UPDATE: I thought a poll would help us get a sense of what readers of Targuman think about the Barna Group definition of “evangelical.”
[poll=7]
At least in my view, but not in Barna’s or Jim West’s. In Jim’s post he cites the Barna survey that found that evangelicals are more concerned with abortion, and homosexual activity that with poverty or HIV/AIDS, at least compared with “the general population.” Jim then considers Tony Cartledge’s objections to the study:
As Tony Cartledge astutely observes,Over the past few years, however, the term “evangelical” has also been co-opted and used as a descriptor for the politically conservative religious right, or as another euphemism for “fundamentalist.”
And he concludes
The end result is that “evangelical,” at least in Barna’s useage, has now gone the way of “conservative.” While both terms once described Christians who trust God, trust the Bible, and believe in the importance of sharing their faith, they are now applied to a very narrow band of believers who could accurately be called “fundamentalists” — but don’t want to be.
They might not want to be- but they are.
And thus ends Jim’s post. Here is where I want to pick up my comments (which were going to be posted on his site, but as I wrote I realized it merited a full post).
Jim’s final “They might not want to be- but they are” is a non sequitur. It does not follow because Barna defines what an evangelical is rather than people who identify themselves as evangelicals defining the term.
Note that Barna surveys do not classify a person based upon a respondent’s use of the terms “born again” or “evangelical,” instead basing the classification on what a person believes about spiritual matters.
There are many, many who would define themselves as evangelicals who do not fit Barna’s definition. By defining the term and then saying, “here is what evangelicals believe” Barna is engaging in circular reasoning.
To offer it in full, here is Barna’s definition of an evangelical.
“Evangelicals” meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “evangelical.”
It is not a bad definition per se, although I still think the procedure of defining individuals for themselves is suspect, but it contains a variety of elements that I certainly wouldn’t think is necessary for one to consider oneself as an evangelical. (Here’s a test, would Jim Wallis see himself in the definition above?) Two criteria that I, as one who would or at least used to describe myself as an evangelical, would not consider relevant to such a definition.
So far from evangelicals being fundamentalists all that this shows it that surveys are of necessity incomplete at portraying beliefs (other than the beliefs of the surveyor, in which case they are often quite revelatory). A far better and more useful survey, at least in terms of understanding what evangelicals believe, would be to survey self-defined evangelicals. But that would hardly bolster preconceived conceptions and is unlikely to happen.
And the following comments also ring true to my ear.
“Soul Sleep” or Immediate Resurrection?
Or what about both? N. T. Wright has made the news again, this time in an interview with Time, and he presents a view of heaven and the resurrection that is not the “traditional” view. Time magazine gave it the lovely title, “Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop.”
Wright’s view is not nearly as provocative as Time would have us believe. It is also not that new. Of course Wright is correct that most Christians do have a very different view of what happens after death and before the final resurrection than that held by early Judaism and the New Testament. But I am not sure that I buy Wright’s argument of soul sleep either.
Soul sleep is the notion that after death Christians go into a sort of stasis, until the final resurrection and the day of judgment. Wright doesn’t use this term, but it is the one that I first heard my father use when I was in high school and we were discussing these matters. Wright described it this way in the article,
Wright’s view certainly does fit the New Testament evidence better than other readings, but I want to suggest a slightly different view. WARNING: this is all just a theory, feel free to rip it apart, and I do not suggest that it is doctrine in any way. That being said, I do not see how it is heretical or out of keeping with New Testament teachings or conceptions of early Judaism.
If we assume that God is outside of the space/time continuum then why must we continue to think of the life after death is in a linear progress? Could it not be that when one dies one is also outside of this linear path and thus, regardless of one’s point in history, all arrive at the same moment? Christ’s return then is not “delayed” but is always in the future and always at this moment. Perhaps a graphic can illustrate this better than my words.
Removing the limitations of the linear passage of time opens up other possibilities. It also makes the passage of time less daunting when considering Christ’s return. (Has it troubled any other Christians out there that Jesus was closer in history to David than to us? Brings to mind Douglas Adams’s Hitchhiker trilogy and the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.) Still, I don’t think this conception is heretical and in fact accommodates NT teachings as well.
So what do you think?