The "Idea" of Evangelicalism (1)
Evangelicalism suffers from its strengths. And that is a weakness that I have to be willing to live with.
(Warning: Emergers—if there are any of you who still call yourself such— Liberals, and Fundamentalists: hold your nose as you read. You will grow accustomed to the smell.)
What does it mean to be Evangelical? What is the sine qua non of Evangelicalism?
There is no easy answer to this as the semantic domain of the word is usually predefined due to personal history and other subjective baggage. For some, “evangelical” simply means “liberal fundamentalist.” To the media, it is the Republican party at prayer. To Fundamentalists, it means “compromise.” To the Reformed covenantalist, it means “Tim Lahaye.” To former Evangelicals, it means canned presentations of church, cooperate liturgy, and cliché Christianity with Kirk Cameron as its head. To the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, it represents a traditionless group of vigilante Protestants who exemplify and carry the burden of the same follies as its founders, the Reformers.
However, these are all expedient definitions that don’t catch what the spirit of Evangelicalism is all about. In other words, these are perception-based descriptions of what some Evangelicals do and how certain Evangelicals express their beliefs. But expedient definitions are a tool of historical revisionists that, while important as a barometer, have no place in a foundational understanding of what is being expressed.
Let me explain with an illustration:
Take America. Take the United States of America and have people describe what it means to be an American. Do you think that there will be a monolithic voice that accurately describes “American”? There could be. But when people attempt to use expedient definitions, here is what you will get when asked “what does it mean to be American”:
Americans are rich people.
Americans are arrogant rich people.
Americans are greedy arrogant rich people.
For a different spin, try this: America is the land of opportunity.
Or as Bono would put it, “I like the idea of America and am a fan of the idea. But I don’t like American policy” [at least as it was under Bush].
However, America is built upon certain principles that allow freedom. This freedom allows for greed or opportunity. This freedom has no mandate upon particulars of expression. It does not require one political party or another. Even though people will think and say really stupid things, we believe that the principle of freedom—freedom of speech in this case—is more important than making sure people all think “rightly.” There is a center or an anchor to America. There are American ideals and values. There is still the “idea” of America, even though it does not always find good and “proper” expressions. It is our job as Americans to continue to instill these values—these anchors—in the coming generations so that America does not get redefined due to expediency. We do this by teaching and reminding others of what the “idea” is.
It is the same with Evangelicalism. Since I deal with theology and history every day, I am continually thinking about these principles of Evangelicalism. I am ever engaged in the “idea” of Evangelicalism and the principled anchors that must be understood so that the idea remains in tact. Once the “idea” is lost, so is the form of expression which the idea is supposed to follow.
So, what is the “idea” of Evangelicalism?
Hold your horses…and hold on to your Theology Program caps (which are available exclusively at www.credohouse.org!). You will have to wait for part 2 of this post in which I will give a brief definition of Evangelicalism, followed by a few articles of confession and denial.
But remember, these principles cannot be denied simply because the freedom they allow takes a turn here and there that you do not like.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- The "Idea" of Evangelicalism (2): Distinctives vs. Norms
- America believes in God and rejects evolution
- Friday’s are for Historical Renewal!
- The Non-Liturgy of American Evangelism
- Historical Renewal Friday: Absalom Jones
Print This Post

Jay on 03 Sep 2009 at 3:11 pm #
To the media or anyone who lives in New York City, it means “American Taliban” — not sure who said this originally…
Cadis on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:02 pm #
Actually that’s not too smelly…But I’m holding onto my clothes pin for the sequel and to hear what’s the equivalent of an Evangelical flag burning. I guess I need to read that Manifesto in the meantime.
#John1453 on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:17 pm #
Just as CMP has identified a multiplicity of definitions that depend on their context and the questions being asked, I don’t believe that there could even be the definition of the idea of evangelical or evangelicalism. The approprite definition depends on the context, including but not limited to what you want to refer to and why, the purpose of the discussion, etc. Consequently, given the grounds that CMP is setting up I’m sure he’ll come up with a definition that suits and furthers the idea he wants to set out and the discussion he wants to foster. The question will then be whether his definition is suitable for the task he wants it to accomplish, and whether the task itself is worthwhile.
regards,
#John
C Michael Patton on 03 Sep 2009 at 4:31 pm #
John, do you think the “idea” of America can be sought and found in any objective sense? If so, how? If not, you are probably not going to be able to contribute much to this series. If you are going to enter this voyage with me under the assumption correctly defining what Evangelicalism can and should mean, then sail with me my friend.
