I'm not going to count the number of times I've posted about the uselessness of the term Evangelical in the American context. (Here, here, and here are some examples.) But if my posts don't persuade you, perhaps Kermit Zarley's will.
Go here to read Zarley's piece "Why I Am an Evangelical Even Though Evangelicals Say I'm Not." Why might Evangelicals say that Zarley isn't one of them? In his own words, because after years of self-study "I came to believe without any uncertainty whatsoever that the Bible does not identify Jesus with being God." (A better golfer than theologian but that's not my point.)
Apparently Zarley does realize that he can't be Catholic or Orthodox and deny the divinity of Christ. But Evangelical? Sure, why not?
Why not indeed since "Evangelical" is an adjective, not a noun. Most Americans, self-identified Evangelicals or otherwise, believe the term carries some incontrovertible substance but they're wrong. Evangelical is a socio-political term with a variety of religious connotations which are thin and frequently inconsistent. After all, who has the authority to define "Evangelical" and judge that Zarley is not one?
As I described here, I would call myself a confessional Protestant, and the confessional standards to which I subscribe clearly assert the divinity of Jesus. And, were I to assert otherwise, I belong to a body that would tell me I'm wrong and give me the heave-ho were I continue to proclaim my false belief. In short, "Evangelical" is little more than a malleable form of identification.
No comments:
Post a Comment