What Does it Mean to be Evangelical? A Review of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

On September 17, 1915, while speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, B.B. Warfield lamented the confusion regarding the term “evangelical”:

"The religious terrain is full of the graves of good words which have died from lack of care—they stand as close in it as do the graves today in the flats of Flanders or among the hills of northern France. And these good words are still dying all around us. There is that good word “Evangelical.” It is certainly moribund, if not already dead. Nobody any longer seems to know what it means."

Nearly 100 years later, Warfield’s dilemma has worsened. The diversity of those who would claim to be “evangelical Christians" has increased to the point that the label seems meaningless.  If one disagrees with the historic understanding of the gospel or evangelicalism, one simply redefines the term to make it mean what they want it to mean.  As one pastor, when asked if he was an Evangelical, put it:

I embrace the term evangelical,” he remarked, “if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

Unfortuantley, that's not what we mean, at least not historically.  While those sentiments are nice, that definition can just as easily be applied to a Peace Corp volunteer as an evangelical.

Complicating the problem, the term evangelical is sometimes used as a pejorative in the public sphere. For example, evangelicals are caricatured in the political realm as anti-intellectual and anti-freedom; individuals who want to impose their religious beliefs on others while failing to meet their physical needs.

Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Stanley Gundry, provides a valuable resource for those who want to understand how those who identify themselves as evangelical define the term.

Kevin Bauder provides a Fundamentalist perspective on what it means to be evangelical. He doesn't defend hyper-fundamentalism but instead the idea that the gospel “draws the boundary of Christian fellowship” and believes that Christians should also separate from those who fail to draw those boundaries (but he's really nice about it).  

Al Mohler argues for something Confessional evangelicalism. He maintains that adherence to certain beliefs define an evangelical.  To deny those core beliefs places one outside the boundaries of evangelicalism.

John Stackhouse considers himself a Generic evangelical.  He maintains that there are distinctive features to evangelicalism but wants the tent to be large enough so that we can “all feel we are authentic evangelicals.”

Roger Olson, promoting a position called Post-Conservative evangelicalism, believes that there are not boundaries to the evangelical movement but rather a center. In other words, there are core beliefs that can be considered "evangelicalism", but no one who desires to be considered part of the movement can be excluded.

This book will not solve the dilemma of what it means to be evangelical. In fact, it sheds far more light on the theological perspective of the individual authors than the issue of what it means to be evangelical.

While I had expected to be irritated by Bauder's fundamentalims, I found myself largely in agreement with much of what he wrote.  Unfortunatley, his insistence on "secondary separation" (the idea that we must separate from those who refuse to separate from those who undermine the gospel) is a bridge too far for me. 

I found Stackhouse an interesting read but extremely confusing. He seemed confused himself on what he was willing to call evangelical and what he must be forced to admit fell outside the boundaries of evangelicalism.

I disagree with Olson in terms of what ought to be true of evangelicals, but I found myself admitting that he was at least correct in a practical sense. As much as I believe that the term evangelical should be reserved for those who profess the evangel, the gospel, it is hard to deny that the term has grown to include those who deny significant truths related to the gospel. In this sense, Olson is right. Evangelicalism is not an institution but a movement.

But Olson arrives at an understanding of evangelicalism that empties the word of any real meaning. As he admits:

So, how…do I define evangelical and evangelicalism? I’m tempted to say, paraphrasing a Supreme Court justice, that while I can’t define who is an evangelical, I know one when I meet one. . . . I refuse to talk about evangelical boundaries or about anything approaching an evangelical magisterium. I value its movement character and its diversity as well as its unity (182).

This will not do. For a term to have meaning, sometimes it must have both positive and negative value. When we classify something, we are not only saying what it is, we are simultaneously saying what it is not. A chair is not a window. A book is not car. Defining something necessitates limitations.

Like Bauder, Mohler argue for a definition that is more theological than sociological.  I agree with him when he writes: “Evangelicalism is coherent as movement only if it is also known for what it is not. Attention to the boundaries is as requisite as devotion to the center. . . . Our task is to be clear about what the gospel is and is not” (210).

The hope I have is not that we will preserve some arbitrary term.  My prayer is that we will rightly define evangelical so that we will maintain clarity in our presentation of the good news of Jesus Christ.

The Manhattan Declaration

Recently, the president of the seminary I attend sent out an email discussing why he signed a document entitled, "The Manhattan Declaration." I was unfamiliar with the document and so I read his blog post Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration and checked out the document.

As much as I respect Dr. Mohler and many of the other signers of the document, I think they made a mistake in signing it. My email update to the church this week describes why:

{UPDATE: One signer clarifies his position: Kevin DeYoung's blog, TeamPyro weigh in: Nineteen Questions }.

Dear Bethany Community,

I am passionately, unashamedly, and whole-heartedly pro-life. So, when someone suggested to me recently that I sign a document supporting the pro-life cause, I was prepared to do so.

