Evangelicalism: What is it?

Last updated on: October 17, 2011 at 5:46 am by Scot McKnight

Evangelicalism: What is it? 2011-10-17T05:46:44-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

There is a cottage industry in trying to define who is and who is not an evangelical. The editors of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) contend, in their conclusion, that evangelicalism can be defined “sociologically” – or descriptively – or “theologically” – or prescriptively. The editors, Andy Naselli and Collin Hansen, no doubt have in mind David Bebbington and Mark Noll with “sociologically” and they surely have in mind folks like D.A. Carson, David Wells, John Woodbridge, and Al Mohler Jr. with “theologically.” This was the whole point of The Cambridge Declaration and The Evangelical Celebration, not to ignore the book Evangelical Affirmations. Each of these was an attempt to define evangelical and impose that definition on the whole of evangelicalism, at least call evangelicalism to its true meaning.

Before I get to the four views in the spectrum of evangelicalism in the Naselli-Hansen book, let me say that the theological-oriented definers are those who hearken back to the Reformers and to the solas. So I ask right back, if I may, who is defining the term sociologically? Is it not the case that the “theological” group is defining the term “evangelical” according to the Reformers and those who are consistent with them? So, who is defining the term “sociologically”? The answer, if I may, is both – and at the same time neither totally.

Question for today: What is an evangelical? Are fundamentalists part of evangelicalism? Is the term worth preserving?

Here’s why I say both are defining the term sociologically. It is accurate to say that Bebbington examines the evangelical movement (a socially definable group) to find the central theological themes of that movement; one can call that sociological if one wants but it is more than that. But it is no more sociological than those who are hearkening back to the Reformers (a socially definable group), because this so-called theological approach is examining a set of theologians (Calvin, Luther, et al) and a movement and discerning their central themes (the solas), and saying “that is evangelicalism.” Conclusion: they are both sociological. This set of alternatives is not helpful for the discussion.

A more tangible unity could be obtained if we spent more time studying what the gospel means in the New Testament (but this is not a post on The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited).

But let’s be more modest in our epistemological claims here: both of these groups, those examining the Reformers and those examining the broader evangelical movement, know fully well that the principal group and its leaders believe they are adhering to what the Bible says. It would be far more accurate to say that all definitions of “what is an evangelical?” derive such definitions in the dialectic of Bible and group, that is, they are a combination of sociology and theology (not to mention history).

My intent in this post is not to get after that question, but to sketch the four views in the Naselli-Hansen volume, which I think is a useful and helpful volume. Yes, we may have chosen other authors (why not Noll, or Bebbington, or Carson, or Mouw, or even Horton – wouldn’t that have been interesting?) but these are four solid thinkers and four solid presentations, and no book could satisfy everyone. This book satisfies enough, and the authors are to be commended for their measured conclusions of recognizing that this discussion is uncontainable and uncontrollable but it is still important to have.

The authors: Kevin Bauder (fundamentalism – this piece satisfies Andy Naselli’s interests in fundamentalism), Al Mohler (confessional evangelicalism), John Stackhouse (generic evangelicalism), and Roger Olson (postconservative evangelicalism). Interesting choices, and they make for an interesting volume.

Briefly: this is a white man’s, a 50 yr old plus white man’s set of concerns. There is insufficient attention to the undercurrents of contemporary evangelicalism and postconservative evangelicalism, to the emerging generation, to the African American church or to the Latin American church, to the increasing role of women in American evangelicalism, to the Wesleyans like Ben Witherington or to the reality of plenty of evangelicals in the mainline, to the outgoing tides and to the trends of where we are headed … so we need to see this book for what it is.

Bauder reads the history of American evangelicalism well. Too many younger evangelicals don’t even know this history as the context for all of these debates about what is an evangelical. Bauder rightly sees the rise of NeoEvangelicalism as a coalition of compromise, and he doesn’t like it. I like the compromising coalition, which is noticeable in folks from Whitefield on, and I think that coalition is what made (neo)evangelicalism what it was — led by Billy Graham and John Stott and Christianity Today and there’s a worldwide movement as well. And when Stackhouse comes around to tell us that transdenominationalism is to be added to the Bebbington quadrilateral (crucicentrism, Biblicism, conversionism, activism), he is affirming as a characteristic what Bauder sees as the problem. That compromising coalition is what distinguishes evangelicalism from fundamentalism. And this is why I don’t think it is at all useful to call fundamentalism a kind of evangelicalism, and that is why some of us have our eyes on … read on:

Al Mohler, because he overtly admits he’s with Bauder mostly, which confirms for many of us what we’ve been saying: Mohler advocates a new kind of fundamentalism. That’s not an insult; it’s historical description. Mohler’s classed in this book as “confessional evangelicalism” but his confessionalism sits uneasy with me a bit, and I’ll tell you why: Mohler doesn’t quote one “confession” in this piece so I’m really left guessing what confession he means. From reading it I would suspect he means the Reformation solas, perhaps The Cambridge Declaration, or some kind of mix of those sorts of statements. He’s Baptist, which means The Abstract of Principles, but he doesn’t really get into that, and he could mean local church statements of faith. But, frankly, confessionalism refers to either the Lutheran confessions or the Reformed confessions, and I can’t see that term applying to statements of faith among the Baptists. The Westminster folks are confessional; Baptists are not. But Mohler’s orientation is clear: he’s a theological conservative, he’s committed rigorously to the major ideas of the Reformation, and he thinks too many evangelicals are drifting.

Stackhouse and Olson are closer to where I am, and I have thought for a long time that Bebbington’s quadrilateral, adding to it the Marsden coalition idea, helps immeasurably in mapping what evangelicalism really is. In other words, it just isn’t as “confessional” as a lot of bounded-set folks would like. (I wonder if “confessional” and “evangelical” actually disqualify one another.) Evangelicalism, and this is what we find in Stackhouse and Olson, is a centered-set movement and all such people are “more or less” evangelical. That is why Olson’s emphasis on evangelicalism as a “movement” is so blooming accurate. He’s also right, and I suspect this is why I think Horton would have been fun had he been in the mix, that evangelicalism mixes the more or less Reformed orthodoxy with pietism and revivalism. So, to Bebbington’s four and a fifth with Marsden’s coalitionism, Olson adds “respect for historic orthodoxy,” and Olson’s right again – this has always been a feature of evangelicalism. It is classically orthodox.

Here’s a sketch of what’s going on: evangelicalism is a coalition of classic orthodox Christians who are committed to the four features of Bebbington. Evangelicalism describes the meeting place, the village green. Fundamentalism thinks the coalition gathering on the village green compromises the gospel. Confessionalism is what happens in the churches around the village green, and can’t be imposed on the coalition without pushing people off the green.

This book shows the tensions at work in evangelicalism but the most faithful examples of what evangelicalism is can be found in Stackhouse and Olson.

Evangelicalism

Previous Post

October 16, 2011

Steve Jobs and His Cancer

Next Post

October 17, 2011 Private Non-Religious Schools

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Psalm is entirely focused on God's word, using each letter of the Hebrew alphabet?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 24 Psalm 119 Psalm 23 Psalm 51