Is this really so? George seems to give a chioice of either Evangelical Lutheran or popular evangelcialism and thus ignores the whole evangelical revival whether Anglican evangelicals Jon Edwards methodists Scottish Presbys etc etc etc etc etc many of whom put great stress on the sacraments.
Far better is to consider the approach of D Bebbington for British evangs and Noll et al for USA
None of this denies that some evangelicals very wrongly ignore the sacraments or play them down in favour of a decision.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: george murphy
To: Robert Schneider
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: What is an "Evangelical"?
Robert Schneider wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
............................................
So, I'm asking for your help.I invite you to share your own understanding of what "evangelical" and "evangelicalism" mean, both generally and in this context, and would appreciate anyone providing me with a statement about it.I will be grateful for your help, and this might be an interesting topic for us on the listserv to reflect upon.
Bob -
I have a 2-fold take on this: What I mean if I call myself "evangelical" (E1) and what I think most American Christians think "Evangelical" means (E2).
E1:
I belong to "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America", & coupling "evangelical" with "Lutheran" has a long tradition. The "evangel" is of course "good news", the gospel, and when we call ourselves evangelical we mean that the Gospel in the narrow sense, the the message of justification of the ungodly entirely by God's free gift for Christ's sake is the defining note of the church, "the article by which the church stands or falls." While the Law must also be taught and preached, it must be clearly distinguished from Gospel and the two must not be mixed or confused.
"Evangelicalism" in common American usage have a good deal in common with E1 especially a focus on justication by faith. But there are important differences. Here I'm just going to point out some of those differences, realizing that doing so gives an evaluation of E2.
E1 often presents a "decision theology" that to E2 sounds dangerously like making faith a human work which at least partially earns justification. I saw a bumper sticker that said "God votes for you, Satan votes against you. How will you vote?" Related to that is the fact that E2 often expects evidence of a conversion experience or born again experience of Christians.
E2 seems quite wary of belief in an objective efficacy of the sacraments because of the belief that it will compromise justification by faith. E1 agrees that faith is necessary, but it is faith in the free gift that God gives in Baptism and Eucharist. If asked when I was "born again" I give my baptismal date.
E2 seems to E1 often to mix law and gospel in inappropriate ways. This really goes back to the Reformed idea of a "3d use of the law", a distinctively Christian use in addition to (1) the civil use of the law and (2) its role in pointing out sin. Lutherans agree that the law applies to Christians because they live in society and continue to need to have their sins pointed out (Luther's _simul justus et peccator_). But there is no perculiarly Christian use: E1 really takes Paul at his word in Galatians.
I think one consequence of this E2 mixture is the idea of things like "Christian science" (not the Eddy variety) among some E2s, as if Christians had a special way of studying the world.
This may seem provocative to some but it's just as well to have differences set out clearly. & please note my use of the qualifications "often", "some E2s" &c. I am not trying to characterize the views of all who consider themselves Evangelicals in the second sense.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 17:25:46 EST