Since we’re discussing evangelicalism, it might be useful to answer the question, “What does it mean to be evangelical?”
While the term has a limited range of application, referring to specific traits, churches, convictions, and practices within Christianity, its denotation is so plastic that it makes it is almost impossible to succinctly define. Instead of shoehorning the word into an overly narrow definition, I’ll try to outline the central themes and relationships that help convey the connotations and senses in which the term is often used:
Etymology
The term originates in the Greek word evangelion, meaning “the good news,” or, more commonly, the “gospel.” In the New Testament, the word is used in reference to the “good news” of the victory of God’s salvation.
A Very Brief History
Martin Luther picked up the term during the Reformation and used in to refer to the evangelische kirke, or “evangelical church.” This name is still used in Germany to refer to the Lutheran Church.
In Great Britain and North America, though, the term is used to refer to the Protestant religious movements and subsequent denominations which sprung up after a series of revivals swept through these countries during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Evangelicalism is often associated with the leaders of these revivals which including the American philosopher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards, the English evangelist George Whitefield, and the Wesley brothers, Charles and John, the founder of Methodism.
Contemporary Usage
The term evangelical is generally applied in three different senses:
The first meaning of evangelical, based on a useful summary by historian David Bebbington, is an emphasis on four primary characteristics:
Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus.
Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts.
Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity.
The second sense in which the term is used is as the generic name for a group of movements and religious traditions that incorporate the four emphases mentioned above. Within this context evangelical includes such disparate groups as Pentecostals, Baptists, Dutch Calvinists, and members of non-denominational megachurches.
The third sense of the term is as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Originally dubbed “neo-evangelicalism”, this group included such leaders as Billy Graham and Carl F.H. Henry, such institutions as the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, and such publications as Christianity Today.
Other Uses and Definitions:
Barna Research — We categorize an evangelical based upon their answers to nine questions about faith matters. Those included in this segment meet the criteria for being born again; say their faith is very important in their life today; believe they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believe that Satan exists; believe that the eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Thus, evangelicals are a subset of the born again population.
World Evangelical Alliance — An evangelical is a gospel man, a gospel woman. “Evangelical” derives from ‘evangel’: “gospel”. By definition an evangelical is someone concerned for the gospel. This means more than that he preaches the gospel now and then. It means that for him the gospel of Christ is central. It is, of course, his message and he preaches it, constantly. But it is more than a subject of preaching. The gospel is at the centre of his thinking and living.
April 21st, 2010 | 9:07 am
An “Evangelical” knows “The Gospel” but is fuzzy, at best, about “The Church.”
April 21st, 2010 | 10:13 am
An evangelical emphasizes the preached Word over any sacramental means of grace. A personal relationship with Jesus trumps a mediated one via the church and its sacraments — which is why Lutherans stand out as a strange “Other.” And while ecclesiology has become almost exotic among many modern evangelicals, it was not always the case, as both Calvin and Luther placed heavy emphasis on church authority and discipline, with Wesley refusing to break away from the Established Church, something his followers would do only after his death.
April 21st, 2010 | 11:15 am
It seems to me, Evangelical has become more of a sociological label than one with any sort of real theological content. For a significant segment of people and the organizations they support, the characteristic of activism has trumped the other three of Bebbington’s four primary characteristics, particularly Biblicism (having a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority).
Take, for example, the case of “Christians for Biblical Equality” (CBE) which is considered by their theological counterpart, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, to be legitimately Evangelical while advocating religious feminism.
And yet it is hard to see how CBE can be considered Evangelical if the term has any real content (especially according to Bebbington’s four characteristics) other than a merely sociological definition. In the past they had a key staffer who was an Amstrongian long before Armstrong’s successors moved toward Evangelical orthodoxy. They have also (if only tangentially) associated themselves with HerChurch in San Francisco through the sales of Jann Aldridge Clanton’s book on mother language for God.
There are other reasons to be concerned about organizations like CBE being included under the Evangelical umbrella but the most important is simply their advocacy of religious feminism which cannot, except under the most painful manner of contortion, be considered “biblicist”. But then CBE is itself merely the focal point for the religious feminism which has captured many Evangelical seminaries like Denver Seminary and mega-churches like Willow Creek.
