Defining “Evangelicalism” Down
Written by Andrew T. Walker |
Wednesday, December 1, 2021
The confusion over the word “evangelicalism” and the ensuing plasticity of the label is truly tragic and leads to unhelpful categorization, theological malpractice, and no small amount of internal strife within evangelical Christianity.
With increasing frequency throughout many sectors of American culture, use of “evangelical” in social discourse is now an epithet. It is no longer just a foreign term to some, but a derisive label to many. Not only is its invocation used by those who wish to reject evangelical belief outright, but by those who claim the label of evangelical yet insist upon evangelicalism’s failure to embody Jesus’s teaching. For one group, evangelicalism is a smokescreen for hateful fundamentalism; for the other, a veneer for political aggrandizement.
Rarely, however, is the term defined with any theological precision. The way the conversation proceeds online assumes a common working definition of evangelical but rarely is it tendered or dwelt upon with any degree of nuance or caution. Broad denunciation is the order of the day. Sure, overtures to David Bebbington’s famous “Bebbington Quadrilateral” often abound in more evangelical outlets, but that has more or less receded into the background, especially as one zeroes out of immediately evangelical contexts. Instead, “evangelical” or “white evangelical” is used as an ethnographic political label. In other words, it is a tribal shibboleth where theology may matter on the margins of the term, but no longer at its center.
The confusion over the word “evangelicalism” and the ensuing plasticity of the label is truly tragic and leads to unhelpful categorization, theological malpractice, and no small amount of internal strife within evangelical Christianity.
Enter a recent column by political science Professor Ryan Burge in The New York Times. Burge’s column is fascinating on the one hand, maddening on the other, but ultimately serves to reinforce the problematic ways that social science has led to the diminishment of evangelicalism as a theological project. To be clear, my criticism is not aimed at Burge per se insofar as he’s speaking to statistical realities on their own terms, but the broader ecosystem that allows conversation around evangelicalism to persist as it does without greater introspection.
Drawing on recent findings from Pew, Burge’s column argues that rather than waning, evangelicalism’s numbers grew under the Trump presidency because of the ability for disparate factions to more broadly coalesce around evangelicalism as a politically integrated worldview. The growth, according to Burge, is because “evangelicalism” has become synonymous with Republican politics. Burge states in his own words, “What is drawing more people to embrace the evangelical label on surveys is more likely that evangelicalism has been bound to the Republican Party. Instead of theological affinity for Jesus Christ, millions of Americans are being drawn to the evangelical label because of its association with the G.O.P.”
He admits that “evangelical” is by no means synonymous with church attendance, so one can claim to be evangelical without membership in an actual church. That’s an important tell, one I will come back to later.
Burge goes on: “The second factor bolstering evangelicalism on surveys is that more people are embracing the label who have no attachment to Protestant Christianity. For example, the share of Catholics who also identified as evangelicals (or born again) rose to 15 percent in 2018 from 9 percent in 2008. That same pattern appears with Muslims. In fact, there’s evidence that the share of Orthodox Christians, Hindus and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who identify as evangelical is larger today than it was just a decade ago.”
If that sentence does not stand out, it should. According to polling data, not only are Mormons evangelical, but so are…Muslims and Hindus?
Burge then goes on to state: “Yet these non-Protestants are embracing the evangelical label for slightly different reasons. Protestants and non-Protestants have a strong affinity for the Republican Party and the policies of Donald Trump, but non-Protestant evangelicals are much more religiously devout. For instance, half of Muslims who attend services at a mosque more than once a week and align with the G.O.P. self-identify as evangelical. (Just 20 percent of Republican Muslims attend mosque once a year.) In essence, many Americans are coming to the understanding that to be very religiously engaged and very politically conservative means that they are evangelical, even if they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.”
Again, pay attention: Burge tells us that one can reject the divinity of Jesus Christ and be evangelical. This, coupled with the admission that Muslims and Hindus can be evangelical as well, ought to raise suspicion about both the term itself and the contents that go into defining the term. In fact, let me state this in the plainest of terms: Any demographic research that allows the use of “evangelical” to be applied to those who consider themselves Muslim, Hindu, or reject the divinity of Jesus Christ exhibits profound theological malpractice. If “evangelical” is, at root, a mere constellation of political affinity groups wherein Jesus Christ’s kingship is dispensed, we should ask the question: How did this come about? Is it because evangelical became a catch-call term to mean people who consider themselves Christians and who are broadly conservative in their outlook, or because the ubiquity of its usage throughout American culture necessarily led to its redefinition?
