The Spread of Evangelicalism
In an article published yesterday by Christianity Today, the author, Richard Mouw discusses the recent claim of NY Times columnist, Ross Douthat, who argued that western evangelicalism is heading for a “crackup.” Mouw writes, “The more dramatic gap, as Douthat sees it, is between, on the one hand, the elites—‘evangelical intellectuals and writers, and their friends in other Christian traditions,’—and those millions of folks, on the other hand, who worship in evangelical churches.”[1] Douthat (who we will be reading later this semester) and Mouw are American evangelical heavyweights who have joined with countless other scholarly evangelicals who are seeking to understand the dynamics of evangelical support for Trump. The article is part of a CT series called, “Evangelical Distinctives in the 21st Century,” seeking to understand the meaning and place of western evangelicalism in today’s world. Douthat maintains a rather bleak outlook, claiming that the evangelical support for rightist causes in the 2016 election shows that evangelical sociology has never actually been committed to intellectual rigor. What will happen, he predicts, is that the smaller group of evangelical intellectual elites will split from the vast majority of evangelical nationalists. Mouw maintains a more optimistic outlook by rejecting Douthat’s claim that the evangelical intellectual leaders are far removed from the folks in the pews. Mouw uses Fuller as an example of an institution that maintains rigorous intellectual commitments along with grassroots connection, to prove his point. Perhaps the same could be said for Portland Seminary.
However it is that we seek to understand western evangelicalism today—from Brexit to Trump—we are wise to keep the early 20th century Fundamentalist—Modernist Controversy in view, for many of evangelicalism’s factions find their origin here. Bebbington’s book, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, chronicles the history of the evangelical movement over the past three centuries in Great Britain. The author generously describes the spread of evangelicalism as a cross-denominational movement, and therefore does not limit his discussion to the Church of England. While his focus is on Modern Britain, it was unavoidable for the author to ignore evangelicalism’s parallel spread in North America. With insight and sensitivity to the many moving pieces of his research, the author provides an historical perspective which helps bring correctives for evangelical critics who criticize the movement as thoughtless and narrow, and for “blind” or “purist” evangelicals who are unable to see the reality of strong cultural influences on historical and current evangelical commitments.
The evangelical characteristics described by the author are the same throughout the western world (Europe and North America): conversionism, activism, Biblicism, crucicentrism.[2] In his chapter, titled, “Walking Apart: Conservative and Liberal Evangelicals in the Early Twentieth Century,” the author writes about the spread of liberal theology among Anglican Evangelicals, which came with the rise of biblical criticism: “Although it still deliberately avoided the word ‘liberal’ in its title for fear of causing offence, the movement was associated with a collection of essays entitled Liberal Evangelicalism and issued a set of fifty-three pamphlets to publicise the same position. ‘It is the mind of Christ, not the letter of Holy Scripture, which is authoritative’, runs the introduction to Liberal Evangelicalism.[3]
In my context, I have recently begun a journey of leading our church’s elders through NT Wright’s book, Scripture and the Authority of God, which interestingly, makes the same claim about the Scripture’s relative authority which points to the ultimate authority of God himself. Our group of both conservative and liberal evangelicals at John Knox Presbyterian Church in Seattle in 2018 mirror the discussions that were taking place a hundred years ago, related to the authority of Scripture, science, and social issues. While the changes and shifts to evangelicalism in Britain over these centuries are many and varied, as the author does well to describe in detail and nuance, some of the challenges of evangelicalism remain the same, most notably, the question of how it will adapt once again to the changing times. The question that I am looking at in my context today, is whether there is still a place for evangelicalism within mainline congregations, or whether the characteristics of evangelicalism as described by Bebbington will find their home outside a more unified liberal mainline expression. This, I hope does not happen as I believe it will reduce the church to the duality of our political party system. But, I also acknowledge that I write from the perspective of a more liberal evangelical (although I’m not comfortable with the word “liberal” or “conservative” for that matter).
What’s obvious about evangelicalism from its inception until now is its elusive nature. I recently engaged an email debate with NY Times columnist from Yale Divinity School. The way she used the term “evangelical” was consistent with its political definition but not its theological definition. I pointed out to her that many of the leaders who she was referring to as “evangelical” would be better categorized as “fundamentalist,” such as Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson. I suggested that evangelical leaders would rather include Rich Mouw, Ross Douthat, Tim Keller, Mark Labberton, and Russell Moore, to name a few. I suppose one of the key distinctives around these two groups would be their understanding of Scripture’s authority, which then shapes how one reads Scripture. When Scripture’s authority is understood narratively, it leads to a categorically different witness than if the Bible is understood and applied literally (or “inerrantly”). A narrative view of Scripture makes space for improvisation, imagination, and an eschatological vision that comes to bear on the present. A literal / inerrant understanding of the Bible, which predicts a more grim view of God’s future, does not encourage improvisation or imagination in the same way as narrative readers of the Bible. The NY Times columnist from Yale Divinity rejected my criticism and chose to stick with painting evangelicals with one broad brush. Perhaps my critique and assumptions are too simplistic, but as Bebbington made clear, there is no authority structure to unify evangelicalism or offer theological correction in the name of “Evangelicalism.” In fact, my debate with the NY Times columnist was a futile effort on my part to accurately define what neither I, nor anyone else, has the authority to define. Rich Mouw doesn’t get to define evangelicalism any more or less than Pat Robertson. The question for our church community today is to discern our relationship with this term going forward. Do we claim it for ourselves, offer a definition that is consistent with our particular variety of evangelicalism, and then seek to live into it, or do we abandon the term because we’d prefer not to be labeled with the nationalist label that the media has so generously given to the term, “Evangelical?” Although this is not a new question by any stretch, it has become highlighted once again, post-2016 U.S. presidential election.
