Normalizing Away Evangelicalism
My two oldest kids have reached the point in their math studies where they are learning how to add and subtract mixed numbers like 1 4⁄5 + 2 2⁄3 = 4 7⁄15. If you can remember back to fifth grade math class the process is to find the lowest common denominator, add across, and reduce the resulting fraction. For simple numbers like the ones above this is fairly painless, but as numbers become larger and more complex the task get progressively more difficult. In computer science we do a similar thing when analyzing disparate pieces of data, we step back level by level until we find a connection between the pieces of data. This process is called normalizing the data. Sometimes it is as simple as converting minutes to seconds and other times it is like comparing apples and oranges and we have to step back to comparing them for their fruit and tree qualities. Either way normalizing data is a process that can become quite laborious, especially when the data points do not seem like they belong together.
I do not believe that Evangelicalism actually exist. I think a lot of people want to believe that there is some connection that ties this large diverse group of Christians together into a group different from other Christian groups. A lot of great work has been done in that regard, of which Bebbington’s work is among the best, but the process of normalizing the connection between all these smaller groups has gotten to the point where it overlaps other macro-groups. Clearly, I am swimming against the current with this belief, so let’s step back for a moment.
Bebbington does an admirable job of trying to find connections that bind many Christian sub-groups together. His quadrilateral is perhaps the best attempt at connecting what makes Evangelicalism a concept to be studied. Bebbington notes that since as early as 1531 there has been discussion of an Evangelical spirit.1 Ever since then there has been a push to quantify what it means to be evangelical. This process of trying to make this type of connection is another form of normalizing data. If the argument can be made that Christian group X has the same qualities as Christian group Y then they are related. The problem is that it is rare for X and Y to share all the same qualities, in which case an argument has to be made as to why X’s qualities are related to Y’s even if it’s a stretch. If that argument cannot be made then you lower the bar as to what and how many qualities are necessary to groups X and Y together. This is essentially what Bebbington has done. The first three quarters of his quadrilateral breaks down to belief in the significance of Bible, the centrality of the cross in salvation, and a focus on conversion. These three items cover most Protestant denominations other than those on the furthest extremes as well as many Catholics. The fourth item is activism which brings in a large swath of Roman Catholics, a significant chunk of the mainline protestant churches, and an increasing number of non-mainline churches.2 Essentially if you are being cynical, which I probably am, you could say that for Bebbington Evangelicalism boils down to Christianity in the western tradition. If that is true, then you have to start wondering if there is enough uniqueness to Evangelicals to make them worthy of research as a subset of the western Christian tradition.
It was not until the early 1980s that historians, Christian or otherwise, even started to recognize Evangelicalism as an area to study.3 In the nearly forty years since then there has been a flurry of activity in the study of Evangelicalism both as a movement as as a sociological category. Also in that time there has been very little consensus as to what constitutes an Evangelical other than Bebbington’s quadrilateral. All of that could be apropos of nothing if not for the fact that we continue to be told that Evangelicalism is this major movement worthy of focus and study.
As much as I do not believe that Evangelicalism as a movement exits, I do believe that people can have an evangelical spirit. There are definitely large swaths of people who hold the values of Bebbington’s quadrilateral in their hearts. Yes, I am splitting hairs here, but to quote Tom Branson, “I don’t believe in types, I believe in people.”4 I do not think there is a need to subdivide the Church in yet another way, to say these people are like this and those people are like that. I understand that for research purposes finding distinct groupings is necessary, but too often once we exit the field of research those distinctions are used as wedges to divide us more than we are already. My recommendation is that rather than looking on Evangelicalism as a grouping of denominations and churches that are separate and distinct from other denominations and churches, we should look at it as an undergirding principle of Christianity – and if you must be more specific then the western Christian tradition.
1 David William Bebbington. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. (Routledge, 2003) 13.
2 Malcolm Greenshields. “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s.” Canadian Journal of History 25, no. 2 (1990): 267.
3 Darryl G. Hart, Deconstructing evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the age of Billy Graham. (Baker Publishing Group, 2004) 35.
