What is evangelicalism?

G’day everyone, Dave Deane here, and our question for the week is: What is evangelicalism?

In the book of Jude we have an interesting statement… Jude says “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ…”

Here, Jude explains his intention that he wanted to write a letter about the common salvation of the Christian faith, I guess like what the Apostle Paul did in his letter to the Romans, but he was not able to do so; something else, some other priority has come up that compels him to redirect the focus of his letter. What is it? The need to defend the fundamentals of the Christian faith which were being attacked by false teachers and misinformation. There was a need to rediscover the meaning of the Christian faith.

Well, I would argue that today, there is a pressing need to rediscover the meaning of the evangelical, or evangelicalism. We must press for a definition once more.

What I want to propose here is, not a complete answer to the question ‘What is an evangelical’, but a few angles that need to be considered towards any full-orbed answer to that question.

So, What is evangelicalism?

The late evangelist Billy Graham – who is sometimes held up as the quintessential evangelical – was asked this very question in an interview back in 1987. He responded to the interviewer, saying, quote: “Actually, that’s a question, I’d like to ask somebody, too… The lines (have) become blurred… You go all the way from the extreme fundamentalists to the extreme liberals and, somewhere in between, there are the evangelicals.”

Now, granted, Billy said that over 3 decades ago and a lot has happened since then, but the general lack of consensus as to what is meant by the term ‘evangelical’ or ‘evangelicalism’ remains to this day.

The word “evangelicalism” means many things to many people:

• For some, “evangelicalism” is a blanket pejorative label, a trigger-term for blind fundamentalist anti-intellectualism;
• For others, it is basically synonymous with Reformed Theology, or Protestantism more generally; and
• For others, it is more or less of a cultural term expressing a person’s alignment with certain social groups and political ideas, particularly within Anglo-America.

Now, despite these broad differences of opinion, there have been some noble attempts to bundle these aspects of ‘evangelicalism’ into key, defining characteristics.

For example, British historian David Bebbington has suggested evangelicalism can fit into a ‘Quadrilateral’ of 4 characteristics:

First, “conversionism” – the evangelical emphasis on the humans need conversion to faith in Jesus.

Second, “activism” – the evangelical emphasis on the proclamation of the gospel as a matter of Christian service.

Third, “biblicism” – the high regard evangelicals have for the Bible as inspired and authoritative.

And fourth, Bebbington suggests “cru-ci-centrism” – the evangelical emphasis on the atoning work of Christ in the salvation of sins.

Now, if that’s all a bit much, Aussie theologian Mike Bird sums it up nicely when he writes, “Evangelicalism, broadly defined, has always been concerned with theological, spiritual, and missional renewal through the gospel.”

But – still here on this first part of the question – ‘What is evangelicalism’ – lets dig a little deeper.

As I’ve thought about it, I’ve come to see that we can answer the question ‘What is evangelicalism’ in a number of different ways, depending on the angle we’re coming from.

For example, we could look at evangelicalism from the origin of the word.

This angle views “evangelicalism” by an understanding of its etymology (or the origin of the word), specifically the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion) for “gospel” (eu “good”, angelos “messenger”; viz. ‘messenger of good news’).

So technically, or etymologically, evangelicalism is defined as a people – evangels: those who tell others the good news, the gospel, of Jesus Christ.

In this sense, we might say that all professing Christians are evangelicals to the degree they obey the words of Scripture which call all Christians to share the good news of Jesus.

But etymology – while it has a foundational part in understanding – it is only a part… the meaning of words are not exclusive to their origins; for example, in the early Church, Christians were called atheists because they didn’t believe in the Greek and Roman gods… clearly, that’s not what we mean by the word ‘atheist’ today.

Similarly, to use the term ‘evangelical’ is to use a limiting term; it is an exclusive term which denominates something and excludes something else; it’s not a word to define Christianity in general, but a certain approach to Christianity in particular… so we must press on.

And that takes us to a second angle: we could look at evangelicalism from history

This angle views “evangelicalism” by an understanding of its movement, as a historic global phenomenon of trans- or inter- denominational Protestantism.

Key examples are the Great Awakenings of the UK and US from the 19th century on, and public figures such as Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Graham, Stott, Llyod-Jones, and others who emphasised the centrality of gospel proclamation and Christian conversion (‘being born again’).

Basically, this angle considers evangelicalism from the sweep of history, revival, and strong commitment to issues of social justice (not only recently but also back in modern history to the abolition of slavery, and so on.).

And the historical angle is also helpful in giving us an understanding of the various denominational streams of that would fall under the broad category of evangelicalism, such as Pietism, Puritanism, Quakerism, Presbyterianism, and others.

A third angle to look at evangelicalism from the standpoint of doctrine

This angle views “evangelicalism” by an understanding of its core beliefs, stemming back to the Protestant Reformation (and by association, earlier thinkers such as Augustine, etc.).

It was Martin Luther, the pioneer of the Protestant Reformation, who used the term (“evangelical church” (in German) to express the idea that his breakaway movement was an attempt to recapture the authentic Christianity of Jesus and the apostles, as represented in the Gospels and the other New Testament texts.

So, from a doctrinal angle, evangelicalism emphasises things like sola scripture and the gospel consisting in salvation alone by grace alone in Christ alone, etc.

In the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the name “evangelical” was adopted and used widely by educated conservative Christians who armed the so-called “fundamentals of the faith” – for example, the deity of Christ, the authority of the Bible, and the importance of personal conversion – but who wished to be distinguished from the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist tendencies of the Fundamentalist movement of the 1920s and 30s. Individuals such as Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry, and Harold John Ockenga, and various institutions including Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, and Fuller Theological Seminary, played key roles in this development.

And fourth, we could look at evangelicalism from the public perspective of social and political activtism

This angle views “evangelicalism” by an understanding of its public engagement on social and political issues, something we have seen more and more of over the last several decades, particularly within the US context where evangelicalism has strong Republican partisanship.

Now, evangelical social and political action is not new; we could trace it back, well as far as the abolition of slavery, through to the 1925 Scopes Trial, or the later landmark US Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. But more recently there has been a foci of evangelicalism and Christian Right politics giving rise to phenomena like so-called “evangelical Trumpism.”

So there are 4 angles that I think, together, help move us towards a full-orbed understanding of ‘What is evangelicalism’ or who are evangelicals.

And, to pull some of these threads together by way of application to the current state of evangelicalism today, I’d like to say two brief things

First, obviously the above points aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive – being different angles of the same thing – I think it is important that we be very clear which angle we are coming from when we find ourselves asking or being asked about evangelicalism in one way or another. You know, evangelicalism historically understood umbrellas all sorts of denominational differences by the unified cause to know Christ and to make Him known among. And this reality of diversity within the unity of Christ is a beautiful and Biblical truth about the Church; it is a natural consequence of free and public proclamation of the gospel going to panta ta ethne (“every people group”, Matt. 28:19)… Sadly, however, when these differences become more important that the unity that we have in Christ, the atomisation of the “common faith” Jude spoke about makes the beauty of diversity into ugly tribal factionalism.

And this is closely connected to a second point of conclusion that I’d like to make. I think the four different angles I’ve outlined give at least a starting point for critical inquiry into the evident splintering of the worldwide evangelical church today.

To give just one example: I think the angle 4 view of understanding evangelicalism by its social and political activity more or less dominates public and popular opinion of evangelicals today. So in that sense, angle 4 has come to cloud angles 1, 2 and 3 – the meaning of the word evangelicalism, the history of evangelicalism, and fundamentally, the core doctrinal beliefs of evangelicalism… these are largely forgotten today, because evangelicalism is almost exclusively understood in culture for its contributions on a select few social and political issues.

Now, on the one hand this is kind of to be expected: unless someone is coming to an evangelical church to learn, they will only see and hear what evangelicals believe when they step out into the public square and speak…

That’s not the sad reality as I see it; the sad reality is that evangelicalism within the church, as certain theological nodes and ecclesial cultures have either loosened to “liberalism” or ratcheted to “fundamentalism” on a select-few social and political issues. It’s a peculiar problem within contemporary evangelicalism that if you voted for person ‘x’ or have a personal view on social issue ‘y’ then it is enough to draw conclusions about your theology, your doctrine, your piety, you zeal to know Christ and make him known and you’re pigeon-holed before you know it… That kind of identity politics and cancelling is the way the world carries itself today… and it’s genuinely sad to see it within the church… it’s also a fearful thing, because the book of Revelation has a lot to say about church’s that look and smell more like the world than the bride of Christ they are.

Activism invariably ebbs and flows in a tidal sea of social and political possibilities… But the truth, goodness and beauty of Christianity is in part the surety of its foundation which does not change – the cornerstone of the church, Jesus Christ… if we are content with the succinctity of Stanley J. Grenz when he writes, “To be ‘evangelical’ means to be centered on the gospel [the good news of Jesus Christ” then evangelicals should be a people who stand out in the world as different, because where culture descends into tribal-like warring, evangelicals have a Jude-like common faith that means we aren’t defined by our passionate disagreements, but the passion of our agreement in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

I do not mean to downplay the significance and importance of engaging in political and social action, but this is a very personal issue for me… Speaking as an ‘evangelical Christian’ myself, I want to call evangelicals today back to our first love… Let’s not put stumbling blocks to belief before those outside of the church, nor before our brothers and sisters within the church. The NT is rich with commentary on what are disputable matters… we just need to hear it… and heed it… that we might be a people who are, above all, Kingdom minded, gospel-focused, Christ conscious, and therefore selective, deliberate and intentional in the content and conduct of our political and social activities. And we don’t need to look beyond the model of Jesus Himself in the gospels for how to go about that.

In the closing words of Jude:

17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.  They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.”  It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.  But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.  And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh. Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 17-25)