The Term "Evangelical"

Silly question, I know, but here goes.

I know that the word evangelical basically means to evangelize, but can you please explain some context for me?

In two recent threads (that I can think of) concerning dictionaries, the term evangelical has been used to describe them, for example, "The ISBE is more "evangelical" than AYBD". Maybe my mind is just not comprehending it right but how would you define the word as used in this phrase? I've heard it elsewhere like this but kind of embarrassed to ask.

Finally, a second question. I am preparing to invest in either the Zondervan Encyclopedia (5 Vol) or the Anchor Yale Dictionary. I like the appearance of the Zondervan books because I like a lot of pictures but don't really know anything else about the product (I love a reference book with good quality pictures) and am interested in AYBD simply because it gets a lot of recommendations from the group here and is reportedly very thorough and gives many points of view. Which would you recommend first?

A little about me:

Member of what is often described as a conservative denomination

No education beyond high school

Lay person who just does general studies for edification, devotions and small group talks

Any advice is surely appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Steve Adams

Evangelicalism and Evangelicals as a distinction in Christianity began in the mid 20th Century. Most came out of the Fundamentalists who separated themselves in the late 1800's from the Liberals who came out of the Enlightenment. Now, Evangelicals are themselves running into problems as Dr. David Wells has outlined in his many books.

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177511#Comment_177511

Theopedia has a short article defining Evangelical.

Evangelicalism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Mark Barnes

I know that the word evangelical basically means to evangelize,

Evangelical doesn't mean 'to evangelise'. It's a common mistake.

Both evangelical and evangelise/evangelism come from the same Greek verb εὐαγγελίζω, (euangelizo) which means 'to bring Good news'. (Click here for a BWS on εὐαγγελίζω).

Unfortunately recently the label has become rather woolly. But a few decades ago the British historian David Bebbington gave what I think was a very helpful definition of 'evangelical' who you can see on Wikipedia:

biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g.
all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)
crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross
conversionism, the belief that
human beings need to be converted
activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed
in effort

In common use, including on this forum, the word 'evangelical' tends to be shorthand for 'accepts that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God'.

Mark Barnes

Finally, a second question. I am preparing to invest in either the Zondervan Encyclopedia (5 Vol) or the Anchor Yale Dictionary. I like the appearance of the Zondervan books because I like a lot of pictures but don't really know anything else about the product (I love a reference book with good quality pictures) and am interested in AYBD simply because it gets a lot of recommendations from the group here and is reportedly very thorough and gives many points of view. Which would you recommend first?

I have both dictionaries, and for you, I'd definitely recommend ZEB, even though I think Anchor is excellent in many ways. Here are the reasons why:

The ZEB has some pictures!
It has more articles than Anchor (8,700 vs 5,800).
It's articles are less detailed than Anchor (which is a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you're looking for). I think you'll find it easier to find what you're looking for in ZEB. For the use you've described, I'm not sure you'll have the need at the moment for the level of detail in AYBD.
ZEB is more evangelical/conservative. (Most of the time this isn't an issue in AYBD because it's dealing with historical facts, but sometimes it can be. For example, AYBD isn't sure that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles (Titus and Timothy). On the other hand, ZEB assesses the arguments then comes down in favour of Pauline authorship.)

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177524#Comment_177524

To clarify Mark's reply about the word "Evangelical" there is need to distinguish between two usages. Some denominations (usually mainline European) have used the word "Evangelical" as a reference to the gospel. My understanding is that they wished to communicate a missionary aspect to their denominational identity by using this term in their name. But the word "Evangelical" is also being used (and is most commonly used in this forum) in the North American context to which the Theopedia article refers as well as in many other countries that share similar convictions or have adopted the concept.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177528#Comment_177528

Some denominations (usually mainline European) have used the word "Evangelical" as a reference to the gospel

Yes, I was referring to it's usage in the English-speaking world. In Germany, for example, evangelisch (often translated 'evangelical') is barely distinguishable from 'protestant'. As a consequence evangelical churches (in the English-speaking sense) often now use the term evangelikal.

