however, evangelical is often used to describe believers in orthodoxy and vital religion, which gives the label some utility.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Jack K said:


> This is interesting to me. I have often seen, on this board, the word _evangelical_ used to mean churches that disagree with Reformed theology and, especially, do not follow Reformed worship distinctives. It is as if part of the definition of _evangelical_ reads: "non-Reformed in worship practices."
> 
> But when I first started using the word not all that long ago (40-30 years ago, at most), it seemed there was no such thing as a defined, evangelical way to conduct worship. In fact, one main reason to use the word _evangelical_ was to have an umbrella term that could encompass churches from many different worship traditions that were nevertheless united by holding firm against liberalism. The worship might be Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, tent-revivalist, or charismatic—but we called them all _evangelical_ if the preacher proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
> 
> ...


Yes, the original meaning intended for Evangelicals was that they were all Christians regardless of church label, that upheld the cardinal truths of the scriptures, the so called Fundamentals of the faith. The worship style, preaching style, church governing style was not in mind, as it was a broader looking to Christians who all held the same view on the core doctrines essential to the faith.
basically, was a reaction to Fundamentalism , which held to same doctrines and beliefs, but had chosen to separate and isolate from the culture and current liberal theologies. was an attempt to keep Christian theology into interacting with current cultural and theological views regarding the scriptures, God, salvation etc.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Ben Mordecai said:


> I respect the fact that when a person transitions from a shallow evangelicalism into a solidly reformed church, they are going to experience a lot of negative feelings about their previous church because of what they were missing and the errors they received. Nevertheless, if they believed and taught the gospel, they are still in fact brothers and those negative experiences do not empty the Spirit of His power in their context either.
> 
> It is perfectly valid to consider the errors of other evangelicals to be significant, but we should be careful to distance ourselves from them only when it comes to upholding the truth, not to be needlessly divisive. Where we do have common ground is where it is most important to have common ground and that can be an avenue for ministry.


All who have Jesus as their Lord/savior would be seen as being now part of the one Body of Christ. we all have different emphasis though, as some are more musical, others more into teaching/disciplining, and others more into witnessing per say for Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> My preference would be "no", as I prefer to identify as a Reformed Catholic. In an Anglican context, however, evangelical is often used to describe believers in orthodoxy and vital religion, which gives the label some utility.


I have never heard the term Reformed catholic, what do you mean by that?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I have never heard the term Reformed catholic, what do you mean by that?



I belong to the Reformed tradition of the church catholic.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2018)

Ben Mordecai said:


> I was reading the Puritan Hugh Binning's book Christian Love where he had a brilliant and sobering statement that was to the effect of, "We should not be ashamed to call brothers those whom Christ was not ashamed to call brothers."
> 
> "Evangelical" as a term often serves the position of whipping boy for a group of Christians who are either too shallow or too conservative, despite the fact that it is probably the best term that we have to describe the healthiest kind of ecumenicism possible between Protestants of differing theology. There is a substantial agreement that we can have between the Reformed and gospel-beliving Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, non-Reformed Baptists, Non-denominationals, and Anglicans that we cannot share with Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, or liberals. Yet is also makes sense to have formal divisions to avoid transgressing one another's consciences and allowing us to uphold the deeply held theological distinctions we all believe to be biblical.
> 
> I have a suspicion that much of the time gospel-believing Christians want to distance themselves from the term "evangelical" is due to the shame to be associated with the other groups.


Reading your post, I remembered Rev. Winzer once posting something along the same line, and it turns out it was from the Binning book. It was sobering then and sobering now. https://puritanboard.com/threads/are-we-ashamed-of-our-birth.90224/


----------



## Ray (Apr 10, 2018)

I prefer Identifying myself as Christian, Catholic, Calvinist, Paedo-Baptist, Presbyterian . I borrowed this from Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. From his old article on Infant Baptism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2018)

Ray said:


> I prefer Identifying myself as Christian, Catholic, Calvinist, Paedo-Baptist, Presbyterian . I borrowed this from Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. From his old article on Infant Baptism.



It was actually the Disruption Worthy, John "Rabbi" Duncan of the Free Church of Scotland who first made that statement. It is a good order to observe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 11, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I belong to the Reformed tradition of the church catholic.


Catholic as in the sense of being the Universal Church, correct?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2018)

Yes.


----------



## Ray (Apr 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Catholic as in the sense of being the Universal Church, correct?


http://urclearning.org/2006/06/26/im-a-catholic/


----------

