I knew the survey would be fun. I knew the results would be interesting. The goal was to query people of varying backgrounds, strangers and friends alike, about their definition of the term Evangelical Christian. Obviously, I had no interest in a dictionary definition. I was seeking a cultural one.
Labeling people is about as useful and effective as a Polynesian cocktail parasol in a hurricane. A local Episcopalian minister, said “words and labels have a very short life in this culture. They are often politicized, co-opted and exploited for purposes that are light years away from their original meaning and intent.”
Respondents provided definitions ranging from the sublime (“evangelism ...is fine as long as it focuses on Biblical teaching and influences by example…contemporary meaning has crossed over to include political action”) to the philosophical (“term is redundant in the sense that a Christian is by definition evangelical”) to the humorous (they are “nut cases…don’t print my name, they will work overtime to convert me!”)
Here’s how this unscientific study was conducted. I sent e-mail messages (many probably thought it was spam) to most of the Western world. To those who answered, I thank you. To those who were confused or irate over receiving still another e-mail in their burgeoning inboxes, I apologize.
There were two questions:
1. How do you define the term Evangelical Christian?
2. How do you imagine the definitions would differ based on whether respondents consider themselves evangelicals or not?
One man who was among the first to answer, said “I have no idea what an ‘Evangelical Christian’ is. To me, a Christian is a Christian is a Christian.”
Despite receiving dozens of responses, most of which were insightful and balanced, what I did not gather was equally, or possibly more, telling. Many more dozens did not answer, suggesting a pervasive and largely unspoken cultural ethic that there are some things better not discussed, considered, or evaluated. Evangelicals appear to fit squarely into that category of forbidden fruit, if you will excuse the crass Biblical analogy. Scores of friends, relatives, acquaintances, and scores more to whom the survey was forwarded chose not to share their feelings in what was intended to be a purely clinical and apolitical exercise.
For years, many media reports and articles have summarized the views, voting patterns, and beliefs of this group without defining it. Washington Post report Charles Lane’s June 16 article (“Evangelical Republicans Trust States on Social Issues”) ultimately triggered my qualitative study. His piece concluded that evangelicals were much more likely to prefer state legislatures over the courts to settle issues surrounding same-sex marriages, abortion, and the death penalty. Only one thing was missing from his fine report: a definition. In its absence, Mr. Lane referred to evangelicals as “self-described” or “self-identified.”
I electronically assaulted as many e-mailboxes as I could find. Prominent individuals kindly shared their thoughts such as national columnists (William Raspberry, Walter Shapiro), theologians (Rev. Dr. James C. Pippin, Rev. Dr. Jeffrey DeYoe), authors (Austin Camacho (www.ascamacho.com), Loree Lough (www.loreelough.com), Sharon Burtner (www.sharonburtner.com), and some of you – the readers.
One stark attribute emerged. Edge. Attitude. Definitions largely revolved around the actions of those perceived to be evangelical Christians. This clearly influenced answers. In other words, the manner in which so-called evangelicals behaved shaped the connotation of the word away from any denotative, dictionary-like meaning.
Largely due to televised and print media reports, the popular meaning of evangelicals tends towards the negative. However, those responding to this survey who possessed either a more clinical or scholarly Biblical view expressed a more positive meaning. Let’s go to the videotape, so to speak, and see what our responders said. Those bold enough to express themselves provided interesting, informative, and entertaining opinions.
One answered that “evangelical and Christian are redundant.” Many who replied in a similar manner hastened to add that some self-described evangelicals’ actions were seen as antithetical to spreading of the Gospel, “good news,” and the love and mercy of God.
A female oboist in New Hampshire said “Evangelical Christians believe they have found the one true path,” but added that they “base their lives on the Bible,” which she considered to be “hearsay evidence” reflecting “the results of other people’s thinking. Unless you read the original Hebrew (Old Testament) or Greek (New Testament) you are reading someone else’s interpretation.” In a similar vein, another said “Bible interpretation has been the root of controversy for as long as the Book has been in print.”
Although no single, simple definition could be discerned from the widely divergent views, four themes rose to the forefront.
1) evangelicals are seen as those who spread the Gospel, or “good news,” as it translates from the Greek word (euangelion). Respondents generally applied this description whether or not they considered evangelicals to be active proselytizers, quiet role models, or whether they even agreed with their tactics. One theologian noted that “evangelicals are not a theologically monolithic group.” They “might find more commonality” in “political beliefs.” This explains why many attribute evangelicals to the (far or radical) right. National columnist Walter Shapiro (formerly of USA Today) prefers “the looser term of ‘social conservative,’ which conjures up the same political mindset without getting into doctrinal distinctions over religious beliefs.”
Many noting this theme referenced the “Great Commission” in the New Testament book of Matthew (Chapter 28, verses 18 – 20), where Jesus says “Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations.” The “evangelical was given the responsibility of spreading the Gospel.” Author Sharon Burtner observed that “the term Evangelical Christian has a negative connotation, implying someone who pushes his or her (generally conservative) views on others.”
2) evangelicals believe, according to local mystery book writer Austin Camacho, they have been saved “thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus and are generally blessed with happiness because of it.” One theologian saw things a bit differently: they believe “salvation comes by acknowledging Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior” but allow “no wiggle room, meaning that people of religions other than Christianity cannot have their own plan of salvation.”
Syndicated columnist William Raspberry, who avoids using hard definitions for terms like this, said that people who describe themselves as such have accepted as fact that Jesus Christ died for them and on this basis believe they are saved.
3) evangelicals “follow the message of Christ,” one female replied. “How that message is interpreted is where I think there are discrepancies.” A minister pictured the “evangelical as a joyful follower of Jesus who wants to share the message of forgiveness and grace.”
4) last, evangelicals may see the Bible literally or contextually. Rev. Dr. Jeff DeYoe of Palm Coast, Florida, notes that they usually apply a “literal view of Scripture as the inerrant word of God (as opposed to ‘inspired,’ which is the mainline Protestant view.)” Loree Lough, author of 56 books, mostly Christian fiction, noted that “their interpretation of the Good Book leaves no ‘wiggle room’ [this is the second time that phrase popped up in the survey]: Life is black or white, depending on the particular verse from scripture, with nary a shade of gray.” She adds, “it’s been my experience that evangelicals are tougher on themselves than probably even God would be.” Evangelicals’ sense of the written word may not only color their views but also affect others’ perceptions of them.
So, what can we conclude from this fanciful flight of inquiry? People tend to react more to the ‘how’ (actions taken) than the ‘what’ of evangelical Christianity. If those proclaiming themselves as, or suspected to be, evangelicals appear too forceful, strident, or self-righteous in their interactions, the definition will be negative. Remember the “nut case” comment? However, for those practicing a more quiet, subdued Christianity, evangelism is considered admirable, positive.
I knew this would be fun. I knew it would be interesting. This could the start of a wonderful public debate and discussion. Or not.
What do you think?
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M. Ed.
Approximately 1320 words.
© 2005