# When Did Evangelical No Longer Mean Evangelical?



## LawrenceU (Jan 8, 2009)

Historically, if I recall correctly, 'evangelical' meant that the Doctrines of Grace were being held to and preached. Now the term is applied to everything from strict confessional Presbyterian and Baptist churches to Joel Osteen and further 'left'. When did it change? I know that J.M. Boice wrote on this and his books are in my attic stored away. Now


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 8, 2009)

You might find _What is Reformed Theology?_ by Dr RC Sproul helpful explaining this (and many other related topics).

The "evangel" meant the gospel, historically, and it differentiated protestantism from the Roman system. The gospel is essentially justification by faith (in Christ's righteousness) alone, and that was one of the "solas" of the protestant reformation (sola fide). This has been under attack throughout history, including adding works and sacraments to justification by the Roman Church at the time of the Reformation and down to the recent sophisticated argumentation of "federal vision" theology.

So, historically, it was virtually synonymous with protestant. The differentiation (e.g. mainline protestant v. evangelicals) being historically relatively more recent to reflect the separation of liberalism from the rest of "evangelicalism."

"Reformed" may be a better term at this moment in history because it implies catholic (universal), evangelical (gospel), as well as the doctrines of grace (esp. "Calvinism", covenant theology and a confession of faith, and very biblical, all of Scripture.

Also, at this time in our generation, "evangelicalism" broadly defined has sometimes lost the gospel and is trending in some quarters toward wholesale modernism (liberalism) that it used to be defined by.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 8, 2009)

So, originally 'evangelical' would have applied to all Protestants?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 8, 2009)

Contrary to the post above, I don't think "evangelicalism" has ever been equated to the doctrines of grace or Calvinism. In the early-to-mid 1900's it was more properly associated with conservative Protestantism vs mainline denominational Liberalism. Granted, today it is losing its older identity.

But there is more history to the term than that. Some generally helpful info may be found here:
Evangelicalism - Theopedia


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 8, 2009)

While some may want to date it back to Finney or the 2nd Great Awakening...


I think that the strongest case can be made that "evangelical" took the decisive turn in the Post WWII years which saw the establishment of "Evangelical" institutions such as Christianity Today, Fuller Seminary, etc... the intentional work of guys like Henry to articulate a "conservative protestant" platform intentionally broad enough to encompass as many as possible surely was the "beginning of the end."


----------



## Archlute (Jan 8, 2009)

A distinction needs to be made between "Evangelical" and "Evangelicalism". Protestants have historically been defined as evangelicals. Evangelicalism as a movement from within Protestantism is a different matter.

-----Added 1/8/2009 at 01:47:37 EST-----



SolaScriptura said:


> While some may want to date it back to Finney or the 2nd Great Awakening...
> 
> 
> I think that the strongest case can be made that "evangelical" took the decisive turn in the Post WWII years which saw the establishment of "Evangelical" institutions such as Christianity Today, Fuller Seminary, etc... the intentional work of guys like Henry to articulate a "conservative protestant" platform intentionally broad enough to encompass as many as possible surely was the "beginning of the end."



In light of this, Iain Murray's _Evangelicalism Divided_ is a good, if somewhat depressing, read.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 8, 2009)

The post-WWII turning point Ben is speaking of may be more properly termed Neo-evangelicalism, as coined by Harold Ockenga in 1947 and related to the Evangelical-Fundamentalist break-up in the mid 1900s.

See info at Neo-evangelicalism - Theopedia


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 8, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> The post-WWII turning point you are speaking of may be more properly termed Neo-evangelicalism, as coined by Harold Ockenga in 1947 and related to the Evangelical-Fundamentalist break-up in the mid 1900s.
> 
> See info at Neo-evangelicalism - Theopedia



You're right... but in the vernacular, that is the "evangelicalism" to which most people refer...

-----Added 1/8/2009 at 02:01:10 EST-----

Let me add that I think that since this period and the movement that emerged as a result actually received a "new" label... that this further justifies thinking that this is rightly considered the "beginning" of the monster that is popular "Evangelicalism."


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 8, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > The post-WWII turning point you are speaking of may be more properly termed Neo-evangelicalism, as coined by Harold Ockenga in 1947 . . .
> ...



I agree. One might desire to say that "evangelicalism" is cross-denominational conservative orthodox Protestantism. However, when its boundaries are stretched to include everthing from Joel Osteen  to the Emergent conversation , it tends to lose all significance.

----------edit to add

I appreciated the efforts of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals to try and keep the term linked to the Five Solas of the Reformation, but the Alliance is a small subset of the broader evangelicalism today.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 8, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> One might desire to say that "evangelicalism" today is cross-denominational conservative orthodox Protestantism. However, when its boundaries are stretched to include everthing from Joel Osteen  to the Emergent conversation , it tends to loose all significance.



I agree... but interestingly, my experience has been that most of the people with whom I interact in the Army - let's be honest, this means relatively uneducated and unchurched enlisted folks - still associate the term "evangelical" (because I'll identify myself as a "conservative evangelical") as someone who believes you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven and simultaneously believes you'll go to hell if you don't.
In otherwords, there still appears to be some fundamental connection with the Gospel message in the minds of folks on the "outside."


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 8, 2009)

At the time of Luther, "evangelical" meant holding to the solas first identified in those terms clearly by Zwingli. So during the Lutheran Reformation, "evangelical" became synonymous with "Protestant." Conservative Lutherans still use the term as a differentiator from the Roman system.

At the time of the 2nd Great Awakening, the term took on some of the nuances of "revivalism." This would make it a sub-species of Protestant. "Evangelical revival" of Finney, etc. 

Following WWII, Carl F.H. Henry, Harold J. Ockenga, Billy Graham, et. al. sought to strip conservative Protestant Christianity of some of the negative sociological trappings of fundamentalism (e.g., anti-intellectualism, social rigidity, etc.) by dubbing it (neo)evangelicalism. _Christianity Today _was the flagship publication, Fulller Seminary the quintesential seminary, and Wheaton College the paradigmn for undergraduate education.

My observation is that as "evangelicalis" sought to broaden their appeal, they moved in two opposite directions. 

On the one hand, their degree envy caused them to send their best and brightest off to liberal universities for terminal degrees. Many of them returned to the evangelical academy with mediating, moderating, and overly measured views. This created a theological drift to the left. 

Secondly, the "evangelical" movement, being largely defined by an "experience," being "born again," gave rise to a series of popular exerientially based groups of Pentecostal and charismatic flavor.

With a great concern for pragmatic results in evangelism and church growth coupled with a general lack of confessional boundaries, today we see the Willow Creeks, Saddlebacks, Joel Osteens, Brian McLaren, etc. all as exemplars of "card carrying" evangelicalism. 

British historian David Bebbington has famously described evangelicalism by the following descriptors: biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism, and activism.

The identifying "mark of the Beast," as it were for being an "evangelical" is sometimes reduced to believing that Jesus is special and the notion that we must/should be "born again." This has allowed for the latitudinarianism to slide in almost unnoticed, and sