“Social action is a FRUIT of the Gospel – not the message itself…”

I believe that sometimes it is the only message that people will really hear. After all, actions do speak louder than words. Only when we have someone’s attention by our actions, can we explain to them the why’s. So I believe that social action is a very, very important part of the gospel message and not just a result (or fruit); it is the physical example of God’s love.

Kristin,

I can certainly identify with your questions.

However, here is the question I ask myself most often: How do unbelievers see us, and how does that affect our witness for Christ? This should be the defining question not how we evangelicals see God, but how He is.

If we only identify it with evangelicalism, a broad term which seems to include most non-ecumenical Christians nowadays, what does that really say to the unbeliever about Christianity, except that we are every bit as confused about who we are? How does that promote the gospel?

In my mind, that should not be the question at all. We should be able to define ourselves, in no uncertain terms, as to who we really are in Christ, without compromise, not in who we think we should be to be most acceptable in the world’s eyes.

Define “Evangelical” in 100 words or less.
Well, literally speaking, “of the good news/gospel”. I think to be a true evangelical, one must live the gospel: radical love and grace

Do you think that Evangelicalism is the best option? If not, what is?
I think to live the gospel is the highest calling of creation. That said, I think most groups that subscribe to the tends of faith which are labeled “evangelicalism” often fall short of the gospel (as we all do) as they get distracted by pietism or judgment of others or fear – which all lead to a distortion of the gospel until it is a message of self-love, fear, or in some of the most drastic cases, hatred. As such, I think the “best option” is to affiliate oneself not with a label or trend such as “evangelicalism” but to identify oneself with Christ, call oneself a Christian, and strive to live the gospel in a community of believers (not necessarily like minded believers, either – just believers who also genuinely strive to live and love like Christ).
Do you describe yourself as an Evangelical?
At times. I certainly describe myself as gospel-driven. But the term “evangelical” has become loaded with fear and hatred in many non-evangelical circles, and so i often choose other words to describe myself just so as to avoid alienating the people around me. And how sad is that for the evangelical community? I dont avoid identification with the evangelical community for fear of persecution – I understand that if we live as radical Christians, we will always be persecuted. But no, this is different. I dont call myself an evangelical very often because that word brings up so many hurt and fearful feelings in those outside the evangelical community. How it breaks my heart, that we are not known by our love, but moreso by our hate and our fearmongering (or at least a few loud people are known for this and it casts such a light on us all).
Do you describe yourself as an Evangelical in good conscience?
See above.

in Christ,
kristin

Evangelicals are christians who use the NIV.

Yeah, mostly because I live in the US!

1. Evangelical = Protestant who is not a liberal.

2. Eastern Orthodoxy.

3. Not in the sense in which I think you are talking about.

4. Not in the sense in which I think you are talking about.

5. I couldn’t sign off on any of the poll answers, and two of them are highly US specific.

Yes, Jesus commanded us to social action, but Jesus commissioned the disciples for the last time with these words: “Go ye therefore and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

Social action is a FRUIT of the Gospel – not the message itself…

Douglas-

“I am not saying that the care of the poor, needy and disadvantaged is an evil – not at all, BUT I am saying that the call to such works is not the Gospel.”

I hope I’m not interrupting the definitions, and I don’t want to start a huge debate, but I take issue with your quoted statement. Almost all of Jesus’ life was comprised of healing the sick, feeding the hungry, serving the poor etc., and he frequently commanded us to do the same.

However, I will agree that although it is noble, serving the poor/hungry etc. with no mention of why we do it and who we are modeling ourselves after is not very fruitful, and should be avoided.

Brad

I’ve always heard the term evangelical defined as those who evangelize the unsaved. However, we know there are areas of the church who call themselves by the term, but believe in election/predestination so strongly they don’t really stress evangelism. So it is hard to define evangelicalism as just one thing nowadays, especially with the liberal post modernist/emergers coming to the forefront now as well. Despite all these different factions, however, for me it still simply means carrying out Christ’s commission to preach the gospel, not a focus upon a particular denominational or personal agenda.

I find non-denominational, Bible based churches the best option over all, since there is less arguing over what is essential and what isn’t.

I would not describe myself so much as an evangelical, at least in the direction I see the movement going now, but neither would I include myself in the ecumenical movement either. Guess I am just too independent!

“Corporate Salesman Christianity”. Thank you for naming it.