I've posted here and here most recently on the relative (lack of) usefulness of the catch-all term "evangelical", at least in the American context. The debate continues and you can go here to read a robust defense in the Wall Street Journal by friend David Skeel of continuing to identify oneself as an Evangelical and here to read a tepid attaboy by Baylor prof Thomas Kidd.
My position remains unchanged from the posts linked above: in most contexts I would identify myself as a confessional Protestant or simply Christian, and this conclusion has less to do with the recent politicization of "evangelical" than "Evangelicalism's" long history of amorphous and contradictory positions on important matters of Christian doctrine. (Infant baptism, anyone?) Moreover, I'm as troubled by aspects of Evangelicalism's long history of social and political activism as its recent identification with Republican populism.
In any event, I commend Skeel's's and Kidd's defenses; they're as good as it gets.
My position remains unchanged from the posts linked above: in most contexts I would identify myself as a confessional Protestant or simply Christian, and this conclusion has less to do with the recent politicization of "evangelical" than "Evangelicalism's" long history of amorphous and contradictory positions on important matters of Christian doctrine. (Infant baptism, anyone?) Moreover, I'm as troubled by aspects of Evangelicalism's long history of social and political activism as its recent identification with Republican populism.
In any event, I commend Skeel's's and Kidd's defenses; they're as good as it gets.
No comments:
Post a Comment