The "Idea" of Evangelicalism (2): Distinctives vs. Norms
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Like the idea of “America,” I have argued thus far that Evangelicalism has a stable ethos (mindset) that goes beyond the name. I know that to be called Evangelical means many different things to many different people. But I am trying to avoid the “What does Evangelicalism mean to you?” type of approach to allow people to see where I believe Evangelicalism is grounded.
Historically, if my conception of the “idea” of Evangelicalism is correct, then Evangelicalism did not start with Billy Graham, Carl Henry, or Martin Luther, but with the Apostles. Evangelicalism does not claim any particular denomination or period in history. It is not an American, Western, or Eastern distinction. Evangelicalism is representative of an idea or an ideal.
In short, I believe that Evangelicalism will be found anywhere that the Gospel is at the center and where there is a conviction that it must be proclaimed, not simply lived.
Let me put a few post-it notes on my forehead to get some things out of the way:
- Do I believe that you have to be Evangelical to be a Christian? No.
- Do I believe that you have to be Evangelical to be a good Christian? Not necessarily.
- Do I believe that you have to call yourself an Evangelical to be evangelical? Nope.
- Do I believe that you have to be a Protestant to be Evangelical? Post-reformation, yes I do.
Allow me, however, to expand on the last one. I do believe that there are those from other traditions (Catholic and Orthodox) that display many characteristics of Evangelicalism and are very evangelical (notice the small “e” and the large “E”). Bradley Nassif is someone that I would consider an evangelical Orthodox, but he is not Evangelical. Same thing with Peter Kreeft as a Roman Catholic.
But this just side-steps the question, “What is an Evangelical?”
Before I answer I want to make something clear. Evangelicals have tradition. Evangelicals have a lineage. Many Evangelicals would mistake origins of their identity as having roots in the Reformation. This is not true (or, at least, it is a very poor and misleading way to express it). Evangelicals have roots that go through the Reformation, not begin in the Reformation. It is important that we view ourselves as such.
Evangelicals are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, not because we believe that they are all going to hell (that would be more in line with Fundamentalists!), but because the central component of Christianity—the Gospel—we believe is more fully and properly carried and distributed by Evangelicals. In this sense, I have no problem saying that Evangelicalism is a better representation and a more faithful succession to the Apostles.
For the Evangelical, it is the Gospel and its proclamation that is central.
Distinctives vs. Norms (who we are vs. what we do)
Let me express something here and try to be as articulate as I know how. There is a difference between what we call traditional “distinctives” and “norms.” A distinctive represents the sine qua non (“without which not”) of something. Evangelicalism has certain distinctives that, if taken away, would quickly erode the essence. Norms, on the other hand, are patterns that the distinctives take.
Problems arise when those on the outside and on the inside begin to blur the lines between the two and norms replace distinctives. What I am trying to do here is distinguish and identify the distinctives of Evangelicalism so that the norms do not create an Evangelical passport.
Evangelical Distinctives:
- Evangelical: Gospel proclamation is the primary mission of the church.
- Essential Christianity: The foundation of the Gospel is found in the person and work of Christ, not peripheral issues such as mode of baptism, use of alcohol, issues of eschatology, or whether one believes in a literal six-day creation.
- Faith alone: The person and work of Christ finds life only through our faith in Him alone.
- Scripture alone: The Bible is our only infallible rule of faith and practice. Bible knowledge and teaching are essential to knowing the character and will of God. Institutions and human authorities are necessary and deserve great respect, but will always be imperfect.
- Progressive: Evangelicalism does not make camp around anything but the person and work of Christ. Expressions of the faith can and should vary from time to time and culture to culture. In this Evangelicalism (and the Gospel) are highly adaptive. There is no one particular Evangelical liturgy.
(Parenthetical answer to an objection: But the church has not always been these things! How can you say that Evangelicalism finds its roots through the Reformation and in the historic Christian faith when the historic Christian faith has not always believed in distinctives such as “Essential Christianity” or “Progressive”? I agree that the church has not always viewed itself as progressive. I also agree that the church has not always done a good job at focusing on the essentials while allowing freedom in non-essentials. But, as an organism, the church goes through “life stages.” At times, the church has been unbalanced and narrow, not unlike that of a know-it-all teen. But once the teen grows out of this, he or she has both learned and matured though this. It becomes a necessary part of their maturation and development of wisdom. But most importantly, the more mature form of the person is still the same person with the same DNA. It is the same for the church. (For more on this, go here.))
Out of the distinctives listed above come particular norms. Unfortunately, people inside and outside of Evangelicalism mistakenly identify the norms as the distinctives. The norms may be normative only for a particular tradition in Evangelicalism (e.g. Baptist Evangelicals, Presbyterian Evangelicals, Non-Denominational Evangelicals, etc.) or for a time and place in history and therefore should have little bearing on the spirit or “idea” of Evangelicalism. However, this is where things get blurred (and why I write this).
Norms:
- Belief in Inerrancy
- Republican
- Seeker-sensitive
- Evangelistic crusades
- Sinner’s prayer
- Evangelistic tracts
- Jesus paraphernalia (WWJD bracelets, bumper stickers, etc.)
- Mega Churches
- Gospel invitation at the end of a service
- 45-minutes-plus sermons
- Expository Preaching
Each of these norms express patterns that many, if not most, Evangelicals have taken. Many are based in and founded on their beliefs. For example, Evangelicals like crusades because of their distinctive of Gospel proclamation. However, having crusades is not necessary to be Evangelical. As well, most Evangelicals are Republicans, not because it is a flag that we must plant, but because they believe that the ideals of Republicans are more congruent with their distinctives than other political affiliations. However, it is not necessary to be a Republican to be an Evangelical, it is just a norm at this time.
These norms are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. They are simply expressions that are found in the common cultural liturgy of Evangelicalism today, especially in America. My main point in this post is to help identify the “idea” of Evangelicalism without focusing on the norms. As well, I want people to understand that American Evangelicalism as a set of norms cannot always be equated with Evangelicalism. It is but one of its more prolific expressions.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession
- The "Idea" of Evangelicalism (1)
- Michael Spencer on the Problems of Evangelicalism
- Why the Evangelical Manifesto Did Not "Work"
- Why Evangelicalism is Still the Best Option
Print This Post
Loading ...
Alden on 11 Sep 2009 at 7:32 pm #
Michael, I have to disagree with your view of Evangelicalism. Even your parenthetical answer to an obvious criticism doesn’t really resolve the issues.
Evangelicalism, as we know it today (and not as Luther would have defined it) appears to me to be post-Augustinian and post-enlightenment. If you were able to remove all vestiges of Augustinian thought from any Western understanding of Christianity, I don’t think what would be left could ever be called Evangelical. The same is true if you could filter out enlightenment thinking.
I just finished reading “Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism” and I think at least the EO folks would agree with me.
Dr Mike on 11 Sep 2009 at 10:40 pm #
Alden:
How, specifically, is modern Evangelicalism post-Augustinian and post-Enlightenment? What identifies it as such and what characteristics are due to that status? If Evangelicalism as an idea predates both Augustine and the Enlightenment, what did it look like prior to those two influences and how is it different from the Evangelicalism we now know?
In the same way, what would Evangelicalism look like if one were able to remove all vestiges of Augustinian thought from Western Christianity, as you suggest? I assume you know what this would look like since you are confident it would not be called Evangelical, and to do that you would have to know this hypothetical construct pretty intimately.
I would be very interested in being enlightened concerning these questions (pun intended). I confess to being quite dull in matters such as these and am always eager to learn from the more learned among us.
Joe on 13 Sep 2009 at 4:10 pm #
Pope John Paul II or another, proclaimed “the new evangelization.” So many Catholics feel they are evangelicals; see EWTN, Eternal Word Television Network, and Karl Keating, etc..
Joe on 13 Sep 2009 at 4:16 pm #
If we follow Christ – is that as simple as those who believe in “fundamental”/”distinctive” features feel?
What do we do when Jesus … does not proclaim himself as “God,” or even the “Christ,” but rather, 99% of the time, merely asks others “who do you say I am?” Who assumes that God has abandoned him, in the end: “My God, why have you forsaken me?”
Did God abandon Jesus? If so, then how should we understand Jesus?
Alden on 13 Sep 2009 at 11:14 pm #
Dr. Mike,
Note that I said “it appears” and “I think” – it’s just an opinion. But, 2 major factors that separate the Western Church from the Eastern are the influence of Augustine and the Enlightenment, both of which impacted Roman Catholicism as well as what people refer to as evangelicalism. Luther was, I believe, the first person to use the term – but most modern evangelicals do not really consider Luther to have been evangelical as the term is used today. So, trying to connect the dots between today’s evangelicals and the 1st century seems a bit of a stretch. The Eastern church would seem to have a better claim to Apostolic tradition, and of course, they claim to.
Augustine’s view of man and sin – which the western church has largely adopted – did diverge from that of the Eastern church (and the Church fathers). Reformation views of justification – which seems to be an essential element of evangelicalism – also diverge from what the East considers to be the historic views.
However, if you loosely define “evangelical” to mean purely proclaiming the Gospel, then all church traditions would lay claim to that label.
However, not all churches could agree on the distinctives. even some modern evangelicals have problems with “faith alone” (in practice, if not on paper), and of course the 1st Century church relied heavily on oral tradition, not just scripture.
I think it’s an interesting approach, but at this point I still have to disagree. (Just my opinion…)
#John1453 on 14 Sep 2009 at 9:08 am #
I find my self both agreeing and disagreeing with CMP. My first disagreement is that it is necessary or significant to trace capital “E” Evangelicalism to the first century, except to ensure that Evangelicals are orthodox in doctrine and practice.
I also disagree that scripture alone is a principle of the early church. The only capital “S” Scripture that they had was the Jewish Bible. The rest of their knowledge was based on the life of Jesus and circulating oral stories about that, and also on the teachings of recognized church leaders. There was no recognized New Testament Scripture until the second century and no formal canon until the fifth.
Gospel proclamation is not unique to Evangelicals, other protestant denominations also had/ have a focus on evangelism, as did some parts of the RCC. Given that CMP indicates that evangelical Catholics are not Evangelicals, it appears that it is the combination of features that constitutes the “Evangelical”.
Given that all these features are alleged to be found in the early church, but lost to some extent during the intervening years (or, I suppose appearing and reappering in different combinations), the “idea of Evangelicalism” strikes me as a variety of “let’s get back to the early church ’cause they had it right.”
Since the in the “Idea of Evangelicalim” the Orthodox and RCC churches are seen as interruptions, when did the combination of distinctives come together? Certainly not before the reformation.
I would also suggest that missing from CMP’s list of distinctives is “innerancy”. I don’t see how one can be an Evangelical without that. However, I do think that there is scope in understanding what innerancy means.
D.G. Hart, in Deconstructing Evangelicalism, makes a historiographical, argument for the irrelevance of “evangelicalism” as a category of Protestantism in the 21st century. He writes, “Evangelicalism needs to be relinquished as a religious identity because it does not exist. In fact, it is the wax nose of the twentieth-century American Protestantism?.Despite the vast amounts of energy and resources expended on the topic, and notwithstanding the ever growing volume of literature on the movement, evangelicalism is little more than a construction.” (pgs. 16-17).
Nevertheless, a provocative post.
regards,
#John
Joe on 14 Sep 2009 at 11:34 am #
Trying to make evangelicalism disappear by suggesting it is logically incoherent, or some such, ignores the historical reality of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan.
The real problem of course, is the classic battle between Protestantism and Catholicism, regarding God’s instructions’ to go out into the world an preach the gospel: Catholics insisting that this authority is given only to Popes, priests, and other vetted authorities; Protestants insisting that almost anybody can do it.
No doubt to be sure, Protestant individualism has its advantates. But taken to extremes – as it is in Evangelicalism – it runs into problems. The fact is, we need trained, vetted priests, ministers, who actually know what the Bible says. Otherwise, we have everyone running around, proclaiming their own human opinions,or the “traditions of men,” as the word of God.
Evangelicals like Patton, to be sure, seem to suggest that we can take care of this, by locating certain core Fundamentals; which he tries to rename “distinctives.”
But Fundamentals they are; and so even here, we end up with another problem: the effort to firm things up, find a simple set of core truths … ends up creating the opposite problem: excessive dogmatism. And excessive over-simplification and inflexibility. Contemporary theology would of course, question even the verity of evangelicalism’s core truths. As giving an infinite God, a too-simple face.
How should we simply follow a Christ who tells us to “hate” our brothers in sisters (in Luke) … vs. a Christ in John, who tells us that whoever hates his bother is evil, and is not in the light? A Christ who most of the time, never even firmly declares that he is from God at all? But merely asks others: “who do you say I am”? A Christ who ….etc..
Simple, Fundamental answers are not enough.
#John1453 on 14 Sep 2009 at 2:01 pm #
Re post 7 and “hate”
“Hate” and “love” are Hebrew idioms for expressing preference, nothing more. That idiom was also used by Aramaic speakers of Greek, which is why it appears in our Greek Bibles. The expression “hate your brothers and sisters” means nothing more than prefer Jesus to them.
Regards,
#John
Joe on 15 Sep 2009 at 10:47 am #
But if the original Hebrew or Greek for “hate,” does not really mean hate … then in effect, aren’t our major Bibles mistranslations? Doesn’t that mean all our Bibles are in effect, incorrect?
If the word “hate” doesn’t mean what it clearly implies, then shouldn’t you immediately inform the editorial board of the NIV? The RSV? The KJE?
(By the way, I suspect that many ascetics really do fully hate the “world,” and certainly, their own “flesh.” So at least some very holy men took the term rather literally. Is the acetic tradition wrong? If so a correction is even urgent.)
Good translations, professionals tells us, should usually translate terms into words that have the right “connotations”; words that place the term in the correct modern “semantic field.” Words that instantly convey the real, intended meaning. If the English term “hate” doesn’t do this, if it isn’t really true to what the Septuagint meant, then that means that in effect, the most common translation is a mistake; a mistranslation.
In any case, if the two usages are the same, then we still have the problem that whatever it means, we are told to “hate” in one gospel, and not to in another. A contradiction remains.
Making our Bibles misleading, at best. Or even simply, in effect, wrong.
John on 16 Sep 2009 at 8:53 am #
Evangelicalism doesn’t camp around anything but the person and work of Christ….
….and yet you then make a camp around sola scriptura. You also make a camp around not making a camp around anything else, by excluding those who have such camps from this sect whose name you propose as “Evangelical”.
Aren’t Evangelicals camped out around _lack_ of all the things you claim others are camped around? It’s not like the typical evangelical consider these other things as optional extras of no significance. Rather they consider them anathema. They are typically camped around the proposition that they _must_ be avoided. How is that any less camped out? We are supposedly camped around icons. But Evangelicals are camped around blank walls. There is no neutral camp site.
Anyone who makes Gospel proclamation at the centre is an Evangelical, except after the reformation you have to also be protestant. So an Orthodox prior to the reformation might be Evangelical, but when the reformation occurs that he has never even heard of, he suddenly ceases to be Evangelical.
Then Orthodox are not Evangelical because Evangelicals more fully and properly carry the Gospel. But… didn’t you define Evangelical as people who put proclamation of the Gospel as central? If that’s all it is, why do you need fence out Orthodox from your camp site, simply because they are “Orthodox”? Or is it your assertion that Orthodox by definition do not have proclamation of the gospel as central? Or something else?
But Nassif is evangelical but not Evangelical. Because… only because he is Orthodox apparently? So haven’t you camped out around some unidentified something or other?
None of this makes much sense to me. You’d be better off making the positive assertion that Evangelicals are those who anathematise the distinctives of traditional Christianity. aka, they are Protestants.
J. Robert Ewbank on 27 Sep 2009 at 6:31 am #
John Wesley had some interesting things to say about Christianity and denominations and other religions. See the following book:
J. Robert (Bob) Ewbank’s book “John Wesley, Natural Man, and the ‘Isms’ has been published. The ‘Isms’ are Heathenism, Judaism, Deism, Roman Catholicism, Quakerism, and Mysticism. The questions being answered are: how does each of them differ from John Wesley’s idea of True Christianity, and what are the prospects for those holding these views being saved.
Written for the layperson as well as the scholar, there is a Study Guide in the back of the book to help individual or group study. The Guide has questions in the front, which are answered later in the Guide.
Bob has a B.A. from Baker University in Baldwin, Kansas and an M.A. from Garrett-Evangelical. He is currently Lay Leader of St. Mark UMC, in Mobile, AL.
Bishop Rueben P. Job of the United Methodist Church has written some kind words on the back cover.
Sam Royappa District Superintendent of the Coulee District in Wisconsin has recommended this book to his clergy and laity.
To find the book go on the internet to:
1. http://www.wipfandstock.com (Wipf and Stock) For your information, the book is $23.00 at bookstores, but at the web site it is only $18.40
2. The book is now available at Barnes and Noble, Books-a-Million, Cokesbury, WJE at Yale (The Jonathan Edwards Center), Kalahari.net, Paddyfield.com and Amazon.com among others.