Why We Still Need 'Evangelicalism'

Evangelicalism has fallen on hard times, and some—including myself—have wondered from time to time if we could simply avoid the problems surfacing by using ‘orthodoxy’ instead.  I would argue, however, that we need to push through the present challenges and retain not only the term, 'Evangelicalism,' but also revive what it is: a particular movement in Christianity with its theological identity and mission.  This post focusses on the historical and theological identity of Evangelicalism.  I I would like to suggest that the terms are not equal and, in fact, Evangelicalism captures three movements in history: early Christian orthodoxy, Reformational theology, and spiritual awakening.

First, however, we need to appreciate why ‘Evangelical’ has become problematic.  There are several reasons, but the key one, in my view, lies in how the term ‘Evangelicalism’ is used over against other group identities and ends up being understood in part by them in various contexts.  So, for example, political journalists have turned Evangelicalism into a voting bloc, especially in America.  This, in turn, divided Evangelicals themselves, with a minority but elite group distinguishing themselves from candidate and then president Donald Trump.  Some of these progressives moved so far to the left in a variety of ways that they ended up undermining the meaning of the term ‘Evangelical.’  Other Evangelicals have found conservative Roman Catholics and Orthodox alliances more meaningful on issues such as abortion and homosexuality than the views of certain progressives still holding onto the term ‘Evangelical.’  Some European Evangelicals have become disheartened by the dominance of American Evangelicalism in the West.  These definitions of ‘Evangelical’ so confuse the meaning of the term that many would simply rather do without it.

A second problem with ‘Evangelicalism’ has to do with theological and ecclesial diversity.  Is ‘Evangelical’ trying to be too large a tent, with some hangers on actually not part of the movement?  Or have some marginal members taken over the platform?  ‘Evangelicalism’ has always included a diverse group of theologically orthodox Christians, denominations, churches, mission organizations, and movements.  This diversity has always put a strain on the movement called ‘Evangelical,’ but this problem has only increased.  A major internal threat to the meaning of the term has come from those advocating a ‘Prosperity Gospel,’ which claims that God promises of health and wealth to Christians.  Evangelicals meeting in the third Lausanne Conference in Cape Town in 2010 rightly rejected this theology.  Another internal challenge in some quarters of Evangelicalism is an equivalency of ‘Evangelical’ with ‘Reformed.’  Are Reformed Christians able to appreciate non-Reformed, especially Pentecostal, Evangelicals within a movement by that name?

Yet the major problem for continuing to use ‘Evangelicalism,’ in my view, is that the cultural context has changed.  It has been a movement in a certain period of history, particularly Western history but not exclusively so, in which it made sense.  Books have been written on this subject, so anything said in brief is too little said.  However, think about how Evangelicalism arose through revivalist movements in response to or at times through involvement with the Enlightenment, colonialism, the Industrial Revolution, and liberal theology.  Can an articulation of orthodox theology in such contexts still pull together a movement well-defined enough and potent enough to respond to and engage with the current, Western culture or cultures of the world?  At the very least, the heavy workload asked of ‘Evangelicalism’ has increased.  The Enlightenment has given way to postmodernity, colonialism to Marxist, liberation activism (including postcolonialism), the Industrial Revolution into a technocratic revolution, and liberal theology has become the progressive theology of Western tribalism.  These are radical changes, not simply ‘developments’ along the same trajectories.  In addition to this, the dominance of the West is teetering on the edge, with any number of possible new challenges in religion, politics and government, economics, and culture on the rise.  Whatever the West is becoming, can an Evangelicalism framed in that context, even with changes underway, still be relevant for what the world is becoming?

One must ask, however, whether the problems with the concept of ‘Evangelicalism’ can be avoided by shifting labels, by moving to the notion to ‘orthodoxy,’ for instance.  On the one hand, the shift would be helpful in several ways.  It identifies Christians with a longer and wider tradition.  As St. Vincent of Lérins described orthodoxy, it is what has been held everywhere, always, and by all.  It raises the importance of studying the Church Fathers.  It links Protestant Evangelicals with the truly orthodox in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism while distinguishing Evangelicalism from the unorthodox theology and practices of faulty expressions of Christianity.  It moves Evangelicals out of being a sub-group of Protestants into being a long tradition of the Christian faith.  It forces Evangelicals to give more of an account of the Church—to get an ecclesiology for once, especially in the context of more and more Evangelical churches going independent and inventing what constitutes ‘church’ on a case by case basis.  It produces a needed unity with the worldwide Church.