Kamilla
April 21st, 2010 | 1:08 pm
Evangelicals include high-church Anglicans, low-church, anti-creedal Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, the Evangelical Free Church, Arminians, Calvinists, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventists, open theists, atemporal theists, social Trinitarians, substantial Trinitarians, nominalists, realists, eternal security supporters and opponents, temporal theists, dispensationalists, theonomists, church-state separationists, church-state accomodationists, cessationists, non-cessationists, kenotic theorists, covenant theologians, paedo-Baptists, Anabaptists, and Dooweyerdians (and on a good day, some Eastern Orthodox who are on Evangelical payrolls).
But no Catholics.
April 21st, 2010 | 2:07 pm
Well Beckwith, that last line has intrigued me. What do you mean by “but no Catholics”?
April 21st, 2010 | 2:07 pm
Dr. Beckwith,
It that’s true then is the label of any real value?
smiling,
Kamilla
April 21st, 2010 | 3:57 pm
“Well Beckwith, that last line has intrigued me. What do you mean by “but no Catholics”?”
Obviously Dr. Beckwith can speak for himself, but I thought I’d throw in here: “no Catholics” because evangelicalism has also defined itself as what it is not. And evangelicalism has defined itself as “Not Catholic.”
This frustrates people such as Dr. Beckwith, Joshua Hochschild, and others, who insist that as Catholics they can still basically sign an evangelical statement of faith in good conscience. To which evangelicals typically respond (1) no, you can’t; or (2) if you can, you’re not really a Catholic.
April 21st, 2010 | 4:49 pm
Isn’t an evangelical simply a person who thinks they can be a true Christian without joining the Catholic church? Although it probably also has something to do with a focus on evangelizing, which is why people still want to be counted as one. What Christian would want to say they don’t emphasize evangelization?
April 21st, 2010 | 7:18 pm
Read Gene Veith’s
The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals (2010 Revised Edition).
April 21st, 2010 | 11:53 pm
George Marsden’s _Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism_ is an excellent resource for anyone who wants to understand evangelicalism in America. Alister McGrath’s _Christian Theology: An Introduction_ has a nice discussion of evangelicalism too.
April 22nd, 2010 | 12:42 pm
Isn’t an evangelical simply a person who thinks they can be a true Christian without joining the Catholic church?
No, because that would make all Eastern Orthodox into “evangelicals,” which might make most EO believers uncomfortable; and I doubt that most who style themselves “evangelical” would welcome the EOs into their ranks.
Dr Beckwith,
No Eastern Orthodox can be called an “evangelical” as that term is commonly understood. None of Bebbington’s four criteria apply: “conversionism” is antithetical to Orthodoxy’s understanding of baptism and chrismation as the true “born-again” experience; “biblicism” is contrary to the primacy of Apostolic Tradition in the Orthodox faith; “crucicentrism” (as Bebbington is using the term) is inconsistent with Orthodoxy’s balanced emphasis on the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrection, Pentecost, and the Parousia as essential elements of the economy of salvation; and “activism” is (sadly) something you could never accuse most Orthodox of.
I think it is clear of whom you are speaking when you refer to Orthodox who are on Evangelical payrolls, and I think you will agree that he is something of an outlier among Orthodox.
April 22nd, 2010 | 12:53 pm
Well, I am not the only Orthodox on an Evangelical pay roll. . . but I am happy to admit that I am an outlier even amongst human beings.
April 22nd, 2010 | 12:53 pm
I think Anthony pretty much sums it up and as card carrying Evangelical (I just checked my card and yes, my dues are paid up–forever), his list well describes me, my family for about six generations, and the folks I know who call themselves Evangelicals too. If Francis would ever again want to call himself an Evangelical it would be fine by me. I find the attraction of Rome unintelligible and episcopal flow-charts byzantine, but if folks want to be baptized by immersion in the Tiber and have hands laid on them by guys (mostly) in fancy dress yet still want to hang on themselves the Evangelical dog tag, y’all are welcome. I’ll show you the secret handshake and the path to the tree house, there’s plenty of room inside (John 14:2–I’m an Evangelical, got to quote the Bible here somewhere). Besides, when we’re lined up and they start throwing stones at us it will be a comfort to have a lot of friends around; I might even buy myself a bit of extra time by ducking behind Francis.
