Questions surrounding the meaning and viability of evangelicalism have been swirling around for quite some time now. A recent blog by Michael Bird, an Australian Anglican priest and scholar, contributes to the conversation around evangelicalism (you can read the blog here). The blog post (along with the video that accompanies it) is excellent. He is very insightful and brings out numerous aspects of evangelical that can be "saved" (no pun intended).
I try to refrain from engaging frivolous arguments in blog posts or any writings. That being said, there is something in the blog that I wish to challenge. Bird argues that in the historical context the title of "evangelicalism" is still worth keeping. Further, he argues that as long as evangelicalism means that the gospel is good news about Jesus (and I would assume its proclamation): evangelicalism can be saved.
Honestly, I think that ship has sailed. The reality is that evangelicalism cannot, and has not been, narrowly defined as the proclamation of the good new about Jesus. While the Gospel Coalition is not the only voice in the evangelical world, it certainly is a loud and prominent one. In the blog post by Justin Taylor the "5 Distinctive Marks of Evangelicalism" (you can read the post here). To the degree that Taylor's claims here are carry any weight in the evangelical word, Bird's claim fall short. Evangelicalism cannot be reduced or pared down to just spreading the gospel (I would assume he means missionary activity). There is more there.
So while Bird's comments are valuable, they fall short in this area. The idea of evangelicalism is both morphing and dying at the same time; both can be true at the same time. I look forward to reading his book. Perhaps there is more nuance there.
I try to refrain from engaging frivolous arguments in blog posts or any writings. That being said, there is something in the blog that I wish to challenge. Bird argues that in the historical context the title of "evangelicalism" is still worth keeping. Further, he argues that as long as evangelicalism means that the gospel is good news about Jesus (and I would assume its proclamation): evangelicalism can be saved.
Honestly, I think that ship has sailed. The reality is that evangelicalism cannot, and has not been, narrowly defined as the proclamation of the good new about Jesus. While the Gospel Coalition is not the only voice in the evangelical world, it certainly is a loud and prominent one. In the blog post by Justin Taylor the "5 Distinctive Marks of Evangelicalism" (you can read the post here). To the degree that Taylor's claims here are carry any weight in the evangelical word, Bird's claim fall short. Evangelicalism cannot be reduced or pared down to just spreading the gospel (I would assume he means missionary activity). There is more there.
So while Bird's comments are valuable, they fall short in this area. The idea of evangelicalism is both morphing and dying at the same time; both can be true at the same time. I look forward to reading his book. Perhaps there is more nuance there.
RSS Feed