I fear that correct theology tendeth to puffith uppeth and therefore to divideth.

I fear that the gospel is suffering from a lack of unity in the church (although I’m thankful for what unity I can see) among those who beleive the basic message of the gospel and also have a passion for spreading it. The history of protestantism is plagued with skismaticism (sp?). Although I’m not naive enough to think we can all acheive some sort of formal ecclesial unity (i.e. the uniting of all denominations into one), I believe that the spirit of ETS (evangelical theologial society) is an impressive example of how much unity can be acheived if we try harder. What are your thoughts?

I remember being one of those people and I remember judging “Christ” by those who wore His name and therefore wanting nothing to do with Him or them. Therefore (now), wearing His name is a huge responsibility to me which I do not take lightly.

In 1995, I realized that calling myself a “Christian” was not descriptive enough—so, I began to say (when asked, “what Religion are you”) “I am a follower of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ”. Now, unfortunately, even that description has lost much of its meaning. But, I can still use that description in a very wonderful way. I can say, to someone who calls themselves a “Christian”—“So, does that mean the Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior?” If they say, “Yes”, I can say, “What does it mean to you that Christ is your Lord?—What does it mean to you that He is your Savior” and away we go…..

All I am saying, is: Let us not forget that it is the “Gospel” that we must proclaim and allow God’s Holy Spirit to work in the lives of those who have heard it regardless of how we choice to “label” ourselves in this very tumultuous time!

Very well said! The obvious scripture that comes to mind is “For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? (other translations- “are you not carnel”?)

I have actually seen God use all of this confusion to open up wonderful opportunities to share the Gospel message. I can’t tell you the number of times that I have been in a conversation with someone who will say, “I’m a Christian”– “So am I”–which then leads to a wonderful discussion around what that “label” means to them. In most cases, it ends up being just that–a “label” and I am able to define what it means to me.

Most are fascinated to hear about how that term was “coined” originally, what it meant at one time, etc. This conversation always leads into what it means “biblically” (as opposed to culturally) to be a “Christian”! – Which includes the Gospel message and the important and awesome reasonability of wearing “Christ’s Name” as well as the danger of wearing His Name if you are not truly “In Christ”.

I say all that to say this: There was a time when certain assumptions would be made regarding the persons position in Christ based on what they called themselves; and perhaps the gospel would not be discussed because of those assumptions. We are now faced with sharing Christ and the Gospel with everyone regardless of what they “calls themselves” because the “label” is now worn by hundreds of thousands who have little to no clue of who Christ is and/or the “Good News”.

I realize among the more “learned” this is a bigger issue, because most of us have to use numerous different identifiers to describe our doctrine precisely; but, amoung those who are Roman Catholic, or attending a “seeker friendly” church, or think they are saved because they walked an aisle and/or said a prayer that they are “Chrsitians”–the ambiguity of the term has truly been an evangelical opportunity!

Hope that all makes sense.

However, there is something bedrock behind that name that does not change–namely our commitment to the inspired, inerrant Word of God, a commitment to world evangelization, and a healthy “already/not yet” tension to the kingdom where there is cultural engagement and social involvement while holding on to the primacy of gospel proclamation.

The fact that neo-evangelicalism was going to fracture is inevitable (I say neo because I am not referring to the rise of evangelicalism via Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesley brothers). This fracturing goes all the way back to the days of Fuller Seminary and the changes which took place with Dan Fuller and the controversy that arose with the new school’s position on Scripture, later to be revived by Gundry around 1980. Later came the issues of the exclusivity of the gospel (spiking around 1992-1994) only to be succeeded by open theism (from 1996-2004). The latest controversy over the emerging church is but one item in the laundry list of issues evangelicalism has been forced to face, and my guess is that the matter (again) of evangelicals and the RCC with be around for some time to come (beginning with Beckwith’s return to Catholicism).

I say all that to say, the resurgence (or revival) of Reformed theology is a significant matter, but we do need to consider it in two larger contexts: evangelicalism proper and the greater global context. I mean, is there a Reformed resurgence taking place in India or China or other areas where the gospel is springing up new churches. My guess is perhaps that it is, especially given the number of Calvinists overseas engaging the unreached people groups (spurred on by men like Piper, Giglio, and others).

Personally, I would still call myself evangelical because I know what it means, despite the failures, controversies, and attempts to change/dilute it. Nevertheless, if we do not contend for the essentials of our faith, the things which evangelicals have long stood solid on, then yeah, certainly giving up the name would be in order because it would have no meaning or reference point.

Perhaps would should pray that we would be semper reformanda (always reforming), knowing that with each generation there will arise another heresy, another controversy, another attack on Christianity, and sometimes the most lethal ones come from within the camp, not outside the camp. The latter are conspicuous; the former are covert and mutinous.

Anyway, that’s my $.02 on it. I am not saying we don’t need a title or way of describing us, but I would rather have such titles arise from the movement and not seen as presumtuous rhetoric.

One of the things tha labels, titles, and slogans often do is draw attention to ourselves and develop stereotypes or overgeneralizations. I don’t know how important it is to define ourselves, except that it is the stated desire that we devote ourselves to the gospel, the church, the glory of God, and the furthering of His Kingdom in the spirit of the Reformers and in keeping with the doctrines of grace which we all uphold. In the age of the sound byte, bumper stickers, and talking points, perhaps it would be wise to not allow ourselves to be too caught up with one liners but rather be caught up with one purpose–the glory of Jesus Christ.