[This post should really be in the comments section of Mike's "Evangelicalism" post of July 22, but since we're now three posts out, I wanted this response to have its own space, since I believe this is a dialogue of utmost importance. Forgive the impertinence. You can view his original post here...and please do, since none of what follows will make any sense whatsoever if you don't.]
The bits I’m not clear on are 1) the “sufficiency of Scripture” (sufficient for WHAT, exactly?), 2) the “efficacy of Christ’s atoning work” (efficacious for WHAT, exactly? Atonement is a many-splendored and -faceted thing, and I think Phil may have a fairly narrow idea of it.), and 3) the “gospel message” (WHAT is it, exactly? I think Phil may have a fairly narrow idea of it, as well. This is actually the bit that is most stymieing - the “gospel message” that has been preached far and wide for the last hundred years by many Evangelicals hardly seems like good news. In point of fact, it has sounded like very bad news indeed.)
If I may be permitted to quote from our good brother Phil: “What I am eager to see preserved and perpetuated are the sound, biblical ideas that sparked the evangelical and fundamentalist movements…” (From July 22 entry.)
Now, “evangelical” is a term that is, as yet, up for grabs, but “fundamentalist” is a term that has long since lost any luster it may once have possessed. (Hardly any, so far as I can recall, having been raised quite Wesleyan/holiness/pert-near-Anabaptist. It may just be me, but I’m not sure we should be taking our cues from a man who is interested in reviving and affirming whatever “sound, biblical ideas” he believes can be found in the fundamentalist movement.) Reading the Pyromaniac blog is a case study in how “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” have been cross-bred to the point of being kissing cousins. It is the influence of the Scofields, et al in the apple barrel that have rotted any value that present-day “evangelicalism” might have offered. Morphea’s comment about using “evangelical” and “fundamentlist” interchangeably is not far off the mark.
I’m not to the point where I am willing to abandon the word “evangelical” without a fight…but I’m getting damn close. Some words (like “niggardly”) are on their last legs.
I agree. I believe that, like “niggardly”, there is sometimes just too much of a negative miasma around a word to keep it in frequent circulation. To the common American mind, I think, (and I’m speaking as the Commonest of the Common here) the words “Evangelical” and “Fundamentalist” have had their day. I’m not going to try to assert again that the two terms are used as one and the same, though I suspect they are. I’m saying that those two words seem to be associated with sign-waving, angry-faced, pasty white American groups trying to outlaw all the fun stuff so much that the bad press has far outweighed the good. I truly think it’s time to scuttle both terms (can we get rid of “Christian”, too, while we’re at it? Anybody mind?) and come up with new stuff. No amount of re-visiting them, finding new meaning and Taking Back the Names will save them from hopeless negativism at the point, in my opinion. I say this with the full knowledge that I may be way, way too bitter about modern Christianity and its impact on my own life, though, to have a very helpful take on this. Sorry if I offend.