I’ve read many definitions of “evangelical” and “evangelicalism” over the years: some focused on a doctrinal/theological center, some on shared cultural values and religious practices, but never on the pursuit of shared questions. In a recent interview Molly Worthen summarizes her understanding of evangelicals as follows:
“…evangelicals are Protestants who since aftermath of the Reformation have been circling around three questions. Those questions are: First, how do you reconcile faith and reason? How do you maintain one coherent way of knowing? Second, how do you become sure of your salvation? How do you meet Jesus and develop a relationship with him, to use the language that some evangelicals prefer. And third, how do you reconcile your personal faith with an increasingly pluralistic, secular public sphere?”
The full interview can be read here: The Intellectual Civil War within Evangelicalism.
Now, given that she wrote a whole book on the subject it is somewhat unfair to ask this question since none of us can give a balanced response without reading her full argument, but I’m going to ask this question nevertheless: What do you make of defining evangelicals/-ism more around shared questions that a shared creed or culture? (FWIW: she differentiates the pursuit of Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants from evangelicals on the basis of both groups having a central authority—for Catholics that Pope; for liberal Protestants reason/rationality. Also, it is worth observing that her definition brings groups like Mennonites and Pentecostals under the umbrella of “evangelical”.)
the archives near Emmaus 
I disagree with this definition. For me and most other Christians, Evangelicals are people who believe that the Bible is the only infaillible source of knowledge about God. In my post (which I linked to) I made a distinction between fundamentalists, conservative Evangelicals and progressive Evangelicals.
If you adopt another view of the Bible, you can no longer be considered Evangelical.
I hope I don’t bother anyone with that but I think it is important to stick to the historical definitions of words.
I am myself a non-denominational progressive Christian, though most Catholics and Orthodox would probably view me as a Protestant, which interestingly enough, means “evangelisch” in German.
“Also, it is worth observing that her definition brings groups like Mennonites and Pentecostals under the umbrella of “evangelical”.)”
According to my definition they are.
Best wishes from Europe.
I’m more fascinated by your and others’ reports re. the “Blowup” session (not for the drama, but the concepts). But since this is a more manageable issue, and there IS significance to the categories aspect (including Evangelicalism and others), I’ll comment: I’m felling “left out”! 😉 I’d put myself and at least some other “progressives/process people” in yet another category I find important to include: Similar to “liberals” but not prioritizing reason/rationalism above all else. Rather, a historical-critical approach to the Bible, but believing it also represents important spiritual EXPERIENCES of earlier believers; also that it reflects many spiritual phenomena not to be “demythologized” because they reflect “real” or actual kinds of phenomena that DO represent “spiritual realities”, not just psychological or “brain function” phenomena. I’m not at all sure everyone even under the more narrow label of “process” would take that view, but some certainly do. Perhaps the most widely published and “core” process theologian who does is David Ray Griffin. (His “Two Great Truths”, a marvelous book of just 114 pages, lays out the issues quite well, though not nearly in the depth and detail of “Parapsychology, Philosophy and Spirituality”, written for a mainly “naturalist” audience, and earlier, ca. 1997.)
Those issues are shared by all believers, IMO. Why am I different from an Anglican, Orthodox or Catholic? I think faith alone, sola fide, in Christ, is the ticket out of the kingdom of darkness into Christ. Works is the ticket to greater eternal outcome after that.
I don’t believe the bible is the sole means of knowing God( it’s just the main one). The bible itself states humans can observe creation and learn of God.
@lotharson: how does “infallible” in Europe compare/contrast with debates about “inerrancy” in the US?
@Howard: if you were to briefly outline the most important difference between “liberal” and “progressive” Christians what might it be?
@Patrick: to be fair to the lady interviewed, she does clarify that evangelicals tend to approach this question without a singular authority. RCC has the Pope. Liberals have Enlightenment views of reason. Evangelicals appeal to Scripture, reason, tradition, experience, and none of these things have the ultimate say because all must work together for evangelicals. I’m probably butchering her point, so I recommend reading the interview.
Reblogged this on Sunday School on Steroids-The Seminary Experience.
@ Brian,
In one sense I’m glad you asked (re. key difference betw. Liberals and Progressives). However, frankly, I consider it “above my pay grade” in that I don’t feel I either read enough or circulate enough in Lib/Prog. circles to be well informed for a good answer. I’ll give it a stab, but first, I’m not sure even IF there is a clear distinction to make, although I do try to cast myself as “other than a Liberal” often. At least in my personal case, the main difference I think would be taking the whole Bible more seriously, and particularly taking spiritual phenomena more seriously, both as seen in it and seen anywhere and everywhere. But maybe that’s not fair/accurate to “Liberal” Xns. I may be operating mostly off older generalizations (probably caricatures).
I AM aware of Progressives trying to define themselves, for example at ProgressiveChristianity.org and at my UCC church. The short and helpful ProgXnty list of 8 points is found here: http://50.22.11.76/~progress/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TCPC-8-Points-2011-web.pdf. I have a somewhat similar list of 7 points on my blog here: http://naturalspirituality.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/progressive-christianity-one-vision/. If you or anyone looks, I’d suggest that it is point 7 which sets my vision apart the most even from the ProgXnty 8 points — that of a need to actively investigate and “respect” a wide range of spiritual phenomena often labeled “paranormal”, and typically avoided by BOTH “science” and “the Church” but without adequate reason.
Where and how other “Liberals” that may not much like such definitions are defining themselves I don’t actually know. Speaking just for me and perhaps a relatively small group of others, besides the “paranormal” point, what I think of as a distinction would be the active inclusion of Process theology and, with it, a “panentheist” concept of God. Maybe only fine distinctions to most, but that would contrast with what I’d say other Liberals might see as a “deist” concept… more removed and distant, though still “creator, redeemer, sustainer” (I think I got that “trinity” right… not sure.)
Finally, I “must” add one other point I personally consider important, again perhaps not fair to “Liberals”, I’m not sure. At least some of us Progressives, many under the moniker of “Integral” (cf. “Integral Christianity” by pastor Paul Smith) would emphasize that “postmodern” is so 1990s :). We do not much like the kind of cultural (and other) relativism that equates all views and approaches to religion/spirituality or morality. We DO believe in hierarchies of some types, and that there are criteria for “grading” the “truthiness” of concepts (thanks, Steven Colbert). In a nutshell, “Integral” Xnty includes the rationalism of Liberalism and the relativism of Postmodernism but also seeks to transcend them with what it sees as a more complete and workable perspective and “working points”.