It seems that the last several articles I’ve written, have all been related to Evangelicalism in one way or another. Indeed this is a very broad and inescapable subject that inevitably comes up in relation to a wide range of topics. In this article I want to explore certain aspects even further and will attempt to do so in as balanced a manner as I am able. I apologize in advance if it appears that I have handled the subject in less than a fair manner. It is not my intention to offend or upset anyone with some of the less than flattering thoughts I have when thinking about “Evangelical” (or at least what is labelled as “Evangelical”).
Not long ago a friend sent me an article titled, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical?”
Because we often discuss a wide range of doctrinal and religious topics, he was curious what my take on this article would be. He knows that I came from an Adventist background (having been born into and lived it until my early twenties) and therefore we sometimes see things differently. This fact often makes for some good thought-provoking discussions. Once our conversation shifted to the desirability of the label “Evangelical,” it became clear that this is one of the topics on which we differ.
That particular discussion got me thinking about that which has come to be called “Evangelical.” For this article therefore, I believe that a good starting point is deciding what Evangelical means... in a practical sense. Frankly, I’m not at all certain what “evangelicalism” has come to mean... nor do I think the majority of Christians who identify as Evangelical can actually define the term clearly. The label itself has come to include a wide variety of individuals, groups and denominations and I’m not sure the original meaning even applies anymore.
The following quote is from the article, “Why I Am/Am Not An Evangelical” by Eddie Arthur PhD. The article includes portions of the work he did as part of his doctoral thesis which he wrote on, “mission agency theology and practice researches.” At the beginning of his article, he describes what follows thusly, “This post is a long rambling description of why I don’t think the term “evangelical” is fit for purpose and why I don’t use it.”
“...evangelicals tend to hold to a core set of beliefs, but there is no hard and fast boundary of what constitutes evangelicalism (despite many evangelicals attempting to impose one). Because of this, it is generally better to describe evangelicals in terms of the things that they emphasize and which Christians of other traditions lay less stress on. One writer describes evangelicalism as a moving target...”
With respect to how scripture is approached, he shows the relationship of evangelicalism to “fundamentalism” using an illustration of a four quadrant graph. The top two quadrants are evangelical on the left and fundamentalist on the right. He then identifies the resulting problem as:
“...The problem is that there are people who would describe themselves as evangelical, and who others would describe as such, who can be found across both upper quadrants. It would be hard to slip the page of a Bible between fundamentalists and evangelicals...
...Evangelicalism in the UK is a movement which developed from the 1730s in response to a range of religious and social factors. Andrew Walls described it as a response to Christianity which wasn’t Christian enough. As a movement, evangelicalism has Anglo-American roots and spread to other parts of the English speaking world...
...I realise that there is a lot more that could be said; indeed books are written on this subject. However, to summarise, evangelical is a theological term which arose in a particular context, however, today many (probably the majority) of people who would align with evangelical emphases, do not describe themselves as evangelical. Secondly, the term evangelical has become identified with a socio-political movement (primarily in the USA) which I personally find antithetical to the values of the gospel.” (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)
It seems it (Evangelicalism) actually began to spread as a part of the “First Great Awakening” and then really took off with activities connected to the “Second Great Awakening.”
The author of the article, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical,” makes the point:
“At the heart of the history of the evangelical movement, which for most historians of Christianity begins in the Anglo-Protestant world of the 18th century, is the idea of conversion. Christianity, even devout Protestantism, flourished for centuries without focusing on cultivating a particular moment of choice or transformation for change or commitment. But with the Great Awakening and the music, revivals, and personal experiences that these movements encouraged a new focus developed with many Protestants on the emotional connection to God.”
Historians call this movement evangelicalism, and while denominations such as Methodism grew out of it, it was more of a temperament and language across churches than a collection of denominations or a new organization itself. Many Protestant Christians did not emphasize emotions or conversion or activist transformation of oneself and the world around them, and one could be a traditional or conservative Christian without being “evangelical.”
The idea of conversion required that a Christian see a difference in their lives and while many evangelicals took that to mean strict behaviors around entertainment or dress or devotional practices, others focused on reform of the sins of the world around them. They led out in the abolitionist movement, the temperance movement, urban reform, and the missionary and church-building emphases of the 19th century.” (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)
(https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2024/04/are-seventh-day-adventists-evangelical/)
Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.) offers this definition and description of Evangelical:
"As a distinct party designation, the term came into general use, in England, at the time of the Methodist revival; and it may be said, with substantial accuracy, to denote the school of theology which that movement represents, though its earlier associations were rather with the Calvinistic than the Arminian branch of the movement. In the early part of the 19th cent. the words 'Methodist' and 'Evangelical' were, by adversaries, often used indiscriminately, and associated with accusations of fanaticism and 'puritanical' disapproval of social pleasures. The portion of the 'evangelical' school which belongs to the Anglican church is practically identical with the 'Low Church' party. In the Church of Scotland during the latter part of the 18th and the early part of the 19th cent. the two leading parties were the 'Evangelical' and the 'Moderate' party." (all emphasis added in the above quote is mine)
David Bebbington, in an attempt to provide a better definition and understanding of the term, is widely known for his definition of evangelicalism. What he proposed is referred to as the Bebbington quadrilateral. It was first provided in his 1989 classic study, “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s.” Bebbington identifies four main points or qualities which are to be used in defining evangelical convictions and attitudes:
Biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)
Crucicentrism: a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross
Conversionism: the belief that human beings need to be converted
Activism: the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort
As I look at this list of qualities, I can appreciate that it is helpful in zeroing in on and gaining a more clear understanding of the term. However, such a list is not without problems of its own. I accept that a large percentage of people who identify as Evangelical would readily accept the proposed list. I also have no doubt that some would not accept all items on that list. There are also some Protestant Christians who readily accept every item on the list but reject the label “Evangelical.”
Growing up I always saw my religious affiliation as being part of “Protestant Christianity.” Looking back, I certainly would not have identified myself or our church as being under the “Evangelical Umbrella.” In fact, I would have to describe the relationship with evangelicalism as tenuous at best. My guess is that many who grew up in my generation would still exclude themselves from identification with that term. For me, even after leaving the church and then (only decades later) returning to a non-Adventist church, I still would be reluctant to take on the label.
Despite the fact that it has been almost fifty years since I identified as a Seventh-day Adventist, I am still very much aware of my roots and experience growing up. Therefore it should come as no surprise that a recent video interview caught my eye where this very question was being asked of a certain scholarly expert. The gentleman was addressing the question, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelical?” His response was most interesting. According to him, not only were Adventists definitely NOT evangelical, he insisted they are a cult and dangerous - due to their views. This happened to be the same attitude I experienced when I was a member and I gather it is an attitude that continues to be one which that church is still trying to address up to the present. The interesting thing is that SDA’s would readily endorse every item on the “Bebbington quadrilateral.” It was with some relief I realized that according to this expert, even though I am not a Seventh-day Adventist (and have not been for many years) according to his opinion, I do not qualify as being Evangelical.
So I guess this must mean that in order to qualify for the label, a person must not only affirm the Bebbington list but also correctly define and interpret each item on that list. Herein lies the problem with at least a couple of items on the list. Take for example the item referred to as Biblicism and meaning “a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages).”
Having a high regard for the Bible and seeing it as the ultimate authority – no issue there. So what does it say – the Bible I mean? Is it a book of mysteries that we really don’t understand except for a few choice sections which we like to reference? If we hold the whole thing to be true and the ultimate authority, shouldn’t there be far more teachings and discussions on all of it (even the very uncomfortable parts). If it is the ultimate authority, shouldn’t we start trying to read it unfiltered through the various denominational lenses – and maybe stop saying it says something that it really does not say?
