Recent paper presented at the 2018 ETS Midwest Regional Meeting at Grace Bible College

Define or Die 

Is Evangelicalism Suffering from an Identity Crisis? 

Jeffrey D. Chamberlain 

Introduction 

A couple of years ago, I was standing in a line of about 8 people at a 7/11 and I noticed that I was the only one without a tattoo. Normally, people who have tattoos like to say that they are expressing their individuality by or through their tattoos, but in that line, I was the only one expressing my individuality, unintentionally of course, meaning that it is not a conscious effort to stand out based on my appearance, but the reality is that because I had not succumbed to the peer pressure of the group expressing their individuality, I was standing out. As I reflected on the topic of this paper, I realized that my presence in the line that day could be interpreted another way as it pertains to what someone like me represents. I am a Bible-believing Christian, who believes that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, trustworthy, authoritative Word of God. With my inclusion of inerrancy in my description of the Bible, I represent the old guard unwilling to get in line with the progress of today’s world, whether it’s my presence in line at 7/11 or in the academy, or unfortunately in many churches. The goal of this paper is to examine the current state of Evangelicalism, look at some its history, interact with some of the changes in focus that have occurred in the past 80+ years, and to offer a few possible solutions of how to restore what has been lost, which may or may not include eliminating the term, “Evangelical.”   

Definition 

Before examining Evangelicalism as a movement or identity marker, it is necessary to first attempt to define the word and the connotations attached to it. Since the group identifying themselves as “Evangelical” is so broad and diverse, trying to define “Evangelicalism” as a movement is like trying to pick the perfect bracket in March Madness, where the best odds are 1 in 128 billion. Definitionally, evangelical simply means one that believes in the evangel and the evangel is the English term derived ultimately from the Greek term euangelion meaning good news, which is most often translated as gospel. Therefore, the simplest definition of an evangelical would be one who believes the gospel. It is at this point where it starts to go awry because there are numerous groups that believe in a gospel, so how one understands the gospel now comes into the question. Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses, to name a few, would not be considered evangelical by evangelicals, because there is a certain element of works involved in how one obtains salvation within those systems. It quickly becomes evident that the definition needs to go through the clarification process, which will be handled in the next section.  

Before we get to the essentials of the faith, I would like to present a few definitions provided by either individuals or organizations. The National Association of Evangelicals makes use of David Bebbington’s summary of evangelical distinctives where he provides four primary characteristics of Evangelicalism. They are:  

• Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life-long process of following Jesus 

• Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts 

• Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority 

• Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity.1 

The statement issued by the Evangelical Manifesto Steering Committee in 2008 states that “Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.”2 They add six implications that follow from their definition: First, to be Evangelical is to hold a belief that is also a devotion; Second, Evangelical belief and devotion is expressed as much in our worship and in our deeds as in our creeds; Third, Evangelicals are followers of Jesus in a way that is not limited to certain churches or contained by a definable moment; Fourth, Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally; Fifth, the Evangelical message, ‘good news’ by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative; and Sixth, Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism.”3 There certainly are some glaring holes in these definitions, but at least they are not as vague as “George Marsden once quipped that in the 1950’s and 1960’s an evangelical Christian was ‘anyone who likes Billy Graham.’”4 Ironically, in the late 1980’s, Billy Graham was asked to define the term and he stated that “that’s a question I’d like to ask somebody too.”5 

Mark Noll stated that “‘Evangelicalism’ is not, and never has been, an ‘ism’ like other Christian isms…rather, ‘evangelicalism’ has always been made up of shifting movements, temporary alliances, and the lengthened shadows of individuals.”6 I believe that D. A. Carson presents probably the most articulate statement mentioned so far. He states that, “an evangelical, at his best, is a person who believes the good news found in the New Testament, that God has sent his Son to die on the cross and rise from the dead, ascend to glory, seated at the right hand of God, coming at the end of the age to redeem his image-bearers from their sin, their condemnation, pouring upon them his Spirit to justify them, sanctify them, and one day glorify them in perfection. It’s all the good news of what God has done, and this demands a response of obedience, repentance, and faith.”7 And finally, our own society, ETS, only requires one to believe in inerrancy, as defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Trinity in order to be considered a member in good standing. As I stated above, it is evident that there needs to be clarification in order to arrive at a biblical definition.  

Gospel Essentials and Do We Believe Them? 

If the term Evangel is derived from the biblical word euangelion, then it follows that we need to draw our understanding of the gospel, what it includes and excludes, and how we are to live in response to it, from the Scriptures. Starting with 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, which is one of the clearest explanations of the gospel in the Scriptures, we can examine what is present in that text and then expand outward to the rest of the Scriptures in order to come to a fully developed definition of our topic.  

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 1 Cor. 15:1-8 ESV 

What we know about this text is that verses 3-5 represent an early Christian creed, Gary Habermas believes that Paul received this information within three years of the cross, which means that this creed is very early. Time does not allow for us to go into a full exposition of this text, but we can draw four principles from it.8 First, the gospel is Christological – it was Christ who died for our sins, was buried, rose from the dead, and appeared to many. Secondly, the gospel is theological – we see what it is doing in regards to salvation, as well as numerous doctrines included in the text. Thirdly, the gospel is biblical – everything is in accordance with the Scriptures. And lastly, the gospel is historical – the simple mention of Christ appearing to more than 500 and that most are still alive, not only demonstrates that Christ appeared to real people in real time, it also provides an easy verification process. If you do not believe Paul, go ask someone that Christ appeared to before his ascension. It is obvious that this text is directly dealing with Christ’s work on the cross and his resurrection, but where does that leave us regarding the essentials of the faith? Are Christ’s work on the cross and the resurrection the only essentials that one needs to believe to be considered an evangelical? If that is not the case, then we are right back where I started at the beginning of this section when I stated that there need to be more regarding our understanding of what is included in the gospel. So, what is to be included in our understanding of the gospel? 

We learn from the Carson definition that God poured out his Spirit to justify, sanctify, and ultimately glorify us. 1 Corinthians 6:11states that “such were some of you but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. We are justified by faith (Gal. 2:15-16; Rom. 3:26; 5:1-2), saved through that faith by grace, and it is a work that God does alone (Eph. 2:5, 8-9). We learn that John describes Jesus Christ was the divine Logos or Word and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1, 14), which provides us with a clue to who he is, the God-man. This is why we see an emphasis on the Trinity in the ETS requirements. One must rightly understand who God is according to the Scriptures, or at least, not deny who he has revealed himself to be, which would necessarily exclude modalists, Unitarians, Mormons, and Arians (Jehovah Witnesses).  

The final topic to discuss seems to be the most hotly contested among those claiming to Evangelical these days. The topic is what is the nature of the Bible in its entirety? Must one believe that it is the Word of God? Must one believe that it is infallible? Trustworthy? True? Inerrant? The other requirement to be a member of ETS is to hold the position that the Bible is inerrant, as defined by the Chicago Statement. What if one believes that the Bible is inerrant, but has a different understanding than that which is laid out in the Chicago Statement? The framers of the statement never considered the Statement to be the line of demarcation of who is in and who is out. Can someone deny inerrancy and still be considered an Evangelical? Not according to Francis Schaeffer, who in The Great Evangelical Disaster states that,  

the chasm is: not conforming to the world spirit of autonomous freedom in our age, and obedience to God’s Word. And this means living in obedience to the full inerrant authority of the Bible in the crucial moral and social issues of the day just as much as in the area of doctrine. Obedience to God’s Word is the watershed. And the failure of the evangelical world to take a clear and distinctively biblical stand on the crucial issues of the day can only be seen as a failure to live under the full authority of God’s Word in the full spectrum of life.”9  

Currently in Evangelicalism, inerrancy is the main issue of dispute and whether it should be considered essential to the faith. The failure as Francis Schaeffer saw it was the problem of accommodating the Bible to the culture, first, in the areas of science and the cosmos, and then, in moral areas, which has led to the breakdown of the family and ultimately evangelicalism, through the throwing off the God-ordained design for marriage, human sexuality, and the sanctity of human life. Schaeffer, once again, adds that, 

Here then is the watershed of the evangelical world. We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take a full view of Scripture and those who do not. But remember that we are not just talking about an abstract theological doctrine. It makes all the difference in the end if Scripture is compromised by theological infiltration or by infiltration from the surrounding culture. It is the obeying of Scripture which is the watershed – obeying the Bible equally in doctrine and in the way, we live in the full spectrum of life.10 

Time does not permit a full investigation into the meaning of inerrancy and whether it is viable option for believers today. If you are interested in knowing my position, I have included the address for my blog at the end of this paper where I have posted my position paper, as well as, my criticism of the errant position. The doctrine can be represented simply, since it is a rather straightforward concept. If the Bible is the Word of God (which it claims to be), with all that that entails, and God cannot lie or error (why would we trust him if he could), then the Bible, as God’s Word, cannot lie or err, therefore the Bible is without error.  

