Can we reclaim Evangelicalism?

There was a time when saying you were an Evangelical meant something, in particular it meant something about what you believed as a Christian. Now, however, I don't think that is true. If you tell me you're an evangelical, I no longer know what you believe about the Bible or the cross - once perhaps the doctrinal touchstones of evangelicalism. If that's the case, is there any point in the word? At the moment, I think probably not a lot, but I'd like to think that words can have meanings and that it is possible to reclaim and reassert that meaning.

Interestingly, I've been reading What is an evangelical? by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who was addressing much of this issue back in 1971. It's hard not to see that he was prophetic, although it's sad that too few listened!

Let me make some suggestions about how we've got into this mess and how we could get out of it.

How to lose your meaning

The word evangelical has lost its meaning in a number of ways I think. Some of these have been more intentional than others.

Death by Qualification

First, the word has suffered death by qualification. You can be a conservative evangelical, a liberal evangelical, a charismatic evangelical, an Anglican evangelical, a charismatic evangelical and on and on. While there is a certain logic to this - if there is a core set of beliefs that is evangelical, then there are other beliefs that are peripheral and therefore can be used to define subsets of the evangelicals - the reality is that more often than note these qualifications were defining against each other, sometimes chipping away at what the core elements of evangelical actually were or adding other things as of equal importance.

Death by Generalisation

Second, it has been common and often intentional to speak of evangelicalism in much too general a way. I think this has been particularly pernicious within in denominations that have been keen to keep there denominational unity by undermining important distinctions. I suspect, for example, that lots of evangelical ministers in the Church of England have been through some sort of training session where the different churchmanships in the church as discussed and defined so broadly, that people end up saying things like, "well I'm a little bit of all those!"

The thing is, if you define evangelicalism as being quite keen on the Bible, the cross and evangelism, well anyone with any claim to Christian will get on board. Start talking about inerrancy, penal substitution and telling people they are sinners in need of a Saviour and you'll find yourself losing people!

Death by Marginilisation

There's something clever and deliberate about how groups can be infiltrated and over time the original core tenets of the group side-lined. I was always amazed as an Anglican in the Church of England how somehow I believed in all the founding doctrine of the Church of England and yet my views had been pushed to the margin, such that I would be safer expressing some kind of ecological panentheism than historic Anglican doctrine (in fact I could probably get to be a bishop doing that!)

The same has happened in evangelicalism. I'm astonished to see how what was standard evangelicalism say 50 years ago is now broadly thought of as a kind of hard right fundamentalism - the embarrassing uncle of a more mainstream and tolerant evangelicalism. So to hold to inerrancy and penal substitution is increasingly hardline, let alone holding to some kind of complementarianism. 

Death by Self-Identification

Our society is one where we get to self-identify. If I same I am something it's not your place to tell me I'm not. Evangelicals have led the way here. If I say I'm evangelical who are you to tell me that I'm not, even if you've open denied key markers of evangelical identity. I'm still amazed when I look back that Steve Chalke got to write what he did about the cross of Jesus in The Lost Message of Jesus and the Evangelical Alliance decided to have a debate about it. The guy basically said "I'm not an evangelical," so why did we need a debate as if it was a debate within evangelicalism? Well because he identified as an evangelical.

How to reclaim the word "Evangelical"

Lloyd-Jones has some interesting things to say here. Having cautioned against unnecessary division, he spells out what maintaining evangelical integrity requires. Three things stood out to me.

We need an active doctrinal statement of faith we are committed to

Lloyd-Jones is speaking to IFES, which has a statement of faith, a set of doctrinal commitments. Lloyd-Jones is able to refer to this, to call them to take it seriously. Plenty of churches and groupings have gone under simply because they didn't have any explicit agreement on what they stood for.

We need to have active and truthful subscription to the statement of faith

The Church of England is a monument to the failure of having a statement of faith. The 39 Articles are pretty clear, but the truth is no-one has to believe them any more, even the clergy. The reality is that a statement of faith in the drawer is no use. Even a statement of faith that people formally subscribe to isn't much use. All we see then is that people cross their fingers or make up ludicrous explanations of why then can subscribe even though they hold something clearly different to the intended meaning of the statement.

In our world of self-definition and self-identification, we have to be willing to ask someone to explain what they believe and then be willing to say if they're not an evangelical.

We need the courage to address the questions of the day

Perhaps one of the most striking things Lloyd-Jones says is that an historic doctrinal statement will not be enough, but that we need to address the issues of the day as well. This has become particularly obvious in recent times as we address a society that is shifting its beliefs incredibly quickly and thus causing turmoil in the church. We must be willing to say that there is an evangelical view on an issue or that there does not need to be. For example, on questions of sexuality there is a pro-LBGT+ group called Accepting Evangelicals. Is that possible? I don't think so. They are not evangelicals. But I will not be able to point to most evangelical statements of faith and say that.

Why it's worth reclaiming a word

Finally, is all this worthwhile? Why not just let the word go and start again, or make do with a qualification?

Here are three reasons. First, although I recognise that language develops, I think it is unhelpful when a relatively technical term like "evangelical" shifts around its meaning within a relatively short historical timeframe - in this context I think precision and clarity are very helpful and avoid unhelpful and even dangerous confusion. Second, I think it is valuable as Christians to think in terms of doctrinal definition - it helps us to think more clearly about what we believe. Finally, my experience of "evangelicals," i.e. those who take the label, but not the beliefs, is that they are some of the most spiritually dangerous people I have encountered - wolves in evangelical clothing if you like. They are the some of the most likely to throw you under a bus when it is expedient ("of course I'm not an evangelical like him...") and some of the most likely to lead others astray.

Now I haven't done the hard work of definition here. Nor have I done the necessary work of achieving some kind of evangelical consensus - somehow I doubt I'm in that sort of position and after all if the Dr. couldn't achieve it then...I just have a longing to call myself evangelical without having to qualify it. I would love to hear someone call themselves evangelical and to know what it meant. Perhaps it's a pipe dream, but I would love us to reclaim evangelicalism.