However, please don’t attempt push this with too many “yeah, but…”s, unless you are willing to step up to the plate to offer a positive (did I say positive?) proposal on where we should direct our thought with these issues.
Daniel on 03 Sep 2009 at 5:09 pm #
What I love most about CMP’s writing (and podcasts) is how careful he is to articulate things in a way which addresses the most common questions and misunderstandings.
And, I think the analogy here of what it means to be “American” is an absolutely brilliant way of putting it.
Hat’s off to you CMP! Keep up the great work and thanks for helping me to always challenge my own perceptions and perspectives!
jim on 03 Sep 2009 at 7:34 pm #
To me, “evangelism” ought to equate to “Christ in (underline “in”) me” and anything less or beyond that is nothing but misguided vanity…..
Dr_Mike on 03 Sep 2009 at 11:54 pm #
#John1453:
I think you crafted and developed your response in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, i.e., that CMP will come up with a definition that suits his purposes. Your first sentence admits your disbelief re a definition but you then state that an appropriate definition will be thus and so. Then you turn the discussion to charge CMP with essentially begging the question by his definition.
Your attempt to “poison the well” for whatever he might say in the future fails, in part because the charges are not true and in part because you’re far too obvious in what you’re attempting to do.
The question in my mind, however, is why you’d even bother to do this. Is there a reason you want to impugn his integrity and scholarship?
ScottL on 04 Sep 2009 at 9:41 am #
I suppose our definitions of evangelicalism will come through the American lens as well. I don’t want to sound completely down on American culture, but it tends to shape the thoughts of even those cultures outside of its own walls.
When I go to Africa (mainly Zambia), many times I can find black African Christians trying to be white American Christians (though it would be more in line with a super-Pentecostal, TBN type of American Christianity). That’s because many missionaries brought the American gospel to Africa. I suppose it is similar in places like India, South America (big time in Brazil) and elsewhere. It seems harder for this to pervade the underground church of China.
So, while I am American and I am evangelical, I want to be careful not to preach the gospel of American evangelicalism. Rather, I find the gospel of the kingdom drawing me in. I only, then, pray that God would help me understand the gospel of the kingdom wherever I be, America or not. That I am faithful to see how that gospel is lived out in whatever culture I am rooted in.
#John1453 on 04 Sep 2009 at 10:31 am #
I found this very interesting and illumination comment about F.F. Bruce on Michael Bird’s website. To some extent it fits in with CMP’s vision for an evangelical project. You may not know that 2010 is F.F. Bruce’s centenary. In “F.F. Bruce and the Development of Evangelical Biblical Scholarship,” BJRL 86.3 (2004): 99-123, we read:
“F.F. Bruce was, it seems to me, set up in the 1940s as something of a historian knight-in-shinning-armour, called in to do battle with the sceptical dragons. He did this job pretty well. He assumed that relatively dispassionate historical study would provide a reasonable defence, in the scholarly arena, of traditional Christian readings of key aspects of the Bible. He was proved substantially right. His work, and that of those who followed him, made a very important contribution to the change in temper of, in particular, New Testament scholarship between the beginning and end of Bruce’s career. Today, a far higher proportion of scholarship is conducisve to traditional Christian beliefs than was the case in the middle of the twentieth century. The most obvious expression of this is the large number of evangelical scholars who are part of the mainstream of international biblical scholarship. Evangelical voices are a regular element of scholarly discourse.
But Bruce was never merely the knight. He saw clearly that, if evangelical biblical scholarship was to develop, evangelicalism needed to change some of its assumptions. From the very beginning, when he was maybe at his most confident about slaying dragons, he realized that open historical study of the Bible was likely to challenge evangeical views on many critical issues. His greatness is that he tackled this head on. He did not do this in order to win a place for evangelicals at the academic table – although he realized that it was a pre-condition of doing so. He did it because he was convinced that a truly evangelical faith must embrace history, not shun it. He was convinced that history would not let evangelicalism down He was convinced of this because he was convinced that Christianity was historically true.”
