My problem with the definition of evangelical that you offer is that it seems to me that very few would say that the welfare of their nation is their chief concern. So it seems to me to call for a hermeneutic of suspicion.
Thanks, David! I really appreciate your thoughts here. So are you suggesting that when it comes to defining evangelicalism, we should allow those who self-identify as evangelicals to articulate their own definition? Obviously, either way, it can be challenging because there are no clear boundaries of evangelicalism, and there can be many versions of it, I suppose, since it's not an boundaried organization, but a transdenominational movement.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would at least want whatever definition a historian comes up with to be one that would pass the sniff test with most self-identified evangelicals, like Bebbington's quadrilateral. Having identified the group on terms that both the members and the historian can agree with, the historian could proceed to argue that they are laboring under a false consciousness about what matters most to them. But to argue for a historical definition of a group that is at odds with the self-understanding of that group is to claim that historian knows them better than they know themselves. I'm drawing on the ideas of Gadamer and Ricoeur that open up many more avenues of discussion, which are now being processed under "postcritique." But the upshot for the discipline of history on this point that if when defining a group a historian dispenses with how people consciously identify with that group, the historian is avoiding a reality check on their own biases. And the whole point of scholarly method is to account for biases as far as possible so that people from as wide of a variety of viewpoints as possible can benefit from scholarly work. Another reality-check I think is important and too often overlooked in the humanities and social sciences is that scholarly methods ought to hold up when applied to the scholar. If the scholar sets themselves up as the one who sees through false motives such that we cannot trust their subjects self-conception and we turn that method back on the scholar, we can't trust their scholarly work either. So to the extent that a historian wants me to take their work seriously given that it is coming from a viewpoint they I may or may not share, they ought to treat the viewpoints of their subjects with the same degree of respect.
Yes, for sure! But the words "evangelist" and "evangelical," though related, do not historically mean the same thing (all evangelicals believe in evangelism, in theory, but not evangelists are evangelicals!).
Oh the irony! Many of those amongst us most allergic to being referred to as "evangelical", (perhaps confusing the label with "ecumenism"), are indeed the true definition of "evangelical" that you have pointed out.
My problem with the definition of evangelical that you offer is that it seems to me that very few would say that the welfare of their nation is their chief concern. So it seems to me to call for a hermeneutic of suspicion.
Thanks, David! I really appreciate your thoughts here. So are you suggesting that when it comes to defining evangelicalism, we should allow those who self-identify as evangelicals to articulate their own definition? Obviously, either way, it can be challenging because there are no clear boundaries of evangelicalism, and there can be many versions of it, I suppose, since it's not an boundaried organization, but a transdenominational movement.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would at least want whatever definition a historian comes up with to be one that would pass the sniff test with most self-identified evangelicals, like Bebbington's quadrilateral. Having identified the group on terms that both the members and the historian can agree with, the historian could proceed to argue that they are laboring under a false consciousness about what matters most to them. But to argue for a historical definition of a group that is at odds with the self-understanding of that group is to claim that historian knows them better than they know themselves. I'm drawing on the ideas of Gadamer and Ricoeur that open up many more avenues of discussion, which are now being processed under "postcritique." But the upshot for the discipline of history on this point that if when defining a group a historian dispenses with how people consciously identify with that group, the historian is avoiding a reality check on their own biases. And the whole point of scholarly method is to account for biases as far as possible so that people from as wide of a variety of viewpoints as possible can benefit from scholarly work. Another reality-check I think is important and too often overlooked in the humanities and social sciences is that scholarly methods ought to hold up when applied to the scholar. If the scholar sets themselves up as the one who sees through false motives such that we cannot trust their subjects self-conception and we turn that method back on the scholar, we can't trust their scholarly work either. So to the extent that a historian wants me to take their work seriously given that it is coming from a viewpoint they I may or may not share, they ought to treat the viewpoints of their subjects with the same degree of respect.
I find myself looking for a word other than ‘evangelical’ to describe someone who evangelizes. Thanks!
Well, Philip would seem to be the prototype for “evangelist” yes? Acts 21:8
And John 1:46 “come and see” being an admirable description of what an evangelist does. No?
Yes, for sure! But the words "evangelist" and "evangelical," though related, do not historically mean the same thing (all evangelicals believe in evangelism, in theory, but not evangelists are evangelicals!).
Oh the irony! Many of those amongst us most allergic to being referred to as "evangelical", (perhaps confusing the label with "ecumenism"), are indeed the true definition of "evangelical" that you have pointed out.
Ironic, indeed!