But there is one bad habit we evangelicals have, regrettably, and that’s name calling. Saying that some Eastern Orthodox are evangelicals only because they are paid to be, well–that’s a very Evangelical thing to say and I’m sorry about that. We need to get better (James 3.8–yep, that Bible thing again).
April 22nd, 2010 | 3:57 pm
Dr Reynolds,
I wasn’t actually thinking of you, and on reflection that part of my comment was probably ill-advised. I haven’t read too much of your work but such as I have read strikes me as mainstream Orthodoxy (which I intend as a compliment).
April 23rd, 2010 | 8:13 am
Let me weigh in one more time: I think Anthony Sacramone pretty much has it right. What he says tracks with my comments on David’s blog post about the “core” being around conversion as an affective encounter. I could easily add Word and Spirit as Sacramone has said.
In that sense, then, yes, Catholics and Orthodox can fit within the “evangelical” tent without giving up their respective ecclesial commitments. We have an Orthodox faculty member at Regent and we would easily hire a Catholic. I think Beckwith just needs to hang out with some different evangelicals, like maybe those of us from the holiness and pentecostal wings of the movement. It’s a different animal, and it tracks quite easily with the mysticism of a Bernard of Clairvaux, et al., or the emphasis on a “Spirit baptism” from a Symeon the New Theologian.
Sacramone is also right about the ecclesial issues. When I’m at an ecumenical gathering, even as a pentecostal, I am acutely aware that my denomination is episcopal and I argue for the historical episcopacy. My free-church pentecostal friends don’t always appreciate that, but it’s what you have to do, not simply in evangelicalism, but in pentecostalism as well, which, given its global dynamics, is tough to find a core to as well.
April 23rd, 2010 | 12:43 pm
John Stackhouse Jr. in his article “Defining ‘Evangelical’” (http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V01I01/Defining_Evangelical.pdf) lays out two definitions, type and movement. He then proceeds to offer one of his own that combines elements of Bebbingtion’s quadrilateral along with George Marsden’s emphasis on Transdenominationalism and a plea for Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. His six part definition is thus:
• Orthodox and Orthoprax: Evangelicals subscribe to the main tenets—doctrinal, ethical, and liturgical—of the churches to which they belong.
• Crucicentric: Evangelicals are Christocentric in their piety and preaching, and emphasize particularly the necessity of Christ’s salvific work on the Cross.
• Biblicist: Evangelicals affirm the Bible as God’s Word written, true in what it says and functioning as their supreme written guide for life.
• Conversionist: Evangelicals believe that (1) everyone must trust Jesus as Saviour and follow him as Lord; and (2) everyone must co-operate with God in a life of growing spiritual maturity.
• Missional: Evangelicals actively co-operate with God in his mission of redeeming the world, and particularly in the proclamation of the gospel.
• Transdenominational: Evangelicals gladly partner with other Christians who hold these concerns, regardless of denominational stripe, in work to advance the Kingdom of God.
Pollster Andrew Grenville working with the late George Rawlyk developed the Christian Evangelical Scale (CES) for operationalizing evangelicals in opinion research. The CES is commonly applied using the following eight questions which try to measure Bebbington’s four evangelical emphases. The appendix to “Evangelical Alignment in Canada” (http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V01I03/Evangelical_Alignment_In_Canada.pdf) provides a gloss on the CES. The eight CES questions most commonly used are:
1. The concept of God is an old superstition that is no longer needed to explain things in these modern times. (Reverse scored)
2. I believe that through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God provided the way for the forgiveness of my sins.
3. In my view, Jesus Christ was not the divine Son of God. (Reverse scored)
4. I believe the Bible to be the word of God and is reliable and trustworthy.
5. I have committed my life to Christ and consider myself to be a converted Christian.
6. I feel it is very important to encourage non-Christians to become Christian.
7. Other than special occasions such as weddings, funerals or baptisms, how often did you attend religious services or meetings in the last 12 months.
8. I believe Jesus was crucified, died and was buried but was resurrected to eternal life.
Other articles in the Canadian publication Church & Faith Trends (www.churchandfaithtrends.ca) look at how Evangelicals have been operationalized in the Canadian context and how successful these have been.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact