“Iowa is culturally conservative, non-practicing Christians at this point” — writing on evangelicals, Ryan Burge, Prof of Political Science and Baptist Pastor

Dictionaries do not define a word’s meaning. Words are defined by society.

Understanding this helps explain how a word’s definition changes over time. It helps explain why our language (definition and pronunciation) is a convoluted mess. It is not a conspiracy by Webster to provide English teachers with job security. We the people change it. Not one person, but when a group starts using a word differently the definition changes. [Not convinced?, try reading Old English or even Middle English!]

New words are created (“google”). Other words take on new meanings, retaining the old (like “web”). Often words change without controversy, but sometimes there is division (like “gay”). But within a generation the change is accepted and our dictionaries follow suit.

We are currently witnessing a change in evangelical’s definition.

For a time I was among the resistance, insisting evangelical maintain its original definition. The word evangelical roots in the New Testament Greek word  εὐαγγέλιον euaggelion (gospel, good news). The verb form of the word is the root of evangelize. So evangelicals were Christians focused on sharing the good news of Jesus. Key elements became personal decision and conversion, the authority of scripture.

But history does not matter to language. When the majority begins to use a word differently the definition changes. In my lifetime evangelical’s meaning started to expand, taking on political beliefs. At first it was one issue (Pro-Life), but in recent years the list of issues began to expand. All the added beliefs were culturally conservative.

Naively, I assumed the original definition would be retained and eventually returned. But in the definition’s web of politics and faith, the media began to use the word to describe a voting block. Active faith (church involvement, evangelism) was not a part of their definition.

“Evangelicals are not exactly who they used to be. Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity.” (Full Article)

Why does this matter? We have all encountered the person who was once heavily involved in church, but now no longer attends. This article quoted them. I have visited with them: counseled, loved, invited them back. They profess a loyalty to Jesus, but a disdain or boredom with church. They insist the church is not required for personal faith. But in each case I have encountered, as their time away from church increases, their faith shrinks. Their belief becomes ever more personal choice, rather than submission to Jesus as Lord.**

This group is one of the driving forces in the evangelical movement. This explains so much and means the evangelical movement needs to be evangelized. Invited back into fellowship with the church AND with Jesus.

It also means, that as a follower of Christ, I can no longer use the term evangelical. In a battle of words, my side lost. But, we were always “strangers” in this world, citizen of another kingdom. We submit to our Lord Jesus. He is our hope. He is the only Word we offer.

---

** Church involvement and Faith — I am sure there are cloistered monk exceptions, but as a general rule, falling from fellowship hinders following Jesus — Why? The simple answer is that Jesus will always call us back into the body of believers (as Paul emphasizes, we are each necessary). This is not always the institutional church (with buildings and paid staff), but it is into Christian fellowship. Bible studies, worship, friendship, accountability. Especially accountability.