My understanding is that they wished to communicate a missionary aspect to their denominational identity by using this term in their name.

I think the emphasis was more on the importance of Scripture, though it matters little. Whatever it meant then has been largely lost in the mainline denominations, European or otherwise.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177534#Comment_177534

Thank you all! I learned something today [:D]

Mark, I was leaning towards the ZEB in fear that the AYBD might be a bit to technical for my needs. Thank you.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177534#Comment_177534

"In Germany, for example, evangelisch (often translated 'evangelical') is barely distinguishable from 'protestant'. As a consequence evangelical churches (in the English-speaking sense) often now use the term evangelikal."

It's similar in Swedish. The Church of Sweden is (or is supposed to be...) evangelisk-luthersk, an American Evangelical church would be evangelikal. But evangelisk is far wider than 'Protestant'. It simply means 'in accordance with the Gospel (Evangeliet)'. Every Christian has to be evangelisk; every Christan definitely doesn't have to be evangelikal. Though if you speak about evangeliska kyrkor, you're likely to be referring to [mainstream] Protestant churches, possibly, but not necessarily, including Evangelical ones.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177519#Comment_177519

"In common use, including on this forum, the word 'evangelical' tends to be shorthand for 'accepts that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God'."

That seems to be a bit wide; after all, that's what the Catholic Church teaches as well... In fact, that's what all Christian churches teach that haven't been completely consumed by Liberal theology, Modernism and Secularism.

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177766#Comment_177766

The topic is tempting, but I'll exercise self-restraint. [:#]

Instead, I'll offer a gentle reminder of our guidelines--discussion and/or debate of evangelical seems off topic unless we focus on the use of Logos to answer OP's question.

Many blessings to all. [:)]

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177766#Comment_177766

"In common use, including on this forum, the word 'evangelical' tends to be shorthand for 'accepts that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God'."

fgh is quite right. I only gave half a definition. Sorry. I'll try again.

In common use, including on this forum, the word 'evangelical' tends to
be shorthand for 'accepts that the Bible is the inerrant, all-sufficient, Word of God and the church's only authority, and that the only way of salvation is justification by faith alone in Christ's sinless life and atoning death'.

Here's Carl Henry's definition, who says it better than me:

Evangelical Christians are thus marked by their devotion to the sure Word of the Bible; they are committed to the inspired Scriptures as the divine rule of faith and practice. They affirm the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, including the incarnation and virgin birth of Christ, His sinless life, substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection as the ground of God’s forgiveness of sinners, justification by faith alone, and the spiritual regeneration of all who trust in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177785#Comment_177785

Instead, I'll offer a gentle reminder of our guidelines--discussion and/or debate of evangelical seems off topic unless we focus on the use of Logos to answer OP's question.

I think the discussion's been fine so far (though it could yet get out of hand!). No-one is trying to defend a particular viewpoint against others, and everyone's tried to be helpful to the original question (which was quite reasonable), and not just push their own view.

unless we focus on the use of Logos

That said, BillS is right to remind us that Logos can help us answer the question. I got my quote from Carl Henry by typing lookup evangelical in the command bar, and then using the parallel resources icon (two vertical lines) to show other resources.

The search "an evangelical is" potentially also useful, as is "evangelical means" (with search all forms off).

Westie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177766#Comment_177766

I would agree except that an Evangelical must not only believe that the bible inerrant, they must also hold to its authority and sufficiency for all life and Godliness. It is not enough to simply believe that the facts in the bible are correct. An Evangelical must submit to it, and must hold it as supreme authority. Nothing is its equal. This would knock out Liberal theology, modernism, secularism and Catholicism from the definition of Evangelical.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177836#Comment_177836

thumbs up for the evangelikal Zeb. [Y]

Rick

Thank you all for your help. I think that I have a better understanding now of how the word "evangelical" is used to describe certain resources. I also have a couple of recommendations for the Zondervan Encyclopedia.

Since I have had both of my questions answered I can make a good and informed choice on my next Logos purchase. Unfortunately, I can easily see this becoming an offensive thread with Christian denominations being singled out (I truly did not foresee this), I humbly suggest that this thread has reached its end.