Yet this is not enough.  By moving to the notion of ‘orthodoxy,’ certain ground gained in the Reformation and subsequently is given up at a loss.  The Reformation can be described through five ‘solas’:

1.     Sola scriptura: ‘Scripture alone’ as the authority for faith and practice

2.     Sola gratia: ‘grace alone’—God’s grace —as the only means of salvation

3.     Sola fide: ‘faith alone’—not works or effort—as the human requirement for salvation

4.     Solo Christo: “Christ alone’—God’s grace through the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross

5.     Soli Deo gloria: ‘to the glory of God alone’—not to the glory of some institutional Church, a political movement, a nation, or anything else

These five ‘solas’ were not invented for the first time in theology, but they needed to be emphasized in the time of the Reformation, particularly in Catholic Europe.  Today, progressive Evangelicals and progressive churches and theologies in general can be defined over against these five solas.  Progressive theology has a weaker view of Scriptural authority, whether because of a weariness with the long battle over the meaning of ‘Biblical inerrancy’ in the Modernist age or because of an agreement with postmodernity that authorial intention should be replaced by readers’ responses in any understanding of the ‘meaning of a text’ (the Bible).  Progressives emphasise grace in their theology, but grace defined as inclusiveness and toleration more than or in addition to the costly grace through Christ’s death.  It is uncomfortable with divine judgement.  It wants dialogue with other religions and pluralism more than evangelism and conversion.  For progressives, faith is more a matter of trust than belief, whereas it needs to be both.  It may not even be defined as ‘faith in Jesus Christ’s provision of salvation by grace,’ which is too particular for an inclusivist worldview that values ‘coexistence’ of religions.  ‘Christ alone’ calls for an uncomfortably high Christology for progressives, as it did for Protestant liberals.  Finally, the humanist focus of progressives finds ‘to the glory of God alone’ potentially too theological.  Theology itself is something to confine to contemplative moments after a full day’s work of activism for social justice, and a ‘social justice’ defined by the culture rather than the Church.

Is the fact that the 16th century’s Reformation was a correction of errors that had grown up in Roman Catholicism a reason to minimize its importance in these five hundred years later? As noted, however, the five solas if the Reformation still address theological errors encountered today in progressivism, whether in Roman Catholicism or Protestantism.  This progressivism has entered Evangelical circles, undermining Evangelicalism even as the emphases of Reformation Evangelicalism supplies a strong antidote to the disease.  To give up ‘Evangelicalism’ for ‘orthodoxy’ diminishes the advance in the theological medicine that can cure certain diseases of theological error.

David Bebbington has argued that Evangelicals can be defined in terms of their:[1]

1.     Biblicism—‘sola Scriptura

2.     Conversionism—‘sola gratia’ and ‘sola fide’, conversion and transformation of lives by God’s grace through faith in His saving work for and in us

3.     Christocentricism—‘sola Christo

4.     Activism

Conversionism is used in such a way as to bring together God’s gift of salvation and the importance of sanctification, and different theological streams within Evangelicalism have understood this relationship differently.  As such, however, it does not capture the concern with spiritual awakening that is so characteristic of Lutheran pietism, the Great Awakening and subsequent revivals, Wesleyan Methodism, the Holiness Movement and Pentecostalism.  This spiritual awakening goes beyond conversion and is an essential component of what is Evangelicalism.

Activism introduces something else to the Reformation’s five solas for Evangelicalism, and it does so in a way that locates the definition of Evangelicalism in its own history.  It provides a clarification of Reformation Christianity in regard to works: they are not irrelevant but are an essential aspect of the Christian life and the church, even if they do not contribute to salvation.  It combines the Church’s public theology and its missional activity in a general category of ‘activism.’  

