Are We Evangelicals?
Almost a month ago, I posted a piece on defining evangelicalism. (What Is Evangelicalism?) That article summed up the thesis of Roger Olson in his book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology (Intervarsity Press). I hope to write more on the subject, based on the rest of Olson’s book, but this time I would like to point you to another resource, an excerpt from Thomas Kidd’s new book, Who is an Evangelical?
The need to define the term seems universal among those trying to get a handle on the history. In Kidd’s piece, he shows how the term evangelical now carries political baggage. He traces this development through recent decades. (Well, they seem recent to a certain set, at least!)
Kidd maintains that the political connotations behind evangelical are additions to the core idea. He sums up the essential concept of the term this way:
What, then, makes an evangelical an evangelical? Evangelical political behavior is important, and it has a troubling history. But at root, being an evangelical entails certain beliefs, practices, and spiritual experiences. Historically, evangelicals see conversion and personal commitment to Jesus as essential features of a true believer’s life. They cherish the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God. They believe that real Christians have a personal relationship with God, mediated by the guidance of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit. They aspire to act on those beliefs by praying, attending worship services, witnessing to the lost, studying the Bible, going and sending people on missions and ministering to the “least of these.”
In defining the term this way, I think fundamentalists find little, if anything, disagreeable. That concept defines us in large measure. It is so much a part of our ethos as fundamentalists that some of our own historians say that fundamentalists are a subset of the evangelicals.
While I understand why this is said, I think it misses a key distinction. That’s why Olson`s book is so helpful. The last month or so I`ve been going back to it again and again. Olson’s thesis is that there is a distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists that began in the 1940s and 1950s and continues to this day. Prior to 1942, when the National Association of Evangelicals formed, evangelical and fundamentalist were virtually synonymous. Some were more militant than others, but in general people of a conservative theological disposition, with an emphasis on revival and conversion, were all working together in various organizations and denominational bodies. We could call that coalition the “postmodernist” evangelicalism or “postmodernist” fundamentalism. In fact, that era and that kind of evangelicalism fits Thomas Kidd’s definition above almost perfectly.
Olson’s book adds a nuance to the definition that must not be missed. He refers to today’s evangelicalism as “postfundamentalist” evangelicalism. There remains a sharp distinction between the two groups. As Olson continues in his book, he samples various evangelical theologians as representative examples of broadly evangelical theology. Interestingly, almost every one of them is concerned with showing how he is NOT a fundamentalist. Their “worldview” has a negative core. They define themselves in terms of how they are NOT like fundamentalists.
With all this in mind, our question is, “Are we Evangelicals?” If you mean evangelical in terms of what an evangelical was before 1942, then we would have to answer, “Yes, we are.” However, time doesn’t stand still. Definitions don’t stand still. Evangelicalism changed forever in the 1940s and 1950s. Fundamentalism changed as well, albeit, we would have to say, much more slowly. Nevertheless, the two movements continue on, sharing a common heritage, but having a different trajectory. “Are we Evangelicals?” In all honesty, I think we have to say we are not.
Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.