There are no real evangelicals. Only imagined ones. – Religion News Service

Not long ago, Baylor historian Thomas Kidd published a short post at The Gospel Coalition blog on the anniversary of Phillis Wheatley’s death. He titled his piece “Phillis Wheatley: An Evangelical and the First Published African American Female Poet,” and concluded by saying that “Evangelicals, of all people, need to remember her today.

”In response, writer Jonathan Merritt tweeted: “Calling her an evangelical is, um, a bit weird.”

“Why?” Kidd countered.“Because you’re assigning her to a movement at a time when the movement wouldn’t have her. How are you defining evangelical?”

Merritt replied. “If self-identification, did she? If denominational affiliation, was she?“If you can’t answer the question,” Merritt concluded, “you might need to think on this some more.”

Merritt’s dig at Kidd’s expertise (Kidd has authored several books on evangelicalism) provoked other historians to join the fray, and we very quickly breached the outer limits of productive conversation.

The problem was one of definitions. An undated portrait of Phillis Wheatley. In referring to Wheatley as an “evangelical,” Kidd, like many other historians of American religion, was using the term to describe 18th-century revivalist Christianity. Yet Kidd was also asserting that Wheatley matters especially to evangelicals today, presumably because she is one of them.This is where things become contentious.Does “evangelicalism” extend from Wheatley to modern day? Perhaps, if one considers evangelicalism primarily a theological tradition. But to many, evangelicalism has morphed into a politicized movement — essentially made up of white religious conservatives who vote Republican. To claim Wheatley as a progenitor of this movement is indeed rather odd.

Source: There are no real evangelicals. Only imagined ones. – Religion News Service