Regards,
#John
Joe on 04 Sep 2009 at 11:08 am #
There might be a Biblical reason to condemn evangelical “freedom” … if it means that “every man does what is right in his own eyes.” If it means – as it has in the past, with Pat Robertson etc. – that Evangelicals feel they have a right to sneak their own anti-biblical, superpatriotic and Republican right-wing ideas, into religion, into sermons, as the alleged word of God.
EricW on 04 Sep 2009 at 11:31 am #
IIRC, F.F. Bruce was an egalitarian, and also believed in the multiple (2 or 3) authorship of Isaiah. Not exactly things that most Evangelicals embrace/accept.
C Michael Patton on 04 Sep 2009 at 1:29 pm #
“IIRC, F.F. Bruce was an egalitarian, and also believed in the multiple (2 or 3) authorship of Isaiah. Not exactly things that most Evangelicals embrace/accept.”
Eric, that is great. Good illustration of the breath that Evangelicalism can accept, even when it is not the norm.
C Michael Patton on 04 Sep 2009 at 1:31 pm #
Joe, the freedom is not from God or from the Scriptures. Otherwise, it would not be Evangelical since this would deny a basic principle or sine quo non of Evangelicalism that we are committed to the authority of the Scriptures.
The “every man does what is right in his own eyes” is from Judges when God was being rejected.
The freedom is expressed in that Evangelicalism has a center, NOT boundries. This is key.
#John1453 on 04 Sep 2009 at 2:49 pm #
Re post 7
I reflected on whether I should respond to post #7, since regular contributers and CMP know that I respect him as scholar and find him provocative and interesting. However, this is the start of a new thread and casual readers might not be aware of this.
Blogs, I find, are a good place to work through ideas in the context of dialogue with others. Sometimes I have started out agreeing with CMP’s post, and then changed my mind; sometimes the reverse. My post #3 is, in part, a continuation of discussion of CMP’s previous thread on this topic and previous discussion about what evangelicalism is. My post indicates both that I can see that there is a range of possible useful or unuseful definitions and that I look forward to seeing what definition CMP uses and why he chose to use it.
Regards,
#John
geekborj on 05 Sep 2009 at 7:09 pm #
For the Catholic (East and West), i think Evangelicanism is having such a tradition that is not realized fully. There are some truths that can be found in Evangelicanism but not full. It is like a glass filled either half-full or half-empty. You can view it anyhow you want but we all want a full glass of water — the one that never gets less full, only more.
So, Bro Michael says:
“There is a center or an anchor to [Catholicism]. There are [Catholic] ideals and values. There is still the “idea” of [a true Catholic], even though it does not always find good and “proper” expressions. It is our job as [Catholics] to continue to instill these values—these anchors—in the coming generations so that [being Catholic] does not get redefined due to expediency. We do this by teaching and reminding others of what the “idea” is.
“It is [Catholicism]. [For someone who] deal with theology and history every day, [the same would] continually [be] thinking about these principles of [Catholicism]. [The same would] ever [be] engaged in the “idea” of [Catholicism] and the principled anchors that must be understood so that the idea remains in tact. Once the “idea” is lost, so is the form of expression which the idea is supposed to follow.
“So, what is the “idea” of [Catholicism]?”
Indeed, Bro Michael just elaborated why Catholics and the Catholic Church are just as we think of one thing yet another thing that is guided by what is “ideal.” Which is the true sense — the ideal or the actual? Why surrender the “ideal” just because what is “real” is difficult if far from it? Why think of smoking when we know that smoking is dangerous to health? Why be promiscuous if we know that it is totally wrong? Why allow “safe sex” when we know it offers physiological, social and psychological “dangers”? Why allow abortion or contraception when we know that they kill persons or opportunities to become one?
It is not the actual path that matters, it is the intention of the one in journey towards the One — rightly so, there is so called the “pilgrim Church.”