What makes one Evangelical and not?
OK.
John Stackhouse sort of repeats what Olson says but in different language:
Evangelicals maintain Protestant orthodoxy: they believe what their various denominations have historically taught about Christian doctrine, with special emphasis on Christology and soteriology;
Evangelicals experience conversion: they might enjoy a particular dramatic moment, or they might undergo a long process punctuated by one or more crises, but they all personally commit themselves to Christ and then seek to be fully converted in the process of sanctification;
Evangelicals believe the Bible: they not only maintain classic Christian beliefs about it, but their piety is structured around it: in individual, family, group, and congregation study, in the centrality of preaching in public worship, and in the Bible’s epistemological supremacy in all areas of life;
Evangelicals engage in mission: they view themselves as called by God to perform his will in every activity of life, and particularly in sharing the message of salvation with others and caring for their needs; and
Evangelicals recognize each other across denominational lines as kin: thus evangelicals cooperate in a wide range of organizations and activities to further the work of God beyond the reach of their respective congregation and denomination.
In America, evangelical Protestants are often contrasted against mainline Protestants.
John Green describes mainline Protestants in the following manner:
*Mainline Protestants have a different perspective. They have a more modernist theology. So, for instance, they would read the Bible, not as the inerrant word of God, but as a historical document, which has God’s word in it and a lot of very important truths, but that needs to be interpreted in every age by individuals of that time and that place.
Mainline Protestants tend to also believe that Jesus is the way to salvation. But many mainline Protestants would believe that perhaps there are other ways to salvation as well. People in other religious traditions, even outside of Christianity, may have access to God’s grace and to salvation as well, on their own terms, and through their own means.
Mainline Protestants are much less concerned with personal conversion. Although they do talk about spiritual transformation, they’ll often discuss a spiritual journey from one’s youth to old age, leading on into eternity. So there is a sense of transformation, but there isn’t that emphasis on conversion – on that one moment or series of moments in which one’s life is dramatically changed.
Finally, mainline Protestants are somewhat less concerned with proselytizing than evangelicals. Certainly proselytizing is something they believe in. They believe in sharing their beliefs with others, but not for the purposes of conversion necessarily. The idea of spreading the word in the mainline tradition is much broader than simply preaching the good news. It also involves economic development. It involves personal assistance, charity, a whole number of other activities.*
It should be pointed out, however, that there is a vibrant minority of evangelicals within most mainline denominations. Another thing to keep in mind is that Evangelicalism does not mean “conservative Protestantism.” You can be a theologically conservative Protestant while not sharing evangelical views on conversion or mission.
It seems to me that in many ways, Darryl B’s comments are accurate. They are a more simple communion, who avoids definitions and doctrine to appear more Biblical. They avoid “ties” with history and Church doctrine. But they weren’t the ones who had to defend the True doctrine from false doctrine. Thats usually the way that Catholic doctrine is formed… In seperating what the Church believes from a false understanding. Otherwise, there are the principal doctrines which are more simple and general.
I think this is an oversimplification. Just ask the people at
the Gospel Coalition if church doctrine and history is unimportant.
When Protestant communions are confronted with critique and different opposing doctrine (from within), they usually just depart from a label which they did identify under to a new label. That why my childhood church was “Non-Denominational” and somehow just became “Evangelical Free”. Maybe in 10, 20, or however many yrs, they will be something of a different label.
There are plenty of conservative Presbyterians and Anglicans and Lutherans who maintain those labels even though they have withdrawn from the liberal parent bodies. Why? Because they see themselves as being faithful to historic doctrines of their churches.
Maybe its fair to say that Evangelicals are the most “locally” oriented communions in the greater Church. They are extremely reliant on the immediate “in house” board of leaders. This is not to ignore their ambition to follow Scripture, yet in the end, its practice, teaching, and interpretation is greatly defined by their current pastor and staff. Which there can be a certain accountability in this system. i was told the process of choosing a new pastor is for the applicants to “defend their faith” before the board.
I think you are confusing Evangelicalism with non-denominational Christianity. The two are not the same. Evangelicals are locally oriented, but we are also nationally and globally oriented. We organize across denominational lines to create networks, such as the World Evangelical Alliance and the Lausanne Movement.
