Strange, yet familiar differences – Evangelicals united, sort of.
In what may be one of the greatest understatements of our time, D. W. Bebbington notes, “Evangelical religion in Britain has changed immensely during the two and a half centuries of its existence” (269). Although Evangelicals may argue that they have remained consistent throughout history and have remained bearers of truth, the reality is that Evangelicalism has ebbed and flowed, split and fractured, and transformed with the culture.
Bebbington notes that Evangelicalism has remained consistent in that, throughout time, four consistent qualities have remained hallmarks of the religion. Conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism have remained the “quadrilateral” of Evangelicalism (2). While these have remained consistent, the way in which they are emphasized, interpreted, and lived have shifted and changed over time. Activism, for example, has meant different things at different times, be it evangelism, care for the oppressed (social justice), or missions emphases. There have been times when Evangelicalism emphasized biblicism over all else, and times that conversionism has been emphasized. As much as Evangelicals may not want to admit it, culture has influenced the ebb and flow of the religion, be it in reaction to the culture or cultural pressures causing change.
I have to say that Bebbington’s review of Evangelicalism, while interesting, involved a great deal of review for me. That being said, it raised some thoughts in me about what Evangelicalism has become, how varied Evangelicalism is and always has been, and how this “ism” with which I have identified my whole life means something different to me than it likely does to the person sitting next to me in church.
For most of my life I have been a part of Wesleyan-Holiness Evangelicalism. In my upbringing, that meant that the Bible and the Cross inspire me to activism such as caring for those on the margins, fighting for justice, and pursuing God’s multi-faceted Kingdom. Conversionism is most certainly about a personal reconciliation, but the natural outgrowth of that is working toward community and creation reconciliation. I suppose I always knew that not everyone in my tradition or even in my church saw it the same way, but it came as a shock to me to realize that some of my brothers and sisters did not see community or creation reconciliation as crucial, didn’t necessarily see fighting for justice as a mandate, and all but worshipped the Bible, almost above Christ. Reading Bebbington helped me see how this is possible. The schisms, shifts, and variations in early Evangelicalism in Britain and in America have created a heritage of differences that masquerade as consistencies under the same umbrella. Rather than frustrating me, this actually gives me a deeper understanding of where our differences come from and compassion for the differences in others’ perspectives. Just as siblings in a family can have vastly different political and religious ideologies despite being raised by the same parents, Evangelicals can sit in the same congregations and have vastly different views about what it means to follow Christ.
I am a little blown away by the fact that “activism” means so many different things to Evangelicals, especially those of us who are a part of the Holiness traditions. I had never really thought that people would see the activism portion of our quadrilateral as being about pursuit of conversions. I always thought it was about serving the poor and oppressed, loving people without limits, and sharing the love of Christ with the understanding that the Spirit will draw people to Christ. Bebbington’s work shows me how people have come to the idea that conversion is the foundation and ultimate pursuit. I may not agree with them, but I definitely have a better understanding.
About the Author
Kristin Hamilton
14 responses to “Strange, yet familiar differences – Evangelicals united, sort of.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great interaction with the book, Kristin, especially the topic of “activism”.
As a member of the Reformed tradition there has always been more emphasis on the written Word. In my congregation activism seems to be making sure everyone has learned their catechism!
It has been a struggle for me to find the balance between the two aspects of the Gospel clearly modeled by Jesus Who PREACHED and WENT ABOUT HEALING.
I agree with you that Bebbington did a good job explaining where the differences have come from.
That makes total sense, Mary. It’s interesting that the Methodists value a form of catechism as well, but it involves a lot of history mixed with the Scripture. This catechism leads to a very social gospel in which activism is about helping the marginalized. I grew up with that catechism, then went to a church where the Word and evangelism were a major emphasis. I experienced quite a bit of cognitive dissonance until I experienced the Nazarene church and Church of God, Anderson, who value both.
I also took pause when I read Bebbington’s discussion of “activism.” I mainly think that this is because the term “activism” today is seen as a political term more than a theological one. As a pastor who leads my church in both evangelism and care for the poor, I have always tried to have a holistic approach to ministry. If we share the message of Christ to a hungry man without feeding him, we are not really sharing the gospel. If we give clean water to a thirsty sinner, without offering living water, how can we say that we are being like Jesus?
Being the hands and feet of Jesus in the world involves both physical “activism” and eternal “activism.”
This holistic approach you describe, Stu, is what I have experienced in the Wesleyan Holiness traditions. Lately there is a bit of a shift away from social activism in these traditions, which breaks my heart. We need this holistic view.
Kristin, great post. Being trained as a social worker, I lean towards your view of activism. Taking care of the poor, and advocating for social justice. Although this was not what I was raised with as a Christian. I was raised that activism was defined as conversion, which I didn’t and still don’t readily agree with. I like the passage in scripture where Jesus talks about if someone asks you for bread, give it to him/her. Don’t try to convert them, pray with them or any other “relgious act”. True religion is caring for the orphans and widows and feeding the poor, yet we have often forgotten this as being spiritual or religious. Your post was a great reminder and thoughtfully written about this dilemma. Thank you for raising awareness to this.
I agree, Jen! I believe the love we show people by meeting their needs and loving them without condition allows the Holy Spirit to work in their hearts and minds wherever needed. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t “be prepared to give an answer” or speak up when the Spirit prompts, but love shouldn’t be transactional – I will feed you if you will listen to me share the gospel.
Kristin I enjoyed reading your personal reflections on your engagement with the text and as a Wesleyan-Holiness Evangelical. Two things stood out to me as I read your post. The first is the changes of Evangelicalism over time. You stated this so well “the reality is that Evangelicalism has ebbed and flowed, split and fractured, and transformed with the culture.” The more sobering reality for me is the “split and fractured” affect of cultural influences. I think about what is taking place within Evangelicalism in America and we are living in the midst of that divide. The divide has caused us to not have a unified approach to activism. A lot of people today would have a hard time associating activism with Evangelical. That is disheartening.
Furthermore, the the political climate in our country has caused an even greater fracture in our Evangelical community. “Just as siblings in a family can have vastly different political and religious ideologies despite being raised by the same parents, Evangelicals can sit in the same congregations and have vastly different views about what it means to follow Christ.” This is so true. We have to not only acknowledge that we have differences but be able to sit at the table with each other and listen to one another. Through listening we can gain an understanding and can work towards healing and restoration. Until then we will continue to inhibit our ability to transformative agents in our world.
Yes, Christal! Conversation is key. I keep wondering how we can banish the gatekeepers and have real conversations about what it means to love Jesus and to love people like Jesus loves them. Are the differences really so great that we can’t get on the same page to love people?
Kristin, as always, a good, thought-provoking post. As I thought about your points on activism, I wondered about the influence of individualism and it’s prominence in western thought and culture.
Western society seems to value individualism and what I might call ‘rebel leadership’… So we value less and less community (no matter how much we need it), so we don’t automatically see the value in reaching out and helping others.
In the mixing of western culture and Christianity the focus is on our ‘individual’ or ‘personal’ faith. So that activism morphs from helping others to – to put it in 21st century terms – gain more followers.
Does that make sense?
That makes total sense to me, Chip. I think the “I’m right and you’re wrong” is rooted deeply in the individualism. We don’t care about community in the way of the early church or even the church of early America. We evaluate success by counting memberships or “persons saved” instead of people helped, lives changed, and relationships built or restored. How do we change this?
I definitely think it is a case of “both…and” when it comes to sharing and demonstrating the love of God in practical terms and seeking to clearly pronounce and share the good news of the gospel. Denominations and organisations such as the Salvation Army and the YMCA grew out of a desire to address both issues, and have lost something of their raison d’etre and the power of their early years where they have moved away from this dual approach.
I completely agree, Geoff. Proclaiming the gospel without relationship is a cold, shallow approach. Presenting care without the love of Christ (and sharing the gospel if prompted by the Spirit) is simply social work – it helps people but doesn’t give them what they ultimately need.
“The schisms, shifts, and variations in early “Evangelicalism in Britain and in America have created a heritage of differences that masquerade as consistencies under the same umbrella. Rather than frustrating me, this actually gives me a deeper understanding of where our differences come from and compassion for the differences in others’ perspectives.”
This comment is well-written, encouraging and hope-full.
Thanks Katy. As much as I would love to give up on Evangelicalism, I still have hope for her.