Thursday, September 20, 2007
"The 'Uber-Librarian' sent me a some articles this morning on the subject of (Christ's) atonement, and I just think a lot of people are not aware of how far out of the quote-unquote "mainstream" most of us are when it comes to what we believe. When they're exposed to the other viewpoints, they're really rocked because they just don't know of the other viewpoints that are out there. We... have to struggle with the term quote-unquote "evangelical" today because many of the people who are writing against the concept of substitutionary atonement, many people who do not believe in substitutionary atonement and identify it as "child abuse" and things like this, are viewed as "evangelicals".
I said to an evangelical leader recently, "I don't consider myself an evangelical anymore."
"OH! You shouldn't say that!!" (the leader said).
Well, you know, if T.D. Jakes is an evangelical leader, I am not a part of any movement of which he is a part so how can this word any longer have much in the way of meaning?"
- James R. White
(Sept. 18, 2007)
While I do not agree that the likes of T.D. Jakes and Joel Osteen are in fact Evangelical, they are regarded around this nation as evangelical Christians. I don't think the answer is to say that we are no longer evangelicals as defined by the true sense of the term, but definitely deny that we are this new definition of the word that has sprung up over the past few decades. What is calling itself "evangelical Christianity" today has little to no resemblance of what the term actually means. We need to start fighting for clarity and stability in definitions again!