-
How to Read Wisdom Literature
One should read Wisdom Literature to learn how to discern which are “better” or “best” options in a particular situation, not necessarily what is the only “right” or “wrong” course of action. Scripture indeed provides many absolute rules regarding what is right or wrong, or what is commanded or forbidden. Yet many decisions in life involve more than just the consideration of what is right or wrong.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10; see also Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7). While there have been many insightful non-Christian teachers over the ages, all true wisdom ultimately comes “from above”—that is, from the triune God (Eph. 1:17; Col. 2:3; James 3:15, 17). Wisdom can only find its truest fulfillment in those who revere and worship the one true God.
Yet more needs to be said, because not all Christian believers display wisdom in their lives. In fact, Christian believers often act foolishly and irresponsibly, bringing shame on themselves and on the name of God (e.g., Ezek. 36:20; Rom. 2:24; 1 Cor. 6:5; 1 Cor. 15:34). Scripture says that wisdom will be given to those who ask for it (James 1:5). In particular, the Holy Spirit has inspired diverse books of wisdom such as Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes precisely for this purpose. How should a Christian read the Wisdom Literature profitably?
1. Acknowledge how easy it is to become wise in our own eyes.
First, one should read Wisdom Literature with the acknowledgment of how easy it is for sinners to become “wise in their own eyes.” The book of Proverbs often speaks of this serious problem (Prov. 3:7; 12:15; 26:5; 28:11; also Isa. 5:21). Indeed, a person “wise in his own eyes” is worse off than a biblical “fool” (Prov. 26:12). Signs of this spiritual malady include refusing to listen to the counsel of godly advisors (Prov. 26:16)—particularly one’s parents (Prov. 1:8; 4:1; 23:22; 30:17)—and an insistence on winning every argument (Eccl. 7:15–16). One should beware of a knee-jerk “doubling down” on one’s point of view when challenged by spiritually mature believers. Rather, Christians should always display a teachable spirit.
2. Look for general patterns.
Second, one should read Wisdom Literature to learn general patterns for how the world typically works, and they should act accordingly.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Editorial: Delusion & Judgment
There are rough seas ahead for those who desire to remain faithful. Some have not realised this yet and are surprised such days are upon the Church. They will learn and hopefully adapt. Their souls will survive unscathed even if their minds and bodies do not. What should we do in the meantime? By the grace of God, remain faithful.
When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he told them (and us) that before the coming of the lawless one that God would “send a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:-11-12
How else can we explain how so many have abandoned basic Christian teaching and adopted false teaching? Many of our bishops take pleasure in the unrighteous positions of the LGBT advocacy groups. A greater number of parochial clergy openly embrace sins that a generation before would have been thought universally sinful nonsense.
This is not a millenarian rant. This publication will make no prediction about the timing of the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. That said, how else can one explain why so many of our leaders cannot express basic Christian doctrine in a biblically faithful manner — other than we are in a time when God has decided to send a strong delusion to them?
Consider what comes from the mouths of so many in authority. When they say something that is nothing short of heretical with a straight-face you might well ask, “Where in the world did he get that rubbish?”
Read MoreRelated Posts:
-
Is Being Biblical and Confessional an Academic Liability?
Should we be biblical or should we be confessional? But “why not both? Both is good!” We are confessional, which means we stand in the great tradition and ask “what’s next.” And we are Biblical, which means that when we ask that question we turn to the Word of Christ, working through the Spirit, and find it both fit and suitable for the building up of the church, for the race that we are called to run.
I teach at an academic institution (Reformed Theological Seminary in Washington DC, but that’s not the point of this post, and all opinions are my own) that prides itself on being both confessional and biblical, and while those two predicates may be popular in certain circles, they are more and more seen as an academic liability. I’m guessing that if I were to go out on the streets and take a poll of what people are looking for in seminary graduate education that neither “biblical” nor “confessional” would make the top 10. I’ll go even further: narrowing the field to Christians with a high view of Scripture, I might still be hard pressed to find biblical and confessional at the top of the list. Maybe biblical, almost definitely not confessional
Why? Because in various ways both ideas are seen as a kind of academic liability. The values of the academy are progress, relevance, development, creativity, freedom of inquiry, cultural engagement, and practical skills. Now I have those values too, but I also believe that being biblical and confessional is the most robust and efficient way of meeting those goals.
Biblical
Let’s start with biblical. The problem with being principally and thoroughly biblical is obvious: the Bible is outdated and outmoded. It doesn’t address the kinds of challenges and problems that most modern Christians are struggling with. Even in evangelical circles the way we talk about the Bible betrays this attitude: we need to “make the Bible relevant.” The assumption is that it’s not relevant, at least not with some serious redecorating; it has to be made relevant.
That attitude towards the Bible usually arises out of a misunderstanding of what the Bible is. It’s not a theology textbook or a “guidebook for life.” I know that most educated evangelicals wouldn’t speak that simplistically about what the Bible is, but nevertheless that seems to be the operating assumption about how the Bible is useful, even among those with some hermeneutical sophistication. It’s useful in so far as I can mine it for theological truth or apply it in my daily life.Related Posts:
