I have long defined myself as an evangelical Christian. It seemed to be the best way to say certain things about what I believed, both positively and negatively. This word carries some pretty deep significance historically. And it still carries some really positive meaning for me emotionally in terms of my own training, background and spiritual life. Clearly, in certain circumstances, it still does have some significance for me. But I have decided, at least in the larger world outside of my professional life at Wheaton and in some churches, that I will no longer call myself an evangelical. Why?

1. There is no inherent necessity for using the word as a term of self-description. If it means "gospel-cenered" then I can say that more plainly without using the word itself. If it means that I have a high view of the Bible then my words and actions will show that soon enough.

2. I am further convinced that most non-evangelicals do not have a clue about what I mean when I use this word. For this reason alone I keep asking myself, "Why use it?" This came home to me yesterday in teaching a class of Protestant and Catholic adults at Harper College. As I sought to explain three recent unofficial documents called Evangelicals and Catholics Together my explanation elicited the observation that my class did not understand the term evangelical in the way I was using it. They thought of people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc. They thought of Left Behind and Republican politics. Simply put, they thought of very conservative people who are generally opposed to much of the America they value.

3. Face it, the general understanding of the term evangelical, especially due to its use in the last few elections, makes it a dubious term for self-identification unless you want to be known as an advocate of the Christian Right, which I do not. So I would rather drop the term and explain myself differently. I can use terms like "follower of Christ," "serious Christian," "confessional Christian," or just plain "Christian," though that clearly needs some definition too.

4. Historically, the term evangelical comes from the Reformation. Lutherans were the original evangelicals in the 16th century, at least they were the first group called evangelicals. To this day Lutherans are referred to as evangelicals, thus the use of the term with the denomination called the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), a mainline denomination of several million members. Since only a few church insiders know these historical facts I see no inherent value in using the term in a post-Christian context where these origins are unknown to almost everyone.

5. Evangelical, at least as used in my own Wheaton College context, comes from the Protestant awakenings. The evangelicals were the party in the Anglican Church that sought renewal by the Holy Spirit. The term then stuck to all such people committed to awakening by Word and Spirit. Most know next to nothing about these historical awakenings, even inside Protestant churches. I believe another modifier would work better, if a modifier is to be used at all. I have increasingly learned from Catholics that such modifiers are not nearly as important to them as they are to us Protestants. (They do refer to people as "liberal" Catholics and "conservative" Catholics, etc.) I think the reason for this need in our Protestant ranks lies in our fractured identity. We are really not sure who we are at times. We keep splitting over this and that sectarian issue so we need something, like super glue, that holds us together.

6. Many evangelicals are, in actuality, fundamentalists. Thus the term evangelical becomes the new expression for old attitudes and legalisms. The term plainly includes people ranging from the far right to the far left. Finding new ways to explain my beliefs, first to myself, to the church at large, and then to the world, is desirable.

In the end I am not sure at all that I need an adjective like evangelical to explain myself. I would rather let my life incarnate the love of God and the true good news of the gospel and not use labels at all. Labels are generally shorthand ways for cutting off meaningful discussion and learning. You find a label for me and that ends discusison at crucial points. Once you label me you do not need to listen any further or ask questions. As I read the story of Jesus in the Gospels I believe he resisted labels. This left people shaking their heads, wondering what kind of Jew he really was. I think I will try this approach for awhile and see what happens.

Related Posts


  1. Michael Bird November 11, 2005 at 6:22 am

    I think the problem you are facing is related to the particularities of being an evangelical in America. In Europe and the Antipodes the designation is not so culturally condition by conservative extremes as in the US. This means that evangelicalism outside the US can be defined more in terms of its message and heritage than by politics or polemics.

  2. John Z November 11, 2005 at 5:01 pm

    Wouldn’t a more positive approach be to redeem the terminology for what it actually means, namely, “gospel-centered”? Sometimes when I read what you have to say I get real depressed…it often sounds very negative.
    By the way, I’m an admirer from a distance…I’m a close friend of Kyle Johnson from Wheaton, we went to college together and lived together at the Christian mens’ cooperative. He introduced me to your work.

