Defining "Evangelical Christian"

[Non_Serviam]

Wesboro Baptist is not an evangelical church. It’s a cult.

I understand that we don’t want to be lumped in with Westboro Baptist, but which of your 4 points do you feel that they don’t uphold? Or can a church have all the points that define evangelicals and yet not be evangelical? If so, what is the additional criterion (criteria) that the church lacks?

I enjoyed Olson’s article as well, the only gap I find in it, is some sort of recognition of “cultural Evangelicals” like “cultural catholics” or “cultural Jews”. There are lots of folks who seem to fit this nomenclature, check out the comments on Rachel Held Evans blog for examples. The consider themselves to have a relationship with Evangelicalism, even if they aren’t actively participating.

 

[andrewstx]

Before my I was raised in two Evangelical Protestant communities. First church of the Nazarene and with a several year gap, the churches of Christ. The Nazarene church was much more emotive with long altar sessions at the “altar” with many tears shed and tissues used. Their emphasis was l o n g sermons AND “getting saved, and sanctified”. I was too young to understand sanctification at all. The entire emphasis was on ‘getting saved’. And they neglected the two sacraments they kept. I never saw anyone baptized there at all, and Holy Communion I saw twice. But to their credit they may have done those things at the evening services and I was only taken to the morning service.

Due to conflict with step dad I went to live with my biological dad when I was 16 years old.

He was church of Christ and took me to his church. Where after all those years unbaptized as a Nazarene I was finally baptized. They even ‘observed’ the ‘Lord’s Supper’ every Sunday. That body was defineatly non-emotive. They seemed to have a Lockian philosophy, based on logic. They had their good points and bad points. Good: they believed in baptism for forgiveness of sin, and the held the Lord’s Supper weekly, they also put a large emphasis on church unity. Bad: they wanted church unity be everyone joining their sect, and abandoning all others. They thought that they alone were the only Christians. They also had a legalistic view of the bible, anything not specifically ‘commanded’ in the bible was automatically forbidden them. Even flowers and candles on their Lord’s Supper table was taboo.

I have reached the conclusion that Evangelicals are mentally centered with the main thing that matters ‘getting saved’ by saying a mental prayer and little else. All seems spiritualized for them with little concrete.

And sociologically they come across as blue collar, less educated people. In my area the business that matters is the oil (ahl bidness). Men go straight from HS to the oil field. And most here are Evangelical, Baptist or “non-denominational” denominations.

 

[ltwin]

I understand that we don’t want to be lumped in with Westboro Baptist, but which of your 4 points do you feel that they don’t uphold?

The only point I find that they nail is activism (of course, their activities include spreading hate so I doubt that’s what the scholars who first coined the “evangelical quadrilateral” had in mind).

What kind of conversion are they preaching? Not conversion to Jesus Christ. Whose cross is at the center of their faith? Not the cross at Calvary that calls us to love even sinners. Their devotion to the Bible consists of isolating God’s law from His grace, and in that is no devotion at all.

No, I don’t see any evangelical gospel being preached from Westboro Baptist Church’s pulpit. I don’t know that church’s history. Perhaps at one time they might have been preaching the gospel, but in any event, Ichabod was written over that doorpost long ago.

Or can a church have all the points that define evangelicals and yet not be evangelical? If so, what is the additional criterion (criteria) that the church lacks?

I can see a situation where a church could be in a stage of transition from being fully evangelical to being something less than evangelical. Many of the Mainline Protestant churches went through this process. At least one (the United Methodist Church) is still going through this process.

I enjoyed Olsen’s article as well, the only gap I find in it, is some sort of recognition of “cultural Evangelicals” like “cultural catholics” or “cultural Jews”. There are lots of folks who seem to fit this nomenclature, check out the comments on Rachel Held Evans blog for examples. The consider themselves to have a relationship with Evangelicalism, even if they aren’t actively participating.

That’s a good point. I think the reason why is because historically evangelicals have been very resistant to the idea of a “Cultural Christian.” You either are a Christian or you are not.

In 1741, John Wesley preached a famous sermon entitled “The Almost Christian” in which he distinguishes an almost Christian from an altogether Christian. An almost Christian, according to Wesley has “a form of godliness; of that godliness which is prescribed in the gospel of Christ; the having the outside of a real Christian. Accordingly, the almost Christian does nothing which the gospel forbids.” The almost Christian also “labours and suffers for the profit of many, that by all means he may help some.”

