What Is Evangelicalism?

Writers employ much ink and many pixels, attempting to answer this question. Defining such things as evangelicalism (and fundamentalism) is difficult. We are attempting to define movements. Movements, by definition are moving, ergo, we are describing a moving target.

Recent reading provides yet another attempt at defining the moving target that is evangelicalism. Observers may critique the details, but historical theologian Roger Olson provides insightful analysis in his little book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology (Intervarsity Press). Along the way, Olson provides insight into fundamentalism as well. He quite clearly is not a fundamentalist. Thus, we will disagree with him in many areas. He is a Baptist, so at least some of his theology is correct! In this area, his description is informative. My purpose today is to summarize the description of evangelicalism found in the first chapter of his book.

Olson refers to seven “justifiable uses” (page 8) of evangelical or evangelicalism. These uses refer to various points of church history since the Enlightenment. Below is my summary of the seven uses:

1. The etymological use: people “of the good news,” people connected to the gospel. In this use, “evangelical is simply synonymous with authentic Christianity,” as opposed to “moralistic or legalistic religion,” (p. 8) meaning forms of Christianity that depend on liturgical form or ritualistic legalism for right standing with God. Evangelicals in this sense believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone.
2. The Reformation use: this use makes evangelical “simply synonymous with Protestant.” (p. 8) In Germany, the “Evangelical” churches are “not-Catholic.” We see this in North America in the names of such denominations as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or the Evangelical Free Church.
3. The British use: Anglicanism uses evangelical to describe those Anglicans of the “low church” variety, as opposed to the “high church” Anglicans who border on Catholicism in their love of ritual, forms, and even hold doctrines that are close to Catholicism.
4. The fruit of Pietism and revivalism: this use “arises out of the Pietist and revivalist attempts to reform and revive Protestant Christianity in Germany, Great Britain, and North America in the early eighteenth century.” (p. 9-10). Those in support saw the churches (especially the ‘state churches’) as fallen into dead orthodoxy. They campaigned for a “heart religion” that expressed warm and fervent faith. “Evangelicals rejected sacramental salvation and covenant salvation as inadequate views of true conversion to Christ.” (p. 10). This usage (and others) shows some of the historical development of evangelical theology.
5. As a synonym (virtually) for fundamentalism: this use of the term “comes from the conservative Protestant reaction to the rise of liberal Protestantism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.” (p. 11) In this sense, evangelicals were those who actively opposed modernist thought, attempted to secure control of denominations and schools for orthodox doctrine, and, failing that, ended up establishing new institutions. Some of those in this contest were willing to carry the label “fundamentalist” while others, perhaps less comfortable with that term, invested “evangelical” with the same orthodox militancy for truth.
6. A new use of the term came after the fundamentalist-modernist controversies, as “the 1940s and 1950s postfundamentalist evangelicalism began to break away from the increasingly militant and separatistic fundamentalism of the 1920s and 1930s.” (p. 12). This aspect of evangelicalism is the subject of Olson’s book. He defines postfundamentalist evangelicalism as a renewal of revivalistic evangelicalism, divorced from the extremes of militant fundamentalism. Evangelicals in this sense are “NOT fundamentalists.” Initially, they are reactionary; subsequently they became the broad majority of non-Catholic, non-liturgical, non-fundamentalist conservative Christianity.
7. The last usage of evangelical is “popular rather than historical.” (p. 13). It is the term journalists (and others) bandy about when describing “Christianish groups.” Even groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses have had the label imposed on them. The popular usage of uninformed people contributes to the confusion about the meaning of the term.

In his book, Olson wants to describe the theological development and unique contributions of postfundamentalist evangelicalism. He defines it further with this:

“Evangelicalism is a loose affiliation (coalition, network, mosaic, patchwork, family) of mostly Protestant Christians of many orthodox (Trinitarian) denominations and independent churches and parachurch organizations that affirm…

· “a supernatural worldview…

· “the unsurpassable authority of the Bible…

· “Jesus Christ as unique Lord, God, and Savior…

· “the fallenness of humanity and salvation provided by Jesus Christ…

· “the necessity of personal repentance and faith…

· “the importance of a devotional life…

· “the urgency of gospel evangelism and social transformation;

· “and the return of Jesus Christ…” (pp. 14-15).

Olson says, “Many evangelicals affirm more; none affirms less or deny any of these basic belief commitments.” (p. 15)

Of the list above, most fundamentalists would likewise affirm these ideas, except perhaps “the urgency of … social transformation.” This tenet is a defining mark of evangelicalism. It is what Carl Henry called for in his book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism also insists on separatism (as noted above), which evangelicals specifically reject. Olson quotes Donald Bloesch in The Future of Evangelical Christianity as saying,

“Evangelicalism unashamedly stands for the fundamentals of the historic faith, but as a movement it transcends and corrects the defensive, sectarian mentality commonly associated with Fundamentalism.” (Bloesch, 15, cited in Olson, p. 20)

To sum up, then, Olson’s first chapter helps observers to progress in understanding and defining both evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Both movements share a common heritage (his uses of evangelicalism numbers 1 through 5) and evangelicalism today is that movement (usage number 6) that has gone beyond fundamentalism (usage number 5). Olson’s term for the modern evangelical movement is postfundamentalist evangelicalism, or just evangelicalism. The distinguishing mark of evangelicalism is that it, too, is primarily reactionary to fundamentalism, in that it is not separatist or militant with respect to liberalism. This characteristic, in addition to an embrace of social transformation (to some degree) within evangelicalism continues to make fundamentalism wary of and distinct from evangelicalism.

Before closing, I should note that these are minimalist summary definitions. No doubt, other aspects of both movements flesh out a complete understanding. However, these key distinctions show that the two movements are yet distinct. Some groups within evangelicalism are more conservative than others are (as time has moved on and the movement has “moved”), but the essential distinctions remain. The two movements are not the same.

UPDATE: As an addendum, let me point out this blog by Thomas Kidd, The Changing Use of ‘Evangelical’ in American History. Kidd confirms Olson’s general timeline of the history of the term and adds some other interesting points. A key quote:

By 1950, the use of the word had changed dramatically, especially because of the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942. “Evangelical” was coming to denote conversionist Protestants who were not fundamentalists.

---

Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.