  3. blund November 14, 2005 at 1:31 am

    John Armstrong, editor of Reformation & Revival, jumps ship from the current theological malaise. Some of you may remember that I also abandoned this theological ship. While my post was perhaps a bit more scatter-brained, Armstrong’s thoughts, while brief, are helpful. He cites six reasons for why he no longer claimes the moniker evangelical…

  4. The Authoritarian Boenau November 16, 2005 at 9:56 am

    J.A. said:
    You find a label for me and that ends discusison at crucial points. Once you label me you do not need to listen any further or ask questions.
    Agreed. Although, labels can sometimes be useful for quick conversations with people who know exactly what your definitions are. I find in my own experience that Christians and non-Christians have a terrible distaste for the term “fundamentalist.” But let’s face it, most Bible-believing Christians ARE fundamentalists!
    The trick is learning how to steer a conversation away from certain terms that non-Christians can’t possibly understand. I don’t tell my secular coworker, “Oh, I don’t believe in that free will bunk, I’m reformed.” He can’t grasp what sovereignty and election mean without the Holy Spirit’s work in his heart.

  5. T. B. Vick November 16, 2005 at 10:28 pm

    I appreciated this post very much. Especially point 6. This is a point that has, in all reality, sort of ‘huanted’ me especially when I did graduate studies at Marquette. I had several fellow students (who were either Catholic or Anglican), during conversation, frankly ask me if I was a legalist fundamentalist (which I am not), because I called myself an evangelical. I had to explain what I meant by evangelical. This has haapened to me in many other settings as well, so I figured why waste the time with calling myself ‘evangelical’ when the term is so broad and ambiguous it can mean almost anything inside the Protestant realm of Christianity (and in certain cases inside certain Catholic circles as well). So I decided a little over a year ago to drop that label and not bother with it any longer.

  6. Sharper Iron November 18, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    Weblog Watch | 18 November 2005

    At Antiphon, John Armstrong (of Reformation and Reveival Ministries) explains “Why I Am Not An Evangelical.”

  7. Tim Bayly November 18, 2005 at 5:40 pm

    Dear John,
    The Sharper Iron blog had a note about this change you’re announcing.
    Based on the trajectory you’ve been on for quite a few years, now–on a variety of Scriptural matters–I’d agree that it is the right and honest thing for you to do to leave the label evangelical behind. And I’d thank you for the increasing clarity you’re bringing to your constituents concerning the nature of your theological commitments.
    For those readers wondering what sort of biblical commitments characterize those of us still adhering to the Protestant, evangelical faith, may I suggest two booklets by Martyn Lloyd-Jones: “What Is an Evangelical?” and “Authority.”
    Tim Bayly

  8. P. Andrew Sandlin November 19, 2005 at 7:57 pm

    Anyone who reads John’s blog carefully will note that his jettisoning of the term “evangelical” is, contrary to Tim’s assertions, in harmony with the “Protestant, evangelical faith.”
    In my experience, many of the conservatives declaiming the loudest about the “Protestant, evangelical faith” possess a limited exposure to the catholicity of historic Protestant evangelicalism. Lloyd-Jones, for example, while a gifted and devout man, represents a rather small and often provincial wing of the “Protestant, evangelical faith.”
    John’s “trajectory” is devoutly catholic, fully orthodox, and passionately missional, in short, “evangelical” in the best sense of that term — whether he employs the moniker or not.

  9. Brandon Withrow November 22, 2005 at 7:40 pm

    Pat Robertson: Oops He Did it Again…

    UPDATE: Related to this post, one might like to read John Armstrong’s post from November 10, “Why I’m not an Evangelical.”

  10. john March 8, 2007 at 11:09 am

    I would say John’s “trajectory” is clearly in the direction of apostasy.
    Anyone who even attempts to link the Catholic Tradition with Reformation Evangelical Protestant Tradition is an apostate.
    I agree he should remove Evangelical from describing his “Theological Worldview” as he insults Evangelicals by retaining it.
    “For many now walk of whom I have told you, and now tell you even weeping, that are enemies of the cross of Christ” Phil. 3:18

Comments are closed.

My Latest Book!

Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!

Recent Articles