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.

What's a Pro-Lifer to Do?

Much is being made of the Democratic Party's decision to include a new phrase in its party platform. The new language is aimed at attracting the pro-life voter who finds Obama personally appealing, but abortion morally repugnant (admit it, he seems like a nice guy). At the same time, the McCain camp is sending out signals that the VP slot on the ticket may go to a pro-choice politician like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman.

On the one hand, I feel a degree of excitement that the Democratic party may be backing off on its radical support of abortion. On the other hand, the new statement is, in my opinion, less than breathtaking. The platform now states: "The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs."

You read that right. They "strongly support" the decision to have a child. That begs the question: what was the old position? Bloomberg reports that this new language was the result of negotiations between pro-life and pro-choice forces: "The compromise language is the result of behind-the-scenes negotiations with abortion-rights groups and religious leaders on both sides of the issue."

Is that chilling? How long were the negotiations? How long did it take pro-life forces within the Democratic party to get their pro-choice colleagues to acknowledge that they would support the decision of a woman to keep her baby? What was the starting point for the pro-choicers? "We support the decision of a woman as long as that decision is to terminate her pregnancy?" We live in a sick, sick world.

Lest it appear I'm taking sides, I don't know where John McCain will land on this issue. His campaign is at least sending signals that he will not end up in a place that pleases me. Picking a pro-choice running mate would clearly indicate that McCain doesn't consider it a core issue. Does anyone think he would pick an anti-war running mate? Of course not. McCain's convictions on the war are genuine and deeply felt. Unfortunately, his pro-life convictions may not run as deep.

I feel pretty confident Barack Obama has already staked out his territory on this issue. Pat Buchanan has an interesting article entitled "A Catholic Case Against Barak." Here are a few excerpts.

"Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

"Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?

"Obama is an abortion absolutist. 'I could find no instance in his entire career,' writes Freddoso, 'in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.'

"In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion."

It is my belief that as technology improves, it will make arguing the pro-choice position less and less tenable. The Democratic Party's "shift" may already reflect that. But my fear is that Obama and McCain's rush to the "center" on this issue reflects a disturbing undercurrent in our nation. We may find ourselves in a culture in which there is general acknowledgement that an act is reprehensible but simultaneously a widespread refusal to prevent it, either from apathy (McCain?) or lack of moral clarity (Obama?).