Evangelicalism or Culture…Who is Influencing Who?
Bebbington’s Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from 1730s to the 1980s is welcomed as a survey of this important part of the social and religious fabric of Britain’s history that had previously been given little attention from a scholarly perspective. His inclusion of Wales and Scotland in the integration of Britain, as well as his “middle course” definition of evangelicalism, seem to be unique in approach.[1] He defines Evangelicalism’s common core as conversionism, activism, Biblicism, and crucicentrism though these took on varying expressions and emphases among different groups during different periods.
Of particular interest to my research is how Bebbington describes the various cultural influences upon Evangelicalism since the late seventeenth century. Studying denominational reform for succeeding generations caused my attention to be drawn to the morphing of Evangelicalism and Bebbington’s perspective on the initiation, motivation and effects of such change. Was it changing in order to respond to culture or was it changing by the force of culture? Was it a reaction or escape, or was it an expression to better relate to a new generation being shaped by its culture? Which influenced the other? Wolffe argues that Bebbington’s analysis needs to be balanced by the recognition that, at least in the 19th century, “the relationship between Evangelicalism and its cultural environment was very much a two-way one.”[2]
Bebbington makes connections between Evangelicalism and the Enlightenment, Romanticism, and Modernism. In regard to the Enlightenment period he describes conservative Evangelicalism with its Biblicism as “an expression reflecting the age of reason.”[3] He argues key figures in Evangelicalism at the time such as Wesley and Edwards were being shaped by philosophers such as Locke and it was resetting Protestant thought in a new way. There were opponents to such affects such as Whitefield who held to the old style. Critics of Bebbington’s ideas believe that he has exaggerated the cerebral portrayal of Evangelicalism during this period because of its strong appeal to the uneducated, unsophisticated population. Clouse interprets this as ideas that began among the highly educated were then filtered by the group and transmitted to the lower classes.[4]
Romanticism Bebbington describes as having “an immense potential affinity for religion.”[5] The disposition based in “feeling, intuition, imagination, and inspiration, its later pessimism about the human condition and desire for escape” are clearly seen in the ethos and theological interpretation of Evangelicalism.[6] Once again, was the gospel being redefined by the cultural influences or was it simply taking on traits to be effective in the era? Bebbington does make the argument that Evangelicalism had a marked influence on British society seen in the high Victorian values which he believes “was primarily the fruit of Evangelical religion” and stated that “at least for a while, Evangelicals had remoulded British society in their own image.”[7]
Before turning to the end of the 20th Century Bebbington addresses Modernism which was portrayed as the time of self-expression. It dealt with areas of the subconscious, introspection, questioning of meaning and the emergence of Freud, Jung and Nietzsche. Community became a high value and organization and authority were called into question. This set the stage for the next version of Evangelicalism to emerge, the charismatic movement, which was expressive and spontaneous in its worship style. There was also a move toward insight and the prophetic rather than just human reason and intellect. These churches identified with the cultural movement toward community and preference for little structure and authority.
As Bebbington rounds the corner to the end of the 20th century he uses the word “resurgence” which critics say is not properly addressing the children of Evangelicals who, though raised in the faith, have turned away nor as Watts says, has he analyzed the cause of the “admitted collapse in church membership over the last thirty years.”[8] Greenshields describes these cultural effects as “the latest in the succession of mutations to evangelical belief as it changes with its context.”[9]
Walking through history with Britain’s Evangelicals and the various morphing in interpretation and expression, splintering of groups, and societal influence or lack thereof, gives a serious student of the impact of the Church on culture much to consider regarding needed reform for emerging generational engagement. One must contemplate the questions posed earlier as to motivation and purpose. Are we mutating the very salt and light through the reinterpretation of theology or just the containers so that the content is understood? Is intentional reform taking place or is the change cultural mutation or both? What should be measured to determine true influence?
I cannot help but think that Bebbington, as an Evangelical, would have strengthened his survey by honestly addressing the various critiques of Evangelicalism and shown more evidence of its influence. How did Evangelicalism speak to the issues of the day and were they seriously heard? Were there demonstrations of their beliefs that would give a more justified reason to be heard? These are the questions we must consider as Evangelicalism continues morphing, if it in fact, survives the current condition.
Seth Dowland in The Christian Century quotes Lifeway Research as saying,
“Many who call themselves evangelical don’t actually hold evangelical beliefs.” Besides reporting that fewer than 45 percent of self-identified evangelicals strongly hold to classic evangelical beliefs, the article stated that the converse is also true: a significant number of evangelical believers reject the term evangelical.[10]
Dowland makes the point that though the National Association of Evangelicals quotes Bebbington’s work as their definition, statistics are showing that people are not aligning to the historical core. Is this yet another result of culture influencing Evangelicals?
[1] John Wolffe “Late Modern — Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s by D. W. Bebbington.” History 75, no. 244 (1990): 346.
[2] Ibid.
[3] David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (Florence: Taylor and Francis, 2003), 53.
[4] Robert Clouse, “Reviews of Books — Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s by D. W. Bebbington.” The American Historical Review 96, no. 1 (1991): 165.