On its own, however, activism is far too general a term, and this is precisely where a progressive Evangelicalism takes a wrong step.  Under the spell of a post-Christian version of social justice, progressive Evangelicals define Christian activism in terms of a social justice of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness.[2]  For progressive Evangelicals, their social activism is a way of embracing justice concerns articulated by a post-Christian, Marxist society.  The values of diversity, equity, and inclusion has been let in the front door of Evangelicalism by progressives to march through the institutions of Evangelical denominations, churches, education, missions, etc.  Progressives are embarrassed by their association with Evangelicals and want to be affirmed and accepted in the public square.  They do not want to be considered a ‘ginger group’ in the mainline denominations, either.[3]  

The Reformation’s Soli Deo Gloria can serve as a bulwark against this progressive activism.  A salient feature of the activism of progressives is its shift from theology to anthropology.  The church, for example, becomes a ‘community,’ and the better ‘community’ is understood as one that represents human diversity and inclusion.  ‘Equity’ has come to mean not equal treatment according to set standards but unequal treatment to right past wrongs.  Instead of recognising spiritual gifts or calling into ministry by God, for example, progressive activists are concerned with multiculturalism and promoting racial or gender minorities.  This humanistic redirection of spirituality is highly problematic for orthodoxy and the Reformation’s refocusing the Church on God, not human achievements and agendas.  Activism in the sense of social action or of missionary efforts are certainly part of Evangelicalism, but they need to be understood theologically and not in terms of the social sciences, works righteousness, or the new diversity, equity, and inclusion of the post-Christian West.

‘Activism’ is also too broad a term.  It should not be used to cover both the social engagement of Christians and churches and Great Commission missionary efforts.  Here lies a major debate and a discussion of Evangelical history.  The issue has come to be framed around whether mission is only Great Commission ministry—evangelism, church planting, teaching (including Bible translation)—or whether it also includes ministries to human needs.  My view is that missions should be limited to Great Commission ministry and be accomplished through special organisations needed to support ministry beyond the local church.  This does not mean that there is no place for Christian ministry to those in need.  This ministry, however, falls into the life of the church as a community of faith, love, and hope.  It should not be separated from the church.  The ecclesial nature of such ministry is an essential part of the church’s identity.  Such a distinction between Great Commission missions and the church’s ministry is not hard and fast at all times, and creative combinations of these ministries are to be welcomed.  However, collapsing the two into one dilutes Evangelicalism’s concern for conversion, and separating good works activism from the church undermines the theological understanding of activism, turning ministry into the same good works of other groups in the culture.

An additional, key factor of Evangelicalism is its identity as a movement.  ‘Evangelical’ must not become simply a way of defining the theological identity and activities of certain churches.  It also needs to carry a meaning that has to do with the unity and common purposes of orthodox, Reformational, and spirituality of believers and churches engaged together in God’s mission in the world.  Where an Evangelical movement is lacking in some part of the world, individual churches and institutions struggle in missions, ministry, and engagement with the world.

Still, a broad movement of ‘Evangelicalism’ is difficult to identify at this time.  As new denominations recapture orthodoxy, Reformational teaching, and historically Evangelical definitions, leaving old denominations that have increasingly abandoned the faith, and as many churches set themselves up as independent, local, worshiping communities, the major issues facing the Church are its ecclesiology and mission.  What seems to be needed is an affirmation of the orthodoxy, Reformational teaching, and spiritual awakening that define historical Evangelicalism.



[1] David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1988).

[2] I have recently addressed this in ‘About those New, Western Values—Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ (17 December, 2021); online at https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2021/12/about-those-new-western-valuesdiversity.html.

[3] See my discussion of Archbishop Justin Welby’s calling GAFCON a ‘ginger group’ in ‘GAFCON the Ginger Group’ (23 June, 2018); online at https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2018/06/gafcon-ginger-group.html.

A Prescription for Reformation: Replace the Persuasive Artistry of Preaching with Christ-Focussed, Scriptural Teaching for All Ages

 

We are living during a time of major change in the Church.  For some, it is a devastating time of the demise of their denomination.  Yet this is also a time of Reformation--or potential Reformation--of the same magnitude of the 16th century.  If we are to have true Reformation, however, we need to do more than simply stand still while others drift into heresy.  We need to ask what we should do differently.  In this post, I turn to offer some thoughts about the need for teaching in the local church.  In view are what we teach, who is taught, where the teaching occurs, and how teaching is superior to so much preaching.

In 1 Corinthians 2.1-5, Paul contrasts Greek and Roman rhetorical practices with his own proclamation.  Rhetoric is defined as the art of persuasion.  Paul explains it as lofty speech and plausible words of wisdom (vv. 1, 4), or the wisdom of men (v. 5).  His speech was defined not by the medium of the message but the message itself, not by clever speech but by a demonstration of the Spirit and power of God (4, 5).  The difference is between persuasive speech and persuasive truth.  The truth Paul proclaims is ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’ (2.2; cf. 1.23).

