Continuity and Discontinuity
In the weeks leading up to Christmas, churches of every stripe were getting ready for the big day. The sanctuary was decorated, special services were added, pageants were rehearsed, the choir filled in nicely, and preachers sought to say something meaningful on a night that is called holy.
And one of the questions that hung in the air was, “will they come?” Will they come as they did last year? Will they come as they do every year? Christmas Eve is a time for the “perennials” to show up. Those who are sometimes derisively referred to as “CEO’s” (Christmas, Easter Only). Those who grew up in the church or who live in the town or who are just looking for some “holiday spirit”. In any case, they are always with us, whether active or absent. You can count on them showing up again and again.
This is the basic way that most people think about what we call “Evangelical Christianity”. That it is a “hardy perennial”, something that has been present and accounted for in every age of Christian history and that, in some form, crops up again and again. Kenneth J. Stewart points out that, “the evangelical Christianity we associate with the century of the Wesley brothers, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards but also – for that matter with the next century of George Muller, D.L. Moody and J.C. Ryle, and the century just past – the Billy Graham era, stood in an unbroken succession of vital Christianity extending backwards to at least the Reformation of the sixteenth century and perhaps beyond.”[1]
In this sense, the “gospel successionism” (or the continuous handing on) of “Evangelical Christianity” would indicate a deep continuity with everything that came before it. And yet, in his classic study of the subject, “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain”, David Bebbington lays out a different argument.
He claims that “although ‘evangelical’, with a lower-case initial, is occasionally used to mean, ‘of the gospel’, the term ‘Evangelical’, with a capital letter, is applied to any aspect of the movement beginning in the 1730’s. There was much continuity with earlier Protestant traditions, but…. Evangelicalism was a new phenomenon of the eighteenth century.”[2]
To define this term “Evangelical”, which is more specific than the broader “evangelical” (of the gospel), Bebbington offers what has come to be known as “the Bebbington Quadrilateral.” He writes “There are four qualities that have been the special marks of Evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; Biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism.”[3]
One of the contributions that Bebbington is making with this presentation is his insight that the “Evangelical” church in Britain is not simply a continuation of the development of Protestantism. It is, instead, something new (not old), something different from what came before (not a continuation of the same), and something that arises in response to a particular set of social challenges (not just to the ever-present, perennial ones).
In fact, as Charlie Phillips argues, Bebbington’s work is an “important part of a fresh advance of scholarship that described evangelicalism not in opposition to but as an extension of the Enlightenment… evangelicalism is, despite its self-perception, a radically modern form of Christianity.”[4]
This is a statement that would scandalize and confuse many contemporary “Evangelical” Christians, both in Britain and in the United States. This is because 21st century Evangelical Christians often view themselves the same way that 19th or 20th century Evangelical Christians did. As simply being heirs to the “original” or “biblical” expression of Christianity. He writes, “it was supposed at that time, by friend and foe alike, that conservatives stood for traditional, received views.”[5]
And in a way, this how every religious tradition wants to see itself. As operating faithfully within the original framework as it was intended, or at least, renewing the covenant. Saint Paul writes to the church in Corinth, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you…”[6] Paul’s claim is that there is authentic power in the way that he is leading, teaching, and living his faith, because it is derived closely from the words, teaching and practices of Jesus himself.
One of David Bebbington’s most controversial arguments is that, “the Evangelical Revival represents a sharp discontinuity in the Protestant tradition.”[7] Over against the idea that the so called “quadrilateral” of core beliefs represent the true distillation of the Christian faith, Bebbington pushes the reader to see that this is a movement that emerges from a particular time with a specific set of needs.
I cannot help but overlay this reading of the history from 19th century Britain onto our own time and circumstances. In many ways, the contours of religious disagreement, especially between so called “Mainline Christians” and “Evangelical Christians” are much the same as they were in previous centuries. This reading from Bebbington is encouraging because it helps us not to become myopic, or to think that our particular moment is the only one that has faced these challenges.
It is also helpful in the ongoing debates of our age (at least among my tribe) because it gives a recall toward humility. Every religious tradition wants to claim a certain level of continuity with the past, especially with the “great tradition” on which we stand. And yet, no one gets it fully right. No one owns the Gospel. No one can draw lines in ink, where they deserve to only be written in pencil.
I will continue to be a “small-e” evangelical, and to strive for greater understanding, shared ministry and mutual forbearance with my capital E, Evangelical sisters and brothers.