Furthermore, the almost Christian “uses also the means of grace; yea, all of them, and at all opportunities. He constantly frequents the house of God . . . behaves with seriousness and attention, in every part of that solemn service. More especially, when he approaches the table of the Lord, it is not with a light or careless behaviour, but with an air, gesture, and deportment which speaks nothing else but ‘God be merciful to me a sinner!’” Wesley goes on to say that the almost Christian prays constantly. Finally, the almost Christian, according to Wesley, possesses sincerity, which Wesley defined as “a real, inward principle of religion, from whence these outward actions flow.”

The question which Wesley set out to answer in his sermon was this: “Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian?” Wesley’s answer was yes. Wesley himself admits that for a long time he was only almost Christian.

For Wesley, there was more to being altogether Christian:
(1) the love of God, “Such a love is this, as engrosses the whole heart, as rakes up all the affections, as fills the entire capacity of the soul and employs the utmost extent of all its faculties.”
(2) the love of others as ourselves
(3) faith, “whosoever has this faith, which ‘purifies the heart’ (by the power of God, who dwelleth therein) from ‘pride, anger, desire, from all unrighteousness’ from ‘all filthiness of flesh and spirit;’ which fills it with love stronger than death, both to God and to all mankind; love that doeth the works of God, glorying to spend and to be spent for all men, and that endureth with joy, not only the reproach of Christ, the being mocked, despised, and hated of all men, but whatsoever the wisdom of God permits the malice of men or devils to inflict, --whosoever has this faith thus working by love is not almost only, but altogether, a Christian.”

So, it is this evangelical obsession with being altogether rather than almost Christian that still infuses much of our definitions of who are evangelicals. Hopefully, this gives insight into why evangelicals don’t tend to account for “cultural evangelicals” in our own definitions.

 

[Smiling_Mike]

Well, it’s more complicated then that. Not all evangelicals believe in Biblical inerrancy or at least, they mean different things when they say the Bible is without error. Also, evangelicals differ on how literally they read the Bible. Some are more literal than others.

What separates evangelicals from mainline Protestants is that evangelicals will never question the historicity of biblical miracles, such as the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth. Mainline Protestants, however, do give their theologians and members more room to question whether these events actually happened or whether they were “spiritual events” or metaphors.

I have heard that before regarding biblical historicity. I guess even though this might not line up with the academic definition of an evangelical but as far as a cultural or modern social definition of it that it seems most people adhere to would be that fundamentalism goes hand in hand with evangelical christians. While I’m not disputing the importance of an academic definition of it, I would say when you try to refine it too much as in, to the point of tedium that the social and cultural definitions are going to win out. Most people don’t want to listen to an hour long presentation over a definition.

Well, evangelical churches can be members of denominations. There are Baptist denominations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC is an evangelical tradition. The Wesleyan Church is an evangelical denomination, as is the Assemblies of God (which is theologically Pentecostal).

Evangelicals can’t really be identified by their church polity. We’re really all over the map. Some evangelical churches are non-denominational. Some evangelical churches are led by bishops, others by presbyterian polity and others give members voting power.

I honestly didn’t know this. Where I live at there is really only the more traditional mainline protestant denominations and non-denominational (as far as protestant traditions go) and it seems most people seem to marry non-denominational to evangelical.

Wesboro Baptist is not an evangelical church. It’s a cult.

While I would say that it’s a hard pill to swallow for all of us to even consider Westboro Baptist as even remotely Christian, to me at least the only place they would be grouped into is the Evangelicals. I’m sorry, they were a poor example to use. I only used it because it was easy to use due to their infamy.

The Amish aren’t considered Mainline Protestant. They are Anabaptists and really don’t fit into the dominant Mainline/Evangelical paradigm of American Protestantism.

I’ll definitely take your word for it on this one. Maybe I just see them as a more mainline protestant denomination just because I’m from PA.

Yes, evangelicals often are associated with contemporary church. However, it’s worth noting that not all evangelicals like contemporary worship music and there are still evangelical churches where hymns still reign supreme.

I’m sorry about this one. It was a poor attempt at bad humor. I know what you say regarding this is true. My one experience with evangelical churches outside of weddings that is that once a friend kept asking me to go to his church with him so I finally just said ok and it was a rock concert. This was quite a shock to me at the time considering I’m a cradle catholic and overall it left a negative impression on me. But I know it was a joke that probably shouldn’t have been made and if anyone was offended i send my deepest apologies.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Of course. You can’t understand this polyglot we call Evangelicalism without understanding the history of it. I think this thread should consider theological, historical, and social aspects to the definition of Evangelicalism because they are all important aspects. I think you need all three to come to a really good definition. In America, much of the media tends to use only social definitions of Evangelicalism, defining evangelicals along political/racial lines. This type of definition is highly unsatisfactory.

History and theology is important because when we look at the history of Evangelicalism, we see occasions where churches that once were evangelical in their theology actually changed their theology to something that was decidedly un-evangelical. Some of these churches are still in the in-between stage, such as the United Methodist Church, which is often described as being both evangelical and mainline in orientation.

10-4.

Then: When, Where, How and Who started Evangelicalism?

I’d love to see a starting point historically in order to follow its development.

I’m familiar with the Charismatic Movement. I think that the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church is a case of Catholics being influenced by evangelical movements and vice versa rather than the creation of some kind of hybrid evangelical/Catholic thing.

Evangelicalism is so tied into the Protestant paradigm of faith alone, Scripture alone, and the priesthood of all believers that while I think there can be mutual sharing between evangelicalism and Catholicism, I don’t think it’s really possible to be both.

Ok. You are picking my interest here.

Could it be said then, that Evangelicalism is a form of Confessional-ism? If so, what elements need to be present?

But that’s just my opinion. I have read where Catholic Charismatics were described as evangelical Catholics. I don’t have an objection to Catholics calling themselves evangelicals, but no matter how similar their approach to Christianity may be to my own, I still think that there would be fundamental differences between what they mean by evangelical and what I mean by evangelical.

Well, my friend, we are the original Evangelicals

I can’t really add much to this until I understand the questions I made above.

 

[ltwin]

Then: When, Where, How and Who started Evangelicalism?

Briefly, Evangelicalism began as a revival movement within Protestant churches (both in the Church of England and among dissenting churches) in Great Britain and the American colonies in the 18th century. It was, then, an Anglo-American phenomenon, but a similar revival-oriented movement occurred somewhat earlier in continental Europe called Pietism. Pietism began as a revival of lay piety in the Lutheran Church.

Evangelicalism erupted in a great religious revival that was called the First Great Awakening (in America) and the Evangelical Revival (in Britain). At this time, Evangelicalism was led from within the established churches (Anglicanism in England and certain American colonies, the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and the Congregationalist churches which were established in New England). Later on, the momentum sort of gravitated toward the dissenting churches (such as Baptists and Methodists).

According to Mark Noll, many observers have acknowledged “that confident religious life, persuasive preaching of the gospel and effective Christian pasturing were in relatively short supply during the first decades of the eighteenth century” in England (The Rise of Evangelicalism, p. 39). The Church of England was doing a poor job of providing pastoral care to its people. The Church of England was also agitated over political controversy brought on the by the High Church/Tory versus Low Church/Whig rivalry, as well as fears over latitudinarian ideas (which promoted "rational religion” that stressed duty, human effort and common morality) that were dangerously close to dissolving into mere Deism. The focus on “rational” Christianity created a climate that was ripe for attempts at producing a more emotionally satisfying Christianity, as well as a more active Christianity.

Presbyterians in Scotland and Ireland were in the best position to receive revival. Supporting their historic Calvinism was a strong personal piety expressed dramatically during the communion or sacramental seasons. Communion seasons were celebrations of the Lord’s Supper preceded by several Sundays of preparatory preaching and an intense weekend of concentrated preaching. These seasons had sparked local revivals as far back as the 1620s. Scots-Irish Presbyterians also had the benefit of networking with other Calvinists in other parts of the world, giving them knowledge of other revival currents.

In America, New England’s Puritan tradition was weakening but remained strong nonetheless. The weakening of religious commitment was one reason why so many Congregationalists supported the evangelical revival.

Could it be said then, that Evangelicalism is a form of Confessional-ism? If so, what elements need to be present?