[1] Richard Mouw, “The Unlikely Crackup of Evangelicalism,” Christianity Today, January 3, 2018, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/unlikely-crack-up-of-evangelicalism.html (accessed January 4, 2018).
[2] D W. Beddington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1988), 9.
[3] Members of the Church of England, “Liberal Evangelicalism: An Interpretation,” in Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, D W. Beddington, (London: Routledge, 1988), 324.
About the Author
Chris Pritchett
8 responses to “The Spread of Evangelicalism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Loved your final thoughts Chris.
How cool you were engaging with the NY Times writers. That’s ambitious!
You’re right that Evangelicalism has been blurred all around. I think in many ways Evangelicalism means the same thing today as “protestant.” And to some, it probably just means “Christian.”
Interestingly enough most AG Pastors I know consider Pentecostalism to be evangelical, however, the Pentecostal scholars I have been reading classify Pentecostalism as it’s own branch separate than Evangelicalism.
This means two things to me. First, not even pastors know what is meant by evangelical. Second, attempting to relabel oneself something other than evangelical hasn’t seemed to work so far.
Hi Chris,
Congratulations on being the first to Blog in the new year. Well done.
Interestingly, our General Superintendent is wanting us to read the same book you referenced, “NT Wright’s book, Scripture and the Authority of God.”
When I first cracked the cover, I realized I may not be smart enough to read it. You, on the other hand, can do this well.
How do I balance my childlike brain with your intellectual abilities? I don’t expect you to really answer that, but I hope you take it as a compliment…
Great post Chris! Your discussion on the authority of scripture and how crucial that issue is when it comes to evangelicalism is powerful. I also agree with you that the changing nature of the church needs to decide how it will categorize itself in the bigger context of evangelicalism. I’m curious what has come out of your discussion surrounding scripture with your church elders.
Thanks for your comment, Jake. We just started the book as elders and pastors but have a retreat coming up next weekend where we’ll dig into it a little more. I’ll keep you posted!
For me, Bebbington’s book was a confirmation that Evangelicalism was as difficult to define in the past as it is now. The threads that make up the movement continue to be diverse as your post recognizes in the tension found in the role and interpretation of scripture.
What is helpful, I guess, is that Bebbington highlights the historical breadth and depth of the movement from inception, clarifying some of what we see in our contemporary Western Christianity. Labels are both helpful and limiting and your dialogue with the columnist serves to underscore that truth. Yet, if we choose to use no labels, either for ourselves or movements to which we adhere, in an attempt to be open and inclusive, we likely only cause further confusion and misunderstanding. I am hopeful that the work you are doing with your eldership will be beneficial in rediscovering the core of the faith for your entire community.
Chris,
Phenomenal post to begin 2018 with! Thank you!
I agree, it all seems to boil down to how we view Scripture. Evangelicals weren’t always fundamentalists, nor did they always interpret as literally as we see some strands of evangelicalism doing in the past 150 years.
I’m grateful on my journey to have been introduced to Christians that have an imagination, to not fear metaphor or imagery. Leonard Sweet was one early one – his name associated with George Fox gave me an initial good first impression of our school. Another early one for me was Brian McLaren. I find it fascinating that he has degrees in English Lit and not Theology – it is the storytellers who have caught our imagination and are able to place Christianity within our postmodern world.
Chris,
Your current conversation with your church and your dialogue with the reporter obviously make this a very timely topic for you. I appreciate your contextualization of Bebbington and your wrestling with the place of evangelicalism today as it is a slippery topic. I was initially glad for a definition from the text but later found it becoming an amalgam of so many variations it is not hard to see where we are at today, especially without the authority structure there. Do you find you would like evangelicalism to be more clearly defined today? Also, have you given any thought to what it would look like if there were authorities to hold a definition in place? Perhaps someone like Mouw?
Thanks for your comment, Trisha. I don’t know that I’d like evangelicalism to be defined as much as I’d like for it to be properly separated from any political party. I have not really given much thought to an authority structure for Evangelicalism. However, there was an attempt by Mouw and others to take charge, and they wrote an Evangelical Manifesto in 2008 and got lots of signatures from prominent Evangelicals. I feel like this is the closest thing we have to an Evangelical constitution in America. It is interesting, but no one to “enforce” it. http://evangelicalmanifesto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf