Despite the ongoing effort to outgroup evangelicals, I’m still quite happy to associate myself with the term. Personally, I think any of these definitions work. Pay close attention to how these three serious historians understand evangelicalism - again, on theological terms. One way to think about evangelical beliefs has been effectively captured by Scottish professor David Bebbington in the Bebbington Quadrilateral, which describes evangelicalism in four basic categories: 1) biblicism 2) conversionism 3) crucicentrism and 4) activism (or evangelism).Īlso helpful is George Marsden’s definition. He defines evangelicalism as a commitment to five core beliefs: “1) the Reformation doctrine of the final authority of Scripture 2) the real, historical character of God’s saving work recorded in Scripture 3) eternal salvation only through personal trust in Christ 4) the importance of evangelism and missions and 5) the importance of a spiritually transformed life.” We believe in the divine personhood of Jesus Christ, his salvific work on the cross, the necessity of repentance and faith, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the obligation to fulfill the Great Commission in Matthew 28 by taking the saving message of Christ to “Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth.” Now, as far as I know, French, and even Brooks, may still be happy to cosign the more theologically grounded definition of evangelicals that I am about to consider sadly, their increasingly common fixation on presenting and critiquing a cartoonish caricature of evangelicals as political bad guys makes that, shall we say, less than crystal clear.Įvangelicals are nothing more or less (if we draw our lines rightly) than orthodox Protestant Christians. The word “evangelical” simply comes from the Greek word “euangelion,” which means “good news” or “gospel.” Thus, evangelicals, far from being primarily a sociological grouping, are first and foremost defined by a theological claim about the person and message of Jesus Christ. Noted historian Iain Murray in his work Evangelicalism Divided pegs the origins of the term from all the way back in 1525, when it coincided with the phrase “gospellers.” And historically that’s what the term, and association, has meant. Thankfully, it’s not within the sole jurisdiction of Acela corridor-dwelling creatures like French and Brooks to define evangelicalism. According to these gentlemen, evangelicals are a folk in desperate need of saving by a band of dissenters so bold as to be featured in a multi-page New York Times spread or, if they are of the white variety, they are a people so hopelessly hostage to increasingly extreme political beliefs that their theological commitments are rendered meaningless. Who counts as an evangelical these days? Well, I guess that depends on which David you ask (French or Brooks), and on which day of the week you ask him (I wouldn’t recommend Sundays).
This hard-nosed reality is underscored by the fact that, even as I bring them up, there is need to do some definitional spade work.
And as he struggles to reason how skulls could be used to represent the good guys, he eventually verbalizes the horrifying question: “ Are we the baddies?”Įvangelicals are a funny bunch. He notices that their caps have skulls on them. As the officers are manning the ramparts, preparing to fight the Russians, one of them has a sort of existential crisis sparked by a moment of dawning comprehension. There’s a funny skit involving two German officers in Hitler’s Nazi army, a “crack SS division” at that. “We have to see this: The point of books like Jesus and John Wayne isn’t really to prompt introspection, it’s to induce paralysis.” WILLIAM WOLFE