Pillars, Puritans & Philosophers: Bebbington’s History of Evangelicalism
The way the story goes, the modern mission movement began with a refusal to listen to a command: “Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do it without your aid or mine.” Undaunted, William Carey (1761-1834)— shoemaker turned Baptist preacher and reader of adventure books— emerged as the Father of the Modern Mission movement. His sermon on Isaiah 54 (“expect great things from God; attempt great things for God”) prompted the founding of the Baptist Missionary Society, and he went on to serve as a missionary in India for the remainder of his life.
D.W. Bebbington, in his 1989 classic, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, introduces what has become the standard definition of Evangelicalism, known as “Bebbington’s quadrilateral”[1]: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism.[2] Few question these four “pillars” of Evangelicalism, and the definition is widely used to identify evangelicalism. Bebbington suggests that three of those pillars—conversionism, biblicism, and crucicentrism can be understood to have emerged from the earlier Dissenters of the State Church, the Puritans.[3] What marked Evangelicals as new and distinct from the Dissenters and High Church was their emphasis on activism. It is this activism of living their faith that prompted men (and women) such as William Carey to commit their lives to spreading the gospel to the four corners of the earth, and sparked the Modern Mission Movement and the rise of parachurch organizations seeking to reach the lost with the Good News of Jesus’ work on the cross.[4]
Bebbington argues that, while not disconnected from the earlier Reformation of Luther and Calvin, this new Evangelical movement was more influenced by empiricist philosophy and fit firmly in the emergence of the Enlightenment.[5] His argument suggests that part of Evangelicalism’s disconnect with Puritanism was centered on the doctrine of assurance; that is, confirmation (or assurance) that a person has been “saved.” While Puritans believed that “assurance is rare, late, and the fruit of struggle,” Evangelicals “believed it to be general, normally given at conversion, and the result of simple acceptance of the gift of God.”[6] This doctrine, Bebbington argues, was identified in scripture by Evangelical leaders such as Jonathon Edwards and Charles Wesley, but was ultimately confirmed by a confidence in the powers of human knowledge, as expounded by John Locke.[7] It was this confidence that led to the belief that “human beings could be the appointed agents of bringing the gospel to unevangelised nations;” in fact, that “mission was now held to be essential to Christianity.”[8]
While it might be possible to leave this post at this point, I do not yet feel as if it answers the question of this text’s usefulness to our context of Christian leaders in a post-modern globalized world. Thankfully, Bebbington continues to suggest that Evangelicalism adapted itself to (and is influenced by) its environment.[9] Romanticism and Modernism—both philosophical movements in Western civilization—influenced and shaped the Evangelicalism of their days. While the essence of what it meant to be “Evangelical” remained (Bebbington’s quadrilateral), the form and practice of it shifted in order to continually be relevant in a particular time and place.
This is precisely what the gospel and the Church are meant to do. Paul Hiebert, noted missiologist, introduced the term critical contextualization, where “the old is neither rejected or accepted uncritically. It is explicitly examined with regard to its meanings and functions in the society, and then evaluated in the light of biblical norms.”[10] While he initially coined the term for mission endeavors, we recognize its validity in “sending contexts” such as Britain and the US, as well: “In each culture Christians face new questions for which they must find biblical answers.”[11] This is just as important for Evangelicals of Britain (and the US) today, as it was for William Carey voyaging to eighteenth-century India. And Bebbington rightly understands that, while the empirical-based birth of Evangelicalism was situated in a particular time and place, the practice and beliefs of the faith needed to be continually critiqued and modified in light of the changing context. As Hiebert puts it, critical contextualization “sees contextualization as an ongoing process in which the church must constantly engage itself, a process that can lead us to a better understanding of what the Lordship of Christ and the kingdom of God on earth are about.”[12]
Bebbington concluded his masterpiece in the 1980s. Much has changed in Britain, in the US, and in the churches of those lands from that time to this. We, as Christian leaders, must understand where we’ve come from, navigate our current cultural climate, and continually re-contextualize our faith and the gospel for our present age.
[1] Timothy Larson, “The reception given Evangelicalism in Modern Britain since its publication in 1989,” in The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities, ed. Michael A.G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart (Nashville: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 25.
[2] D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1989), 3.
[3] Ibid., 35.
[4] Ibid., 40-41.
[5] Ibid. 50.
[6] Ibid. 43.
[7] Ibid. 47-48
[8] Ibid. 41 (italics mine)
[9] Ibid., 272. This, of course, is true of all philosophies and religions, and even streams of Christianity.
[10] Hiebert, Paul G. “Critical contextualization.” Missiology 12, no. 3 (July 1984): 290.