We know there are a number of topics within the pages of scripture on which there is not universal agreement with respect to doctrine and interpretation. A classic example is eschatology and the different views as to what is meant by Christ’s second coming. Other examples would concern interpretation as to what happens when a person dies (otherwise known as the intermediate state) and what is the final disposition of sin and wicked, unrepentant sinners. For that matter, with respect to current societal issues, there even appears to be disagreement about what constitutes sin (something of which the Bible has much to say).
In a commentary on today’s Evangelicals in America, one who studies such things reported that actual Biblical literacy is at an alarming low point. It seems for many the only important passages somehow relate to how to “get saved” along with a few passages on being encouraged. These are supposed to sustain one while reading the daily headlines and noticing how bad things are getting – all while waiting for “the Rapture.” The Great Commission to make disciples of all nations seems to have been replaced by limited evangelical efforts - concentrating on simply “getting folks saved” and hauling them into the rapture life-boats.
An observation I’ve made (perhaps I’m out to lunch on this) is that many Evangelicals – perhaps in pursuit of that special personal experience – put all their effort into seeking spiritual (emotional) highs. Christian rock concerts seem full of such individuals waving their hands about, weeping readily or dancing about wildly. Their theology however is perhaps a bit more difficult to determine. In conversations I have had with a few, I’ve learned any serious questioning of doctrine or questionable behaviour, is seen to be either “unimportant details” or is somehow “legalism.” I would say however, we often are called to say/do things that run contrary to our desires and emotions – but we must do them nevertheless.
On the question of conversion-ism and salvation is there actually a clear understanding and agreement amongst all Evangelicals as to what this means? At the heart of the history of the evangelical movement is the idea of conversion. For centuries Christianity, even devout Protestantism, flourished without a focus on a particular moment of choice. With the Great Awakening this seemed to change with with the addition of a strong play on the emotions. The thing about utilizing a highly emotional appeal for decision-ism, that I personally question, is the amount of manipulation that is being employed to gain the “decision.” Sometimes it seems like a great deal of pushing and manipulation of emotions is being used. I find the technique distasteful and irritating... especially if all that is being done is manipulation toward garnering an emotional response.
That one must be born again is clearly stated in scripture – no issue there. Having a “born-again” experience though – what exactly is this? On my return to church I was often puzzled by the question, “Are you saved?” or “When did you get saved?” or “Are you spirit filled?” I can tell you about a decision I made – perhaps a cross-road I’ve come to in my life... but if you are talking about having some sort of St Paul on the Damascus road experience... that hasn’t happened. So, how exactly is an evangelical conversion measured? That’s the rub. It’s been the cause of evangelical consternation for about two centuries now.
Rather I think conversion has a lot to do with one’s understanding of the gospel and what exactly it calls us to. I do not believe it’s all about simply saying the right words in a prayer someone gives me to recite or a card someone gets me to sign – and then I’m good to go for eternity with no further commitment or expectation as to choices I make from that point onward.
Looking now at the idea of Activism i.e. “the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.” The obvious question here is, “Effort towards what?” If the answer is, “Effort towards spreading the gospel and advancing the Kingdom,” then I fully agree. However, when Activism is taken to mean establishing lists that focus on ‘allowed vs forbidden’ behaviours... or investing in to social engineering schemes and activism, I’m going to be far less agreeable. Recall that historically, because of the “holiness” and “restorationist” influences of the 2nd Great Awakening, many evangelicals took a very works based, legalistic approach. “Activism” had often meant promoting strict behavioural codes around entertainment, dress, and/or devotional practices, while for others the focus was on reforming the sins of the world around them.
Finally I would ask is Evangelicalism (sometimes now referred to as “Big Eva”) becoming the new homogenized church? Is it seeking compromise on various doctrinal distinctives in order to absorb individuals and denominations from a wider swath of current Protestant groups? I don’t know the answer to that but in my view many today would have a hard time sorting out the differences between Evangelicalism and Ecumenicalism. Might the Evangelical church of today become the United Church of tomorrow?
No comments:
Post a Comment