As I reviewed the document, entitled “The Manhattan Declaration,” I found myself in hearty agreement with its three primary affirmations: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Not only did I find myself in agreement with its general principles, I found that many evangelical leaders whom I highly esteem had already signed it, including men who have served or are serving as presidents at each of the three seminaries I have attended.

So why did I ultimately decide not to sign it?

The Manhattan Declaration does two things that I believe undermine the gospel. First, it refers to the gospel without ever defining what it is. The reader is left to define it however he or she may choose. Second, and related, it asserts unity in Christ among the signers of the document even though some of the primary signers of the document would reject the basic truth of the gospel that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone apart from our own works.

For example, it states: "It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.” It also uses phrases such as “we Christians,” “we believers,” and “as followers of Jesus Christ” to describe the people signing the document.

But I do not have such unity with all the signers of this document, nor is the basis of unity—the gospel of Jesus Christ—defined. While I will pursue unity with the signers in fighting for the causes enumerated, we do not have unity in Christ simply because we both use the word “Christian.” We believe radically different things concerning how a person comes to faith in Christ.

My personal conviction is that by signing this document, I would be implying that we have unity on the most important issue in the universe—an issue in which we stand on different sides of an immense chasm.

If the document had merely advocated political positions, I would have had no problem signing it. I need not agree with others on theological issues to work toward political ends. But the document made theological assertions. It therefore crosses the line from being a political document—which I could support as a Christian—to making a theological statement about the nature of the gospel that I cannot support.

How important is the gospel?

It is more important than ending abortion. It is more important than preserving a traditional understanding of marriage. Yes, it is even more important than our own lives, brothers and sisters.

No one will ever come to Christ by simply opposing abortion. No legislation defining marriage will transform a child of wrath into a child of God.

May God end abortion in our land and may He give us the grace to work with individuals from all different creeds and religions in the political process. I strive for that and pray you do as well. May God preserve us from the unraveling of traditional marriage in our culture and may He give us the joy of working with those from different faiths toward that end.

But even more importantly, May God give us the ability to boldly proclaim the Good News of His Son Jesus Christ, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved!


By His Grace,



Pastor Daniel

Expository Preaching: Meaning and Purpose

I thought I would share a few thoughts regarding expository preaching over the next few days. I am in the process of completing the first phase of my DMin in Expository Preaching at Southern Seminary and have had some time to reflect on some of the material I have been reading over the past year and a half. Here are some scattered thoughts.

What is Expository Preaching

At the beginning of the program, I wrote a paper in which I attempted to define and defend expository preaching. My beginning definition, intentionally broad, was that expository preaching is "bringing out the meaning of Scripture for a congregation."

I surveyed various approaches to expository preaching and considered how each approach offers a different nuance to what could be considered expository preaching. Some authors, such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, advocate preaching exclusively expository sermons, but are very broad in what they define as expository preaching.[1]

Others, such as Peter Adam offer a more narrow definition of expository preaching but are more open to other forms: “This does not necessarily mean that we engage all the time in expository preaching (that is, preaching our way through a book of the Bible verse by verse or chapter by chapter).”[2]

I concur with Richard Mayhue who suggests the following elements as the essential components of the expository sermon:

1. The message finds its sole source in Scripture.
2. The message is extracted from Scripture through careful exegesis.
3. The message preparation correctly interprets Scripture in its normal sense and its context.
4. The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture.
5. The message applies the Scriptural meaning for today.[3]

To these, I would amend the first characteristic to say that the message finds its sole source in a single, primary text.

[1] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 72.
[2] Peter Adam, Speaking God’s Words (Vancouver: Regent, 2004 [1996]), 128.
[3] Richard L. Mayhue, “Rediscovering Expository Preaching,” Rediscovering Expository Preaching, Richard L. Mayhue, ed. (Dallas: Word, 1992), 12-13.

The Purpose of Preaching

I am convinced that many pastors have forgotten the purpose of preaching. As astounding as that sounds, I believe it is true.

The final chapter of David Buttrick’s Homiletic is entitled “A Brief Theology of Preaching.” Here Buttrick asks a salient question:

From a social perspective, preaching may be superfluous…. Reasons for preaching can only be found in faith. So, though we may enjoy the sweet freedoms of a superfluous vocation, in faith let us struggle with the question: Why do preachers preach?”[1]

Most of the works I read suffer from failing to answer this question correctly, if at all. It is difficult to overstate the importance of knowing what the purpose of preaching is. The widespread lack of understanding of or attention to the purpose of preaching in the evangelical community is perhaps the most disturbing trend I have observed during my coursework. It was frustrating to read various authors develop and defend methods that clearly did not share the passions of Scripture.

Failure to Consider Purpose. On one end of the Protestant homiletical spectrum are those works that fail to even consider why Scripture tells us we are to preach. Fred Craddock rebels against the idea of the authoritative proclamation of truth. He advocates that the preacher “re-create with the congregation the inductive experience of coming to an understanding of the message of the text.”[2]

Eugene Lowry advocates the narrative form of the sermon based upon our intuitive sense of how to preach: “Transforming our intuitions into articulate form [the narrative] is precisely the purpose of this book.”[3] Their works never even address what God would have the preacher do.

Purpose and Proof-Texting. But even works written by sound bible expositors sometimes betray a lack of proper concern with purpose. A biblical theology of preaching is not one that can be simply defended with a few quick proof texts. Warren Wiersbe in Preaching and Teaching with Imagination develops an entire work around the thesis that preaching should be creative. His text to defend this argument is 2 Samuel 17 where Ahithophel’s counsel is thwarted due to Hushai’s speech.

It is not that Wiersbe is wrong to urge creativity in preaching. His practical suggestions are excellent. The problem lies in the fact that his work is driven by a text that is simply not about creativity. The primary purpose of the text is to show how the sovereign hand of God uses Hushai to protect David. Not to unfairly target Wiersbe, but the absence of passion about God’s purpose for preaching in his work left me hungry for something more. What is needed in homiletical instruction is to develop within the preacher a heart that burns for the things of the Lord.

A passage that seems to creep up frequently in sections of preaching books that are presumably dealing with purpose is 2 Samuel 12 where David is confronted by Nathan through the telling of a story. For example, York and Decker introduce their chapter entitled “The Goal of Preaching” with this story. They conclude their introductory remarks, “Making the emotional connection with David was instrumental in getting David to act on Nathan’s rebuke rather than just to hear it.”[4]

But, once again, this text is not about preaching. And, what is more concerning, nowhere in this chapter on the goal of preaching are any biblical texts that deal with preaching in the church even mentioned, much less explored.

The problem is that there is a lack of a clarion call to the church regarding the true purpose of preaching. This problem is not universal, but it is wide-spread.

Some works may feel that such a question is beyond the scope of their work, but it seems to be so essential to anything else one might say about preaching that it is a question that should at least be addressed at some level.

Preoccupation with Pragmatics. Finding something that “works” is the goal of many homiletical books. Craddock’s call for change is not based on the fact that the church is failing to fulfill God’s design for preaching but rather that “in countless courts of opinion the verdict on preaching has been rendered and the sentence passed.”[5] Graham Johnston assumes our primary task is to “reach the present age without selling out to it.”[6] Even Michael Fabarez contends that the proper evaluation of a successful sermon is “the biblical change it brings about in the lives of our congregants.” [7]

Failure to Apply Purpose. Some of the works I've read recently have a solid evangelical theology of preaching but fail to consider the implications of that theology. Dennis Cahill in The Shape of Preaching provides an overview of the tools available to the homiletician of the contemporary church. He does this while maintaining an appreciation for and a defense of traditional evangelicalism’s understanding of the purpose of the sermon. Unfortunately, he fails to have his theology truly interact with his method. The purpose of the sermon is never really applied to the methods he surveys.

Focus on the Sacred Task. It should come as no surprise to anyone at Southern that Dr. Mohler gets it right. In the introductory chapter to Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, he identifies the true reason we preach: “True preaching begins with this confession: we preach because God has spoken.”[10] This simple statement is surprisingly profound, even within evangelical circles. Mohler’s conclusion to the article should be required reading for some of the people who advocated various methods in our material:

The preacher is a commissioned agent whose task is to speak because God has spoken, because the preacher has been entrusted with the telling of the gospel of the Son who saved, and because God has promised the power of the Spirit as the seal and efficacy of the preacher’s calling.

The ground of preaching is none other than the revelation which God has addressed to us in Scripture. The goal of preaching is no more and no less than faithfulness to this calling. The glory of preaching is that God has promised to use preachers and preaching to accomplish His purpose and bring glory unto Himself.

Therefore, a theology of preaching is essentially doxology. The ultimate purpose of the sermon is to glorify God and to reveal a glimpse of His glory to His creation. This is the sum and substance of the preaching task. That God would choose such a means to express His own glory is beyond our understanding; it is rooted in the mystery of the will and wisdom of God.Yet, God has called out preachers and commanded them to preach.

Preaching is not an act the church is called to defend but a ministry preachers are called to perform. Thus, whatever the season, the imperative stands: Preach the Word![11]

[1] David Buttrick, Homiletic (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1987), 449.
[2] Fred Craddock, As One Without Authority (St. Louis: Chalice Books), 99.
[3] Eugene Lowry, The Homiletical Plot: The Sermon as Narrative Art Form (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), xix.
[4] Hershael York and Bert Decker, Preaching with Bold Assurance (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2003), 11.
[5] Craddock, 3.
[6] Graham Johnston, Preaching to a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 10.
[7] Michael Fabarez, Preaching that Changes Lives (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 9-10.
[8] “Postmodernism Handout,” Expository Preaching 80314.
[9] Dennis M. Cahill, The Shape of Preaching: Theory and Practice in Sermon Design (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2007),93.
[10] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “A Theology of Preaching ,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 14.
[11] Ibid., 19-20.