[1] Kenneth J. Stewart, “Did evangelicalism predate the 18th century? An examination of David Bebbington’s thesis,” The Evangelical Quarterly 70, no. 2 (April 2005): 135, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.georgefox.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=16&sid=e9198243-016b-4e07-9598-33b270f54bf9%40sessionmgr101 (accessed January 11, 2018).
[2] D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism In Modern Britain: A history from the 1730’s to the 1980’s (London: Routledge, 2002), 1.
[3] D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism In Modern Britain: A history from the 1730’s to the 1980’s (London: Routledge, 2002), 3.
[4] Charlie Phillips, “Roundtable: Re-Examining David Bebbington’s ‘Quadrilateral Thesis’,” Fides et historia47, no. 1 (Winter/Spring 2015): 44, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.georgefox.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=e9198243-016b-4e07-9598-33b270f54bf9%40sessionmgr101 (accessed January 11, 2018).
[5] D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism In Modern Britain: A history from the 1730’s to the 1980’s (London: Routledge, 2002), 183.
[6] 1 Cor. 11:23 (New International Version).
[7] D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism In Modern Britain: A history from the 1730’s to the 1980’s (London: Routledge, 2002), 74.
About the Author
Dave Watermulder
7 responses to “Continuity and Discontinuity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks, Dave, I like how you applied the reading to the present. And this: “And yet, no one gets it fully right.” Really good insight that should keep us humble. Our pastor in the states used to say “A denomination is just a group of people who all agree to be wrong about the same stuff.” In other words, as since you said, no one gets it fully right, we’re all getting some of it wrong.
Do you have any insights with how this fits into your project?
Hi Dave,
Interesting beginning, and solid ending. Well done.
I appreciated your definition of evangelical, ‘of the gospel’ and I believe you and I are in one accord. In fact, the head of our denomination says evangelicals (or Evangelicals) are “People of the Good News” which is the same as “Gospel”.
You also made me think personally about humility. I wanted to ask you, in your interactions with me, am I humble? Be honest, because I value your words. If I am not humble, I think it hinders me being a person of the Good News, the Gospel…
Hi Dave,
It seems to me that evangelicalism was birthed within a modern environment, as a child of the Enlightenment. Today with our postmodern shift, modernism is crumbling, and with it so is evangelicalism. It has been a useful vehicle for the gospel in the 17-20th century period.
But I don’t think this means the end of the church. Far from it. I believe God is faithful, and He has created the church to express His life and love on earth. But it will look different as new expressions of church are birthed in our postmodern context. I’m exploring this on the edge of Canada in #themiddleofeverywhere, in rural New Brunswick.
Dave,
Loved your opening discussion of CEOs. I once was a CME (Christmas, mothers day and Easter) myself before finding faith in Christ.
I agree most in my denomination would consider themselves of the direct line of the original baptist, John. I have always found this a bit odd. I appreciate your historical viewpoint and the conclusion”I will continue to be a “small-e” evangelical, and to strive for greater understanding, shared ministry and mutual forbearance with my capital E, Evangelical sisters and brothers.”
Jason
Great post Dave! You have a way with words and this statement was profound: “Every religious tradition wants to claim a certain level of continuity with the past, especially with the “great tradition” on which we stand. And yet, no one gets it fully right. No one owns the Gospel. No one can draw lines in ink, where they deserve to only be written in pencil.” I couldn’t agree more and I think if we could draw more lines in pencil we would have a more unified body of Christ. Curious how you approach this issue with your congregation?
Thanks for your post, Dave. Good stuff. I appreciate your word on reminding your readers that our arguments today largely mirror those of the past and all along the way. This relieves anxiety. I’m curious how you described yourself as lowercase “e”, which I understand and makes sense, but in what ways are you not uppercase “E”? Thanks for your thoughtful post brother!
Dave,
Thanks for your post. The implication in successionism is just what you say; that we purportedly are standing on the foundation laid out by 300 years of tradition. Yet, in Bebbington’s text we clearly see that even the original Evangelical movement was diverse and often discordant, despite his efforts to tie the movement together with his 4 tenets.
I think you are correct in the understanding that all Christians like to believe that they are representing the original and biblical interpretation of the Christian witness. This is what makes the disagreements so polarizing. There is a sense that all of us can’t be right and therefore we must convince others that ours is the correct viewpoint or risk committing ourselves to a lesser form of faith.
Thanks for doing your best to walk the line between the small e and the big E and be a humble communicator to both communities.