I believe that a strong argument can be made for the essentials to be the life and works of Jesus Christ, including the promise of his return, not how he returns, but that he is returning and the necessity of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, which would cover the conversionism and the crucicentricism of Bebbington’s characteristics being used by the NAE. The triune nature of God is an essential, otherwise we are worshiping a false god and the inerrant, infallible, authoritative nature of the Bible is an essential, which would cover the ETS requirements, as well as the biblicism characteristic of the NAE. All other doctrines would be held as secondary, tertiary, or even further out in the spectrum, meaning the bible-believing Christians can differ and even debate the issues vigorously, but they should not separate over them. The essentials, on the other hand, carry a weight that serious differences require separation. There is a certain confrontational element to the gospel and it comes directly from Jesus and his handling of false conception of God’s nature, his commands, and his Word. The question is do we believe that the gospel is confrontational or do we accommodate the gospel to the world in order to avoid appearing judgmental and narrow-minded? Schaeffer states that “Truth demands confrontation; loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless”11 or as the Apostle Paul states in Ephesians 4:15 that we must be “speaking the truth in love.”  

Does Evangelicalism accurately represent biblical Christianity? 

It is at this point that we must examine the current state of Evangelicalism and ask ourselves whether or not it accurately represents biblical Christianity. More specifically, not whether the word “Evangelical” accurately represents biblical Christianity, but do the actions of its adherents accurately represent biblical Christianity? Unfortunately, words tend to be defined  by the actions and abuses of its adherents rather than by their proper definition. Recently there have been a number of articles written that question whether there is a future for evangelicalism, most notably, “Can Evangelicalism Survive Donald Trump and Roy Moore?” by Tim Keller and “Do Evangelicals Need a Better Gospel” by Jonathan Leeman. This topic is by no means new; in 1923, J. Gresham Machen wrote, “Christianity and Liberalism,” Carl F. H. Henry wrote “Evangelicals In Search of Identity” in 1976, Schaeffer wrote “The Great Evangelical Disaster” in 1984, which is ironic, in my opinion, given the title of George Orwell’s book and the direction we are headed as a society, David Wells wrote “No Place For Truth Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology in 1993, Mark Noll wrote “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind in 1994, and Kenneth Stewart wrote “In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis in 2017, just to name a few. The most recent surge in articles may have been started by what was considered to be a controversial tweet from Tim Keller, which stated, “Jesus didn’t come primarily to solve the economic, political, and social problems of the world. He came to forgive our sins.” It is possible that the ensuing firestorm from the theologically accurate tweet may be the reason behind his article in The New Yorker or more likely it was a tweet promoting the article that would appear a day later, nevertheless it has opened the conversation once again. Leeman observed that he saw a storm coming when the pollsters told us that, 

81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump, and a similar percentage in Alabama voted for Roy Moore…[and he] saw many young Christians and Christians of color feel betrayed by these votes and begin to say, “Let’s be done with evangelicals”…[and he] heard older and often whiter evangelicals responding, “Wait a second. There’s a difference between ‘evangelical’ as a theological label and ‘evangelical’ as a political or cultural movement. Please don’t draw too many conclusions from those who tell pollsters they’re ‘evangelical.’ Many of them aren’t. please don’t give up on the gospel.” And finally, [he has] heard the younger crowd reply, “hold on. You don’t get off the hook that easy. Our theology always shapes our politics. So check your gospel. It’s too individualistic, too blind to Christ’s work of reconciling the nations, too indifferent to matters of justice.12 

In regards to the Keller tweet, the second crowd, “felt like this was one more example of an individualistic gospel, a gospel that’s unconcerned with matters of justice and cosmic reconciliation. They asked: ‘Tim, what about the fact that Jesus said he came to preach to the poor, proclaim liberty to captives, recover sight to the blind, and set at liberty those who are oppressed (Luke 4:18)?’ Keller replied that he used the word ‘primarily,’ but his point was lost in the conversation that followed.”13 The matters of justice and cosmic reconciliation bring us back to Bebbington’s characteristic of activism that I left out of the essentials section and raises the question of should it be an essential element of Evangelicalism. I do not believe that it should be an essential but let me first issue a disclaimer, I am not saying that we do not need to be involved in the political, socio-economic, and social processes, but that we need to remember what our mission as followers of Jesus Christ is, primarily to reach the lost with the gospel. Social activism should be a necessary and direct outworking of our relationship with Jesus Christ, just as the book of James instructs us; faith without works is dead (James 2:17). The issue is that there are many who would not consider themselves to be evangelical or even religious, but they are extremely altruistic and philanthropic. The problem is that Christians have the ultimate cure and hope for the oppressed and down-trodden. We have the most loving message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, but because of our history and the multi-cultural pluralism in today’s society, our message of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ is more often than not, viewed as hate.  

Because of this, the accommodation of the Scriptures to the culture, many of the issues that Henry and Schaeffer warned us about in the 70’s and 80’s are now taking place. The accommodation is no longer just in the realm of evolution vs. creation or old earth vs. young earth, but it has moved into the areas of morality and identity. These issues are incredibly personal, for example, many evangelical Christians have family and friends that they love dearly who claim to be part of the LGBTQ community, such as David Gushee, author of Changing Our Mind, whose sister is part of that community, which played a large part in him changing his perspective regarding the Bible and its clear teaching against homosexuality.14 He believes he is being compassionate, but is he really? He has accommodated the Scriptures to fit the current cultural trend. The accommodation towards the political realm is just as outrageous. In an article by Michael Gerson, he remarks that “it is remarkable to hear religious leaders defend profanity, ridicule, and cruelty as hallmarks of authenticity and dismiss decency as a dead language”15 and he adds that “according to Jerry Falwell Jr., evangelicals have ‘found their dream president,’ which says something about the current quality of evangelical dreams.”16 Gerson further adds that “the corruption of a religious tradition by politics is tragic, shaming those who participate in it.”17 These are just a few examples of what we have experienced over the last 80+ years of evangelicalism.  

Solutions 

It obviously serves no purpose to simply seek a definition, share some areas where the movement has lost focus, and fail to offer possible solutions to the identified problems. The most difficult part of implementing change within Evangelicalism is to change people’s perception from both inside and outside the movement. Keller in his article states that “‘Evangelical’ used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with ‘hypocrite’”18 and Rob Bell, among others, “believes that serious evangelicals are bad people.”19 It is interesting to reflect on how important the actions of followers of a movement distort the perceptions of what the most basic beliefs of that movement are. For instance, if I say that I adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, the perception is that I am one of those Bible-thumping fundamentalists. When a group of men  produced a series of books called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth in the early years of the twentieth century as a reaction to liberalism, I find it hard to believe that they envisioned what would be known as fundamentalism today, but does that distortion mean that we, as Bible-believing Christians, should not hold to the fundamentals of the faith? 

So, I suggest that we need to have a revival of sorts to a return to believing and living out the essentials or fundamentals of our faith. Secondly, I believe that we need to live out a consistent faith before the watching world. We preach that the gospel is a whole-life experience, but do we show that or do we really believe it? We need to take Christ everywhere we go, for example, are we willing to lose our jobs if the company we work for is doing something or requiring us to do something that is directly opposed to the Bible? Thirdly, as Bible-believing Christians we need to allow the Bible to inform our ethics and morality, not the culture. We need to be lovingly confronting the culture, not cowardly accommodating to it, which means we most likely need to confront false beliefs face-to-face instead of through social media, as the Keller tweet demonstrates. And finally, we need to allow the Scriptures to inform our activism. Here is why, when we compromise our core beliefs in order to support a candidate or social cause, just because they support a particular issue, but their character does not reflect our core beliefs, then our credibility is ruined and the charge of hypocrisy has some validity. As the Church and I am speaking generally here, we need to do better in this area, we gloss over misogyny because it suits our needs, but we vilify someone struggling with same-sex attraction seeking to understand why they feel the way they do. I believe that we could simply correct some of the misconceptions and distortions just by living out what we say we believe.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Conclusion  

In returning to the main question of this paper, I do believe that Evangelicalism is suffering from an identity crisis and that if it does not make a serious effort to distinctively define itself, then it will die. Christianity will not die, but Evangelicalism as force in society will, in fact, it may be on its deathbed now. This seems to raise the question of whether or not the term should be discarded or kept. The fact that we even need to discuss this is unfortunate because the term is a good term, it a biblical term. What terms could accurately replace it that do not already have their own connotations attached to it. Protestant? Reformed? Missional? Traditional? Post-evangelical? Followers of Christ? Disciples of Christ? Bible-believing Christians? All of these names or titles already carry a certain connotations, so that, I believe, just muddies the water. I prefer Bible-believing Christian, but does that imply that there are non-Bible believing Christians? Maybe we should just go by the name “Christians,” but is that name too broad also? In the end, I propose that we keep the name because it is a good name, it just needs to be reformed, which requires the movement to center itself on the essential doctrines of the faith and then move outward from there in what we do, what we do not do, what we support and what we do not support. I would like to conclude with a recent tweet by Garrett Kell that I found applicable to this discussion.  

If I…  

Have correct theology 

 Labor for justice 

 Liberate the oppressed 

 Memorize the Bible 

 Gain a platform 

 Grow in wokeness 

 Evangelize unreached peoples 

 Fight against heresies 

 Create political progress 

 Win the argument… 

 “…but do not have love, I am nothing.” 1 Cor. 13:1-3