The Multiple Definitions of “Evangelical”

What is an evangelical?

In his work, No Place for Truth published in 1993 (Eerdman’s) David Wells mourned the frustrating decomposition of the term.

The word evangelical precisely because it has lost its confessional dimension, has become descriptively anemic. To say that someone is an evangelical says little about what they are likely to believe (although it says more if they are older and less if they are younger). (p. 134)

Without a sharp, cogent, differentiating identity, evangelicals, no less than the Liberals before them, are simply absorbed into the conventions of the modern world in which they live. (p. 135)

One of the big problems in trying to sort out the present theological and ecclesiastical landscape even for fundamentalists is our befuddling use of terms. This designation evangelical is at the center of it all.

Fundamentalists lack clarity in the use of the term.

I have received about 1000 emails in the last two weeks that link to an article that uses the term “broader evangelicalism.” In that discussion, it would be helpful to define exactly what is meant by the term. I have personally hesitated to respond to it because I do not know yet how to do it in a way that will not be misunderstood–and the landscape seems to be changing daily.

In a recent teleconference, our Chaplain Endorser warned us that in the military context, fundamentalists in the chaplaincy are often forced to refer to themselves as evangelicals because the nuances of the divisions between fundamentalists and evangelicals are different in the military world. In that context, evangelical is a broader term that would encompass biblical fundamentalists and many others. This is not an issue of compromise, but rather trying to use a term that is understood by those to whom we speak.

A century ago, the terms evangelical and fundamentalist were nearly identical in meaning. They identified the same group of people even if they differ in describing two different activities associated with those people. The term fundamentalist was used to describe orthodox believers who fought for the foundational doctrines of the faith. Evangelical was the term that was used for the same group of people emphasizing their commitment to the gospel of Christ and their fervor to share it with a lost world.

Then the New Evangelicals arrived.

Harold Ockenga, as far as we know, coined the term new evangelical. This new terminology described a theological/ecclesiastical philosophy that reprised the indifferentism of thirty years earlier.

The problem with the term new evangelical like the term modern is that while they seem to be up-to-date the ideas represented age. It seems silly to call a movement that is 60 years old “new.” So many just dropped the adjective and called it evangelicalism.

The problem with that is that new evangelicalism was a clearly defined philosophy of ministry. Evangelical is much vaguer. In fact, it has been incredibly vague for the last 25 years. Col. Mike Sproul, one of our senior chaplains recently said “Evangelical just means you have a cross somewhere in your belief system.” He was using a little hyperbole, but not a lot.

Almost every pastor I know uses the term evangelical differently depending on the context of the conversation. In a political discussion, we are evangelicals and we are the good guys. In ecclesiastical conversations, they are the bad guys. It is no wonder that our church members, especially new believers, have a hard time following.

People change but the name tag remains.

Historically a term like evangelical (or conservative evangelical for that matter) identifies a group of people who hold an identifiable doctrinal/ecclesiastical position. Over time, the positions morph while the group tag remains the same. Eventually, it just identifies a group of widely differing viewpoints held among a group of people that sort of hang out together sometimes.

This is what is presently happening to the group that for the last 20 years or so has been known as conservative evangelicals. Originally these people rose up to fight the doctrinal slide—especially regarding the gospel– going on in their realms of evangelicalism. In the SBC they sought to take control of the seminaries and denominational structures. T4G and TGC were formed. Now the contours of conservative evangelicalism now have blurred significantly. The conservative resurgence in the SBC has faltered, while many other leaders have embraced a woke political agenda and incorporated it into their theology. The movement is now fragmenting. Because of this the term conservative evangelical is not as accurately descriptive as it once was.

Another problem is our tendency to redefine terms to fit our own agenda.

Thirty years ago, the term historic fundamentalist, started popping up in conversation. Ostensibly, it was intended to identify a fundamentalism that existed prior to the 1950s and the rise of new evangelicalism. In reality, it was just another term for new evangelical because the fundamentalism it purported to represent never truly existed at any point in history. We do this with other terms. Evangelical or liberal often degenerates to mean anyone whose belief system or practice is left of me. This is at best imprecise and certainly not helpful in trying to address real issues. Attach to that the emotion and historical stigma attached to certain terms and truth is often hard to sort out.

Sometimes it is necessary to abandon a term because it has become more confusing than useful. I think the term fundamentalist is still a very useful term, and I will gladly claim it in a company where it is still reasonably understood. However, the term evangelical is virtually useless and it might be near the time to drop it, especially in a taxonomy for a very complicated theological landscape. It is important to get this right.

Orthodoxy is important. Biblical separation, both from false teachers and the indifferentists who aid them, is also important. We owe it to the scriptures and these very important doctrines to apply them in careful and biblically appropriate ways. Simply slapping a poorly defined label on someone is not enough.

I find the term indifferentist useful when talking about the compromise that we historically associated with new evangelicalism in the 1950s and the enablers of the modernists in the original battles of the 1920s.

If you use a term like this as a label, you will have to define it to be understood. Once it is defined, we often find that what I thought you meant is not what you actually meant.