In Plato’s Gorgias, the same issue is discussed between Socrates and Gorgias.  Gorgias was a rhetorician, and he claims that he can convince a crowd of something over against a doctor who was telling people the truth.  Socrates asks Gorgias if he means that he intends to teach his students how to carry conviction to the crowd not by teaching them but by persuading them (Gorgias 458e).

So much preaching in our day leans to the side of persuasive rhetoric rather than teaching the truth.  Preachers train their congregations to listen to clever thoughts, fascinating stories or examples, well-constructed clauses and sentences, and the like.  Many preachers understand their role to be that of the rhetorician.  This is no better illustrated by the preacher, shirt out, sauntering onto the stage of a mega-church, sitting down on a stool, opening his talk with some personal story or hook to draw the crowd in to the message.

Contrast the Jewish synagogue from which the early churches arose.  Biblical passages would be read, a teaching would be given on the texts, and some discussion might ensue.  The expectation in the synagogue was (1) teaching (2) from the text of (3) Scripture.  To this, Paul added (4) the Gospel message, which he connected to the Church’s Scriptures, the Old Testament.  This was the message of the doctor, to return to the discussion in Gorgias, not the persuasive artistry of the rhetorician.

Martin Luther redesigned church architecture with a lofty pulpit, indicating the importance of preaching the Word in the service.  He intended to counter the failures of Roman Catholicism with preaching that taught the Scriptures.  This led to a greater role for the sermon in the Protestant churches from that time to today.  The problem is that, for too many churches today, the sermon remains a major part of the service as persuasive artistry, not teaching.

For the past several decades, we have been involved in another Reformation.  All the old, mainline denominations have become heretical—the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church (in the USA), and the United Methodist Church.  Similar heretical drift has occurred in other ‘Western’ countries (i.e., in Europe and North America as well as South Africa, Australia, New Zealand) and some smaller denominations.  Such denominations did not follow the mega-church preacher mentioned above, but they did find their own ways to preach feel-good 'sermons' of encouragement without Biblical authority and without warnings of sin.  Sermons were human-focussed for liberals and Evangelicals alike rather than Christ-focussed, just as worship became entertainment for consumers.  As Paul would say, to paraphrase 1 Corinthians 2.1-5, they lost the message to proclaim and were left with nothing but their rhetoric.

In the Reformation in which we now live, we are continuing to teach how to preach by focussing on the rhetoric.  Just as Luther redesigned the service to have more preaching, we need to redesign the preaching so that we have teaching, not rhetoric.  Perhaps we should just have a short homily as part of the worship service, and then have a separate time of teaching—before or after the service of worship.  Covid, for that matter, raised questions about why and how we meet together as Christians.  We learned many things, including that we should not forsake meeting together (Hebrews 10.25).  However, in answering that we should meet together (and never again comply with those encouraging us not to do so), we also need to ask what should we really be doing.  So many worship services are three songs and a sermon exercises, mostly entertainment, with a short chat afterwards (maybe), and then everyone heads home.  We could do so much better in various ways than this, and one thing we might do is promote a time of teaching when we come together and then also have a time of worship.

Drilling down a little further on this point, I would say two things.  First, in several countries, adult education is an important part of a Sunday—Sunday School for adults.  Yet this is not so everywhere, especially in the UK, where Sunday School often happens during the sermon for children who leave the service.  This has been an utter disaster for the Church—an undereducated laity in the hands of rhetoricians who dislike the Bible and offer human interest talks that only find Jesus an example of love and not the Saviour of the world.  Of course, Sunday School for any age can and all too often is poorly run, but a recovery of adult education in the Scriptures should be a major part of any plan for the needed Reformation in our day.  Indeed, the 16th c. Reformation was largely the result of a recovery of teaching the Word that was recently made available to many because of the invention of the printing press and because of the focus on teaching in the preaching of the time.

A second example was pointed out recently to me and came as a surprise.  A church decided that it needed to do a better job to build community, as mentioned above.  So, it placed a great emphasis on house groups, called life groups.  What church of any size does not promote such groups?  The emphasis in this church on life groups was so strong that Sunday School for adults and children was suspended.  When the church declined in size, members suggested that the church was strengthened because those in life groups were the truly committed believers.  In my view, however, the issue should not be about levels of commitment but about the need in churches to have qualified teachers who provide teaching for all in the church, including those loosely committed to the church.  Small house groups likely do not have well educated Bible teachers guiding them, and the main purpose of the life group is just that—life on life fellowship and friendship, not teaching.  Life groups are wonderful, but they are a different ministry from teaching in the local church and should not be combined, as a general rule.

So, in our day of bringing Reformation to the Church after the devastating drift of mainline denominations into heresies and the dilution of both teaching and worship in too many Evangelical churches, we need what Paul was advocating in any case—teaching of the Scriptures.  This was not new.  It was what one would have found in Jewish synagogues of his day.  What was new was the understanding that Christian teachers had of the Scriptures in light of Christ Jesus.  This is how teaching should look in our day: teaching from the text of Scripture how Jesus fulfills what we read in the Old Testament.  (Applications, of course, are natural when teaching--the Scriptures are to be taught as a living Word for the continuing community of God's people.  In fact, teaching is a better form of communication than worship service preaching for dialogue about and application of texts.) Much of the New Testament is just this, though we also now have a New Testament to teach as God's authoritative Word.  The answer for how to change our practices in this needed time of Reformation so that the Church is once again orthodox and not blown about by every wind of doctrine is to bring back teaching and reject the notion of preaching as persuasive artistry.  This teaching, as has been said, is to be Scriptural and Christ-focussed.  And it should be teaching for all ages.  Kudos to those churches that never lost this, but far too many churches have.

Postmodern School Boards and Free Speech

 Why bother with consistency if you have already determined that truth is not restricted by facts but is constructed and personal?  Certain school boards are treating knowledge as opinion and certain opinions as protected, even in contradiction to the facts.  In the postmodern world of make-believe, everything is political--i.e., the management of power in regard to special interest groups.  Even a value, like free speech, is politicised.  Thus, its value lies in the use to which it can be put towards political aims (i.e., the desires of a group).  In the following two scenarios, the two school boards are both postmodern in their views and yet contradict each other.  The contradictions are of no concern to postmodern school boards, however, because the laws of logic, like facts, are no longer applicable to arguments that are concerned only with the use to which a value (like free speech) can be employed in favour of a particular group.

Postmodern School Board A: 'Children, you must not wear a T-shirt that states that there are only two genders.'

Responder: 'What about free speech?'

Postmodern School Board A: 'We are not interested in free speech, only offenses to our protected groups.  We are concerned only about your disturbing the emotions of our protected groups' imagined identities.  We, too, imagine that they must be offended by your T-shirt and opposed to your free speech.  Your free speech is offensive, so take off the shirt.'

Responder: 'On the same grounds, may I ask you to remove your rainbow shirts?'

Postmodern School Board A: 'Of course not.  Your group is not protected and therefore has no free speech.'

...

Postmodern School Board B: 'Parents, we support free speech.  We are placing sexually explicit and sexually perverted books in your children's school library.  This is free speech, and we will speak freely to your children without your consent.  If you oppose us, you are in favour of banning books.'

Responder: 'Your role is to teach our children mathematics, reading, science, history, and so forth.  It is not to form them morally--really, immorally--against our' wishes as parents.  You are overstepping your role.  Your free speech undermines parental rights and is thoroughly perverted.'

Postmodern School Board B: 'Frankly, your children belong to us, and you are terrorists.'

Responder: 'Since you are now for free speech and understand it to be used unconditionally without age restrictions or content, would you also include in the school library a book describing ways to commit suicide, how to traffic girls into prostitution, or ways to break into houses?  Or would you ban such books?'

Postmodern School Board B: 'We might.  Free speech is not a universal value.  It neither belongs to everyone nor does it apply to anyone.  It is our speech, and it applies only to what we wish.  If and when we approve of suicide, prostitution, and theft, then our freedom of speech might include such books.  But only when we say so.  For now, free speech means our right to pervert your children with sexually explicit and aberrant material in the school library.'

...

Logically, these two examples of postmodern school boards contradict each other.  However, inasmuch as they are postmodern, logical contradictions and the denial of facts are of no consequence.  The political perspective provides the only consistency.  Power is used to privilege certain social groups and suppress others.  For any still trying to figure out what 'Critical Theory' is, this is it.

The Second Week of Advent: Preparing for the peace of God

[An Advent Homily] The second Sunday in Advent carries the theme, ‘preparation for the peace of God’.   That peace comes with the birth of C...

Popular Posts