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.
Comments