4 Downton Abbey, season 4, episode 8, directed by Edward Hall, aired February 16, 2014.
About the Author
Sean Dean
An expat of the great state of Maine where the lobster is cheap and the winters are brutal I've settled in as a web developer in Tacoma, Washington. As a foster-adoptive parent of 3 beautiful boys, I have deep questions about the American church's response to the public health crisis that is our foster system.12 responses to “Normalizing Away Evangelicalism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you, Sean. I have a deep appreciation for what you have written, particularly this statement: “Also in that time there has been very little consensus as to what constitutes an Evangelical other than Bebbington’s quadrilateral. All of that could be apropos of nothing if not for the fact that we continue to be told that Evangelicalism is this major movement worthy of focus and study.”
I think you present a very important concept in that movements typically require a uniting purpose and identity and it seems just the opposite has been the history of Evangelicalism. I think you are hitting a core issue, why the need to identify in a separatist manner?
Thanks Tammy. I do wonder why so much of, particularly American, Evangelicalism is a form of differentiating from other Christian groups. Why can’t it be a descriptor on top of rather than a separator from? In other words, why can’t I be an Evangelical Progressive Christian rather than it being either Evangelical or Progressive? Nonetheless, thanks for the comment.
Thank you Sean. Also, impressive work getting a Downton Abbey quote into the blog. You have set the bar very high.
You know, after the revelation that Downton was the catalyst to my greatest spiritual insight over break, I thought it necessary.
As a side note, I spent entirely too much time trying to find the exact episode that quote came out of.
And there lies the risk of quoting pop culture. Yet always so worth it.
Sean, your post is really thought-provoking and I greatly appreciate it. It resonates with me as I weary of all the separation and splintering – and I know I love Christianity – what of those that are skeptical at best? For my own research sake and to address my ignorance, I would love to hear the Christian subgroups that would not see activism as a core tenant. Thanks friend!
Andrea I think you might be intrigued by the personal piety stream/influence. There is definitely a stream where ‘action’ has been more about self-control and right personal conduct rather than action to make a difference. Obviously there is a spectrum even there, but it may be the counterpoint you are looking for.
I can’t think of much off the top of my head other than the Shakers, who I believe became extinct because of their lack of outreach.
Sean, I really love how you are bringing to the forefront the danger of categorization. There seems to me a significant difference between American Evangelicals as a group and the evangelical as an adjective. We find up here that there is often some corrective teaching needed before we can use the words ‘evangelical’ or ‘evangelism’ without people also hearing ‘American Right’. Also, during my time in Australia, I didn’t find many people using the ‘evangelical’ ‘mainline’ categories. At least in my experience, such destructive categorization wasn’t highly emphasised and resulted in much greater unity. Do you see that as a possibility in your context?
It’s true evangelicalism in the US is distinctly different from how it is understood or taught in the rest of the world. DG Hart points out that in the American context evangelicalism is a more friendly version of early 20th century fundamentalism, where as in the rest of the world it’s less specifically part of a faction of Christianity.
Hi Sean. Thanks for this. You said: “…you could say that for Bebbington Evangelicalism boils down to Christianity in the western tradition. If that is true, then you have to start wondering if there is enough uniqueness to Evangelicals to make them worthy of research as a subset of the western Christian tradition.”
In one way I do see your point. This is just plain Christianity — of course infused with our own set of cultural blinders. That wasn’t a statement of doubt or ridicule. It’s just true that we do have blind spots, biases, etc. There’s nothing wrong with so long as we try our best to identify, be open and intellectually honest about them.
However, if Bebbington is right about his Evangelical quadrilateral, then it behooves us to come to her aid because the term “Evangelicalism” currently appears to have a PR problem. Of course this is easier said than done and requires ardent prayer and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
When I speak of reforming Evangelicalism, we simply need to get back to demonstrating our love to our neighbor. The first commandment is a given. The second seems to be a struggle for us in modern times. It’s a shame that many know us for other things other than love (contra-John 13:35).
Sean,
Very thoughtful and well presented. I appreciate your concern for needless categorization and perhaps differentiation within the Church (wherever the focus is fixed.) What descriptors would you utilize for an evangelical spirit? Just curious, where would a source text such as this be found in your research? Thanks and take care.