"Evangelical" Remains A Useless Term That For Some Idiotic Reason Continues To Be Used

Talk about the media (and the Christian media, no less!) not "getting" religion...

A recent article in the Christian Post expressed the notion that "evangelicals," whoever they may be, had mixed reactions to the Pope's visit. An example of two of the "evangelicals" that are representative of the label assigned by the Christian Post are Rev. Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals and Dr. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

What?!?!

Mohler has consistently criticized the NAE, stopping short of calling them communist pinko meatheads. The president of Southern Seminary has zero interest in ecumenism, let alone interreligious dialogue. The NAE, on the other hand, tends to consider themselves part of the world, and approach their evangelism from a more thoughtful and careful point of view, and are often self-effacing in the way they account for themselves. Find me a self-effacing soundbite from Dr. Mohler, and I'll give you a dollar. These two models of Christianity differ fundamentally on the way they believe evangelism should look. Why, if these people are defined by the manner in which they spread the gospel, should the NAE, an organization once headed by a first class ethical mind like Dr. Francis Beckwith, and Southern Seminary be painted with the same sociological brush?

I'm not a man who ordinarily advocates for new terminology. But in this case, the idea of painting any Christian who isn't Catholic and isn't left of Jim Wallis as "Evangelical" is just unfair. We need new categories, or at least need to re-evaluate the ones we have.