I tend to distinguish Evangelicalism from Confessional Protestantism. Evangelicalism arose out of confessional churches, not to eliminate confessions, but to revive individual piety within the churches. So, you have evangelical Anglicans and evangelical Presbyterians and evangelical Congregationalists, etc. etc. all having a confessional identity but committed to a heartfelt piety centered around the 4 hallmarks of Evangelicalism that were identified in Roger Olson’s blog post.

Evangelicals do not share common confessions, though our confessional identities are rooted in the Protestant Reformation (Anglican, Presbyterian, etc.) and Protestant churches that developed later (Baptists and Methodists). What we are united by is a common piety and roots in revivalism. As individual Christians, evangelicals express our particular confessions in ways that are distinctly evangelical.

 

[MW1T68]

Then there is Activism, described by Olson in the following way:

Quote:
Evangelicals are also people who believe in and practice Christian activism to approximate the Kingdom of God among people through missions, evangelism and social action. They disagree among themsleves about the best means and possible ends (within history as we know it before Christ returns), but they agree as evangelicals that God calls them to be active in the world for the cause of God.

I ask this with all sincerity, but wouldn’t this be considered “works”?

 

[Darryl_B]

My friend, my biggest question concerning that which you have raised is that traditionally evangelicalism is non intellectual, it is bound by feeling, by simple thesis, and by simple response. Therefore how can it be approached in the method you’re trying to approach it? I don’t understand. There is no complexity in evangelical, yet you try to define complexity. The most important theology of the evangelical is that there is no theologian.

 

[ltwin]

Quote:
Evangelicals are also people who believe in and practice Christian activism to approximate the Kingdom of God among people through missions, evangelism and social action. They disagree among themsleves about the best means and possible ends (within history as we know it before Christ returns), but they agree as evangelicals that God calls them to be active in the world for the cause of God.

I ask this with all sincerity, but wouldn’t this be considered “works”?

Yes, and Christians are called to do good works. Good works flow from a living faith. Protestantism has never taught that works should be ignored, only that our works do not merit salvation for ourselves. Only the work of Christ on the cross (Crucicentrism) merits us redemption, forgiveness of sin, and salvation.

 

[dronald]

My friend, my biggest question concerning that which you have raised is that traditionally evangelicalism is non intellectual, it is bound by feeling, by simple thesis, and by simple response. Therefore how can it be approached in the method you’re trying to approach it? I don’t understand. There is no complexity in evangelical, yet you try to define complexity. The most important theology of the evangelical is that there is no theologian.

Evidence please?

 

[ltwin]

My friend, my biggest question concerning that which you have raised is that traditionally evangelicalism is non intellectual, it is bound by feeling, by simple thesis, and by simple response. Therefore how can it be approached in the method you’re trying to approach it? I don’t understand. There is no complexity in evangelical, yet you try to define complexity. The most important theology of the evangelical is that there is no theologian.

I’m not really sure how you back this proposition up. There are dead and living evangelical theologians. Some of the more recent names that come to mind are listed below.

Richard Mouw, an evangelical Presbyterian and former president of Fuller Theological Seminary.

John Stott, Church of England cleric and theologian.

Gordon Fee, an ordained Assemblies of God minister, professor emeritus at Regent College in Canada, and noted New Testament scholar.

Wayne Grudem, a Charismatic and Calvinist Baptist, professor, past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and author of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.

N. T. Wright, New Testament scholar and retired Anglican Bishop of Durham.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m not really sure how you back this proposition up. There are dead and living evangelical theologians. Some of the more recent names that come to mind are listed below.

Richard Mouw, an evangelical Presbyterian and former president of Fuller Theological Seminary.

John Stott, Church of England cleric and theologian.

Gordon Fee, an ordained Assemblies of God minister, professor emeritus at Regent College in Canada, and noted New Testament scholar.

Wayne Grudem, a Charismatic and Calvinist Baptist, professor, past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and author of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.

N. T. Wright, New Testament scholar and retired Anglican Bishop of Durham.

I dont know if Evangelical communions put much stock in theologians or not, but are you saying that Presbyterian, Assemblies of God, Calvinist Baptist, and Anglican are all considered “Evangelical churches”? That’s not my understanding…

 

[ltwin]

I dont know if Evangelical communions put much stock in theologians or not, but are you saying that Presbyterian, Assemblies of God, Calvinist Baptist, and Anglican are all considered “Evangelical churches”? That’s not my understanding…

“Evangelicalism” is not a denomination. It is transdenominational. Not all Anglicans are evangelicals. No one is seriously saying that Katherine Jefferts Schori is an evangelical. But no one seriously denies that Holy Trinity Brompton, where the Alpha Course was created, is part of the evangelical world, despite it’s being a Church of England parish.

https://n0tice-static.s3.amazonaws....56cd98e4e93a63-mediumoriginalaspectdouble.jpg

If you would like more insight into the place that evangelicals currently have in the CofE, a short article in The Economist discusses this very thing: “The Church of England: Hot and bothered (The rise of evangelicalism is shaking up the established church)”

Likewise, Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, is Presbyterian but also evangelical. Both Anglicans and Presbyterians had important roles in the Great Awakening. Their place in Evangelicalism is not new.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, I guess you can ignore any of my supposed knowledge of an Evangelical Church, because I just shared my personal experience with an Evangelical Free community. What all Evangelical communions have in common, is nothing I claim to know, or even want to really.

Evangelical, to me seems to mean “an outreaching gospel”. If a Church is not Evangelical, they arent really Christian.

But those with the actual name Evangelical as their title, and who hold the same beliefs, interpretations and councils, would seem to be the only logical common ground to the denomination.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I would define “evangelical” as “Lutheran”. That’s how we originally termed ourselves, and documents from the time identify us as the “evangelical faith”. I don’t see a reason to change that.

 

[ltwin]

Well, I guess you can ignore any of my supposed knowledge of an Evangelical Church, because I just shared my personal experience with an Evangelical Free community. What all Evangelical communions have in common, is nothing I claim to know, or even want to really.

I don’t believe I’ve ignored anything. I read your post describing your connections to an E-Free congregation. You asked me a question, and I answered it as best I was able. If you disagree, then you are entitled to a different opinion.

But those with the actual name Evangelical as their title, and who hold the same beliefs, interpretations and councils, would seem to be the only logical common ground to the denomination.

So, unless everyone agrees 100% on everything and acts 100% in the same way at all times and in all places, they can’t be grouped together? You can’t have a movement that crosses denominational lines? Why can’t you?

The Protestant reformers agreed on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide but were split between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists and everything else. So, because they didn’t all share the same councils and adopt the same labels are you saying they can’t be considered Protestants?

 

[ltwin]

I would define “evangelical” as “Lutheran”. That’s how we originally termed ourselves, and documents from the time identify us as the “evangelical faith”. I don’t see a reason to change that.

Do you know if there are any Billy Graham/Christianity Today type evangelicals within Lutheran churches? I’d be interested to see what that looks like in a Lutheran setting.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t believe I’ve ignored anything. I read your post describing your connections to an E-Free congregation. You asked me a question, and I answered it as best I was able. If you disagree, then you are entitled to a different opinion. :shrug

Oh, sorry… i meant that as a honest admission. I only have experience with one communion who has the title of Evangelical… But I dont know how that is related to any other supposed Evangelical communion.

So, unless everyone agrees 100% on everything and acts 100% in the same way at all times and in all places, they can’t be grouped together? You can’t have a movement that crosses denominational lines? Why can’t you?

Sure, I guess you can have all the sub groups of denominations you want. Maybe somewhere in that faith is the “factions” which Paul accepted as genuine. Yet, there is also the never reconciled division from His Eucharist looming over these pools.

The Protestant reformers agreed on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide but were split between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists and everything else.

Yea, is that any wonder?

So, because they didn’t all share the same councils and adopt the same labels are you saying they can’t be considered Protestants?

That’s actually precisely why they are called Protestant.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you know if there are any Billy Graham/Christianity Today type evangelicals within Lutheran churches? I’d be interested to see what that looks like in a Lutheran setting.

I like Billy Graham alot, but just because he is Evangelical, does not make everyone who agrees with his message Evangelic. For example, my parents who belong to the Evangelical Free church I described are no more “Evangelical” than any Practicing Catholic I’ve met.

 

[ltwin]

Oh, sorry… i meant that as a honest admission. I only have experience with one communion who has the title of Evangelical… But I dont know how that is related to any other supposed Evangelical communion.

I have only the vaguest knowledge of E-Free churches. Never attended one, so I won’t attempt to chart out how exactly they relate to other evangelicals. Hopefully, other people who can will chime in.

I do know that the E-Free Church has roots in Swedish and Norwegian Lutheran churches.