[11] Hiebert, Paul G. “Critical contextualization.” International Bulletin Of Missionary Research 11, no. 3 (July 1987): 108.
[12] Ibid., 111.
About the Author
Katy Drage Lines
In God’s good Kingdom, some minister like trees, long-standing, rooted in a community. They embody words of Wendell Berry, “stay years if you would know the genius of the place.” Others, however, are called to go. Katy is one of those pilgrims. A global nomad, Katy grew up as a fifth generation Colorado native, attended college & seminary and was ordained in Tennessee, married a guy from Pennsylvania, ministered for ten years in Kenya, worked as a children’s pastor in a small church in Kentucky, and served college students in a university library in Orange County, California. She recently moved to the heart of America, Indianapolis, and has joined the Englewood Christian Church community, serving with them as Pastor of Spiritual Formation. She & her husband Kip, have two delightful boys, a college junior and high school junior.8 responses to “Pillars, Puritans & Philosophers: Bebbington’s History of Evangelicalism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you, Katy. I think ‘critical contextualization’ is coming up next!
I think Dr. Bebbington is still alive. I wonder what he would say about evangelicals in the US? It makes me sad that the term is seen as pejorative for white protestant republicans. How did that happen?
I think you are right that Christians need to learn from their history and be ready to work in the Kingdom of God where the people are.
Great analysis Katy. I’ve had to wrestle with the question of how far should contextualization go? At what point in the contextualization
graph do we move so far from the true expression of faith and the scriptures that it ceases to be the “truth?” What do you think?
Many suggest that contextualization is a pendulum swing, and, as you suggest, we have to find a balance. One extreme is attempting to import everything that is identified as “Christian” into a receiving context. The other extreme of the pendulum is complete acquiescence of the gospel & lordship of Jesus to the context. In the case of Evangelicalism in Britain, this “import” would actually be from the PAST (rather than a different culture). In other words, a resistance to change, a refusal to reinterpret the gospel for the current context. And as you say, finding a balance, a “sweet spot”. My short answer (as mentioned in previous posts) would be that critical contextualization take place in a hermeneutical community; the local church.
Katy, well done! Thank you for this inspiring post. It is so validating to hear a missionary say she agrees with the concept of evangelism shifting to be culturally relevant. I have always believed this but felt I was maybe lacking the integrity to the gospel when we don’t insist that culture bends to fit the evangelical mold instead of insisting that evangelicals bend to fit the cultural mold. I agree when you said this is precisely what the church and culture are meant to do. Your opening quote reminded me of the importance of practicing the scripture: “Be still and know that I am God”. I believe this is the greatest action we can take in being a light to our world.
LOL Ned Flanders is the poster child for Evangelicalism in America. I used to love to watch his character every time Homer did something sacrilegious.
Great insights Katy in your reflection! Critical contextualization is a create way to conceptualize what we need to do. It is true that it is an ongoing process to be able to continue to see what is taking place in our society and seek biblical Truth and application.
Although there are those who do not agree with contextualization, I see it as something we have to do with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told parables that made the scripture relevant to the culture and times in which his ministry existed. I feel as though He gave us a great example of how to apply contextualization. While in the temple he read directly from the scrolls but in the streets he preach the Gospel in a way to draw those who were less familiar with the written scriptures.
Thanks for your great analysis. I love your points about contextualization, Katy. What is the point of our theology and ministry if it only addresses a western, eurocentric society, especially when the Scriptures we base our theologies on did not come from that perspective? In our attempts to be “in the world but not of it” are we ignoring the way the gospel reaches into any context if the story is told in a way that is understood?
Katy,
I – like everyone else – really appreciate your analysis on critical contextualization. The Reformed tradition frames this idea as ‘reformed and always reforming’
That is often used in terms of our personal faith development – but I think it is equally important for us as churches as we seek to share the timeless and unchanging truth and good news of God’s love for us with an ever-changing world and culture.
It does bring up the question that Jim raises of ‘how far is too far’ – but that is where I think we need to be. Remembering of course that Jesus himself didn’t seemed too concerned with breaking convention and tradition, both in practice and understanding.
Thanks for the post.
Thanks for a great reflection on evangelicalism’s cultural shifts. Christian faith can only be lived out in a cultural context. That is the genius of the incarnation, that we live out our faith in whatever cultural context we find ourselves. If we build up walls to imagine we can somehow separate ourselves for the sake of protecting the faith, we have missed the point of the Good News and the incarnation. Great theology demands that we respond to the questions of the local context. Since culture is always changing, we must always be in a process of recontextualization, reform, revitalization!