Thanks and God bless.

Jeremy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177519#Comment_177519

In common use, including on this forum, the word 'evangelical' tends to be shorthand for 'accepts that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God'.

I don't know if I agree that this is the common use. That the Bible is authoritative certainly is. That the bible is inerrant is not something that all evangelicals hold. I think your quotation of Henry and Bebington shows this (inerrancy is missing).

Unfortunately those who are not evangelicals typically think of the term as favoring a particular side of the political spectrum (right-wing). This is something that evangelicals have never said is central.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177868#Comment_177868

this thread is exposing the slipperiness of the term. Whole articles--even magazine issues--have been devoted to it. but for all our hairsplitting, I think a general idea has been formed. And besides, the OP has officially declared this thread over. [O]

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177882#Comment_177882

Dan! *smile* Peace to youi!

I think you're absolutely correct. Also, your post is very timely asserted. I think also that ....

This thread has run it's proper length, and it would be well if it were discontinued at this point! When it's not helpful anymore to anyone, then it's time to cease ......

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177868#Comment_177868

That the bible is inerrant is not something that all evangelicals hold.

Yeah, sorry. The inerrancy/infallibility debate is a non-issue in the circles in which I move at the moment, and we tend to use the two terms interchangeably. Thankfully when I'm not on a world-wide forum I can use terms and everyone understands what I mean without worrying about definitions. [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177813#Comment_177813

In common use, including on this forum, the word 'evangelical' tends to
be shorthand for 'accepts that the Bible is the inerrant, all-sufficient, Word of God and the church's only authority, and that the only way of salvation is justification by faith alone in Christ's sinless life and atoning death'.

Here's Carl Henry's definition, who says it better than me:

Evangelical Christians are thus marked by their devotion to the sure Word of the Bible; they are committed to the inspired Scriptures as the divine rule of faith and practice. They affirm the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, including the incarnation and virgin birth of Christ, His sinless life, substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection as the ground of God’s forgiveness of sinners, justification by faith alone, and the spiritual regeneration of all who trust in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

These definitions are both much more theologically precise (narrower) than what I perceive as the common usage. I second Bill S.'s caution.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177954#Comment_177954

There are a wide variety of people calling themselves evangelicals. Some (I suspect the minority) of them would opt for the narrower definition and would not consider the others evangelicals. Probably some within both ends of the spectrum would think their own meaning of the term has the historical precedent and the people at the other end of the spectrum hijacked the term. It is definitely a fuzzy term, and needs to be used with care.

Some good books that deal with the historical significance and changing meaning of the term are:

George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
Alister McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity
Gary Dorrien, The Remaking of Evangelical Theology

There's also a series that looks good published by IVP called A History of Evangelicalism. I'd love to see this in Logos format!

The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys Mark Noll
The Expansion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Wilberforce, More, Chalmers and Finney by John Wolffe
The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon And Moody by David Bebbington

Those are the only ones published thus far. Two further books in the series are planned:

The Disruption of Evangelicalism: The Age of Mott, Machen and McPherson by Geoff Treloar
The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Graham and Stott by Brian Stanley

Wilson Hines

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/177956#Comment_177956

My NC history textbook has the author referring to evangelicalism to explain the late 1790's and early 1800's revivalist movement that rushed through the south. He says what came of it was "evangelicalism."

Dan Sheppard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/178026#Comment_178026

So far be it from me, to avoid throwing my two cents in, or is it three now....

1evan•gel•i•cal \ˌē-ˌvan-ˈje-li-kəl, ˌe-vən-\ also evan•gel•ic \-ik\ adjective

1531

1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels

2 : PROTESTANT

3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual

4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany

b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST

c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH

5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC 〈the evangelical ardor of the movement’s leaders —Amos Vogel〉 — Evan•gel•i•cal•ism \-li-kə-ˌli-zəm\ noun — evan•gel•i•cal•ly \-li-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/MWDICT11

This resource comes as part of your library, if you own Scholar's package which I do. You might check to see if you already own it.