[5] Bebbington, 81.
[6] Malcom Greenshields, “Modern Britain — Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s by D. W. Bebbington.” Canadian Journal of History 25, no. 2 (1990): 267.
[7] Bebbington, 104, 150.
[8] Michael Watts, “Shorter Notices — Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s by D. W. Bebbington.” The English Historical Review 107, no. 424 (1992): 747.
[9] Greenshields
[10] Seth Dowland, “Making Sense of Twentieth-Century American Evangelicalism,” Reviews in American History 44, no. 1 (2016), doi:10.1353/rah.2016.0021.
About the Author
Tammy Dunahoo
Tammy is a lover of God, her husband, children and grandchildren. She is the V.P. of U.S. Operations/General Supervisor of The Foursquare Church.10 responses to “Evangelicalism or Culture…Who is Influencing Who?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post Tammy. I wonder about the label of Evangelical being used to cover such large sections of Christianity. I wonder if there is really a resurgence of Evangelicals since it does seem that the younger generation has rejected these labels and values, at least in part. Although I agree with the core values of Evangelicalism, I prefer to just be known as a Christian.
Me too!
Your question regarding Evangelicals makes me wonder about the entire faith of Christianity. So many people (especially younger demographics) do not like the title “Christian” but do feel drawn to the teaching and example of Jesus.
Mary states her preferred label. I wonder what term each of us prefers to use to describe our own beliefs?
In the past few years, so many churches in my area waded into the murky political waters, the term has less to do with the church itself, and more to do with right vs. left. People are either eager to use it because they feel it represents their conservative position, or they are hesitant to use it because they fear it would align them with a narrow political group. It is all very unfortunate and has made the evangelical issue even more complex.
Jacob, it’s always interesting to me to read again when, why and who coined the name “Christian.” Also, how the early believers were known as people of “the Way.”
Excellent post thanks Tammy. I read the various criticisms of Bebbingtons work, and most of them were bothered by his lack of engagement with the specific splinter groups, although I think his assertion that that was not his intention enables border questions to be asked about the ‘how’ of evangelicalism in its ever changing environment. It’s great you picked out the 20th century resurrgence and the critiques surrounding the children of the the 19th century. There is a human dimension missing which I think is sociological, and psychological as the expectations upon children’s generational conformity began to crumble. One hundred years later, though pastors hope their children will follow in the Way, there is less guarantee than ever, and even if they do, it will be with different feet in a different direction. In that sense I think in the short term the containers change their shape and what sits at the top of each container will be different. However, as language changes and meaning shifts, evangelicalism as a word is unlikely to be rescued in many parts of the world. I expect that with it, the associated paradigms will be reimagined too. Te last reformation is over – well and truly, the new one may not be as clearly defined nor understood as cultures daily collide in global humman movement, and identity politics pervades public conversation in what was once a monochrome socio-political and western world. It’s a complex world out there – not just for evangicals, but for all individuals tying to find their way. What’s left of the evangelical community needs a courageous rethinking if it is to have a useful voice. As Sean considered in his thought provoking post, does evangelicalism even exist? Has it ever existed? Or was it just an ever fading idea? I’m interested to know what American Evangelical thinkers are saying?
Agreed, Digby, and yes, it certainly is a complex world out there. I personally question whether evangelicalism, particularly in America, has any chance of recovering from this last season.
I have wondered if Evangelical is a preferred term and we define it as necessary within each generation. It keeps us from having to re-define Christianity, but it gives a common terminology. It doesn’t do much for consistency, but at least we can use the same term.
Thank you Tammy for your great piece. speaking to your questions, it can be realized that evangelicalism had its own line and critique for it was there. But you will notice that Beddington never wasted his time to focus on the critics of the movement but was keen to see the impact of the evangelicals. It is clear that where there is evangelism definitely there is opposition to Christianity hence to evangelize to the people. I am happy the way you have connected this with cultural perspectives.
Thanks for this post Tammy. You might get the sense that what I’m about to mention here feels like my reply to your question you wrote on my blog.
I get it, language changes. It’s unavoidable. We live in times when we’re beginning to see in overt ways people calling good evil, and evil good. Like I said earlier, the term “Christian” seemed good and appropriate. Then when Christians started behaving contrary to Scripture, church leaders legitimately became concerned, we started qualifying the label. “Are you a born again Christian?” or “Do you believe Jesus is God” kind of Christian? “I’m a follower of Christ.” And on and on it goes.
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against these terms. The issue for me is we Christians tend to be the first to excuse ourselves and apologize for being who we are due to cultural pressures. When was the last time we heard Christians used the term fornicator or adulterer? No, we’d rather use the kinder term “affair” to point out unfaithfulness in marriage.
Evangelicals and Evangelicalism had a rich and vibrant history. I think we just ought to defend and reform it, the way we defend Christianity, The Way, New Light, Jesus Follower, etc., and not jettisoning them at the first sign pressure.
I appreciate Bebbington because I hadn’t realized the label Evangelical goes all the way back in old history. Some experts even connect the term all the way to the 4th century. So nothing’s apparently changed. Just in need of deep reform.