There is a growing disdain for the term ‘evangelical’. This is not merely because evangelical is a pejorative term used by non-Christians. Nor is it merely because there are people who used to identify as evangelicals, but now call themselves exangelicals. But the term ‘evangelical’ has become associated with a political lobby group that is viewed as supporting the Trump presidency, which support is seen as unethical.
The problem with the label ‘evangelical’ is that it’s pretty elastic depending on who is doing the stretching. On the one hand, there is the scholarly study of evangelicals which trace them back to the Enlightenment (Bebbington), or beyond (Haykin and Stewart). On the other hand, ‘evangelical’ has come to be defined in modern journalism as anyone who is non- Catholic and non-mainline Protestant. Even this latter elasticity can be stretched further to include evangelical Catholics and evangelical renewal movements in liberal mainline denominations.
So what do we do with this elastic label? Some are ceasing to call themselves evangelical. Others are at least questioning what it means to be self-identified by the label. What is an evangelical to do? Let me offer three ways that over-stretched evangelicals can recover their integrity.
Pick Theology over Sociology
Nobody would care if evangelicals had no social influence. But in the US evangelicals still have a large, if waning voice in society. So it is tempting to adopt a sociological approach to being an evangelical. This may mean that following social practices but doesn’t require you to confess anything definitive regarding theology.
Picking theology over sociology is the better move. ‘Prosperity Gospel’preachers have false understandings of the doctrine of salvation, so their ‘gospel’ is not the same as the historic Christian gospel. Therefore, on a theological basis, prosperity gospel preachers are not “evangelicals”, even if the media mislabels them as such.
Picking theology over sociology works in a different way as well. For those with a distaste for the American (and therefore McDonaldized) evangelical sub-culture, they may be tempted to jettison the evangelical label. Their distaste for middle-America Jesus culture may make them want to be affiliated somewhere else.
But this is where high church Presbyterians, Anglicans, or others are in danger of denying their brothers and sisters who believe the essential bulk of what they confess. As well, they can deny their own history, or at least be selective about it. For example, the catholicity of Scottish Presbyterians like Chalmers, M’Cheyne and the Bonar brothers was matched with the mission-sending efforts of Calvinistic Baptists, William Carey and Andrew Fuller. The history of revived Calvinism saw the advance of evangelicals from Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist denominations
Pick the Rabble Outside the Camp
The tough part about belonging to a local church or to a denomination or movement is feeling the crushing reality that your crowd is populated with fools, idiots and goofballs. Such associations are not great for winning friends and influencing people. In fact, the wisdom of today says that you should drop anyone who isn’t advancing you and your interests.
But when you start pointing fingers at the folly of others it’s easy to have the fingers pointing back at you. Being associated with true-believing evangelicals means that you are in the company of the foolish, among whom you likely are chief. In fact, God “chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise” (1 Cor 1:27).
So we have to be careful lest we disdain the not-yet sanctified fools who we will spend eternity with. Even in this life, we choose to metaphorically leave the inner ring (CS Lewis) and suffer outside the camp (Heb 13:13). It is in this refuse heap (Ex 29:14) that all of the fools for Christ’s sake congregate. Believers are saved by faith alone, yet such a faith that never remains alone. Therefore we can confidently speak of right doctrine and right practice as indicators for who is suffering outside the camp with Jesus.
Choosing to Give Grace to Evangelical Folly
When Christians can cherish biblical truths that have been confessed through the ages, they can have the confidence to discuss and debate with each other about the issues that Christians have always been less clear about. This means we have to do something like a theological triage (Mohler), but it means more. It also means that as evangelicals get caught up in temporary manias (from Napoleon as Antichrist, to pro-Trump/never-Trump), we need to extend each other the grace— the undeserved favour, that will esteem the important confessions of faith which we know others possess, while lovingly critiquing their errors as we see them, and welcoming their watchfulness over our own.
So should we abandon the label ‘evangelical’? I don’t think so. It’s a good term when it is well defined. As we strive for that definition in each generation, we have the opportunity to remember that there are many people going to heaven with whom we disagree. We also know that there are many people who think they are going to heaven, whose gospel is not sufficient to save them. It is for these confused people we must strive to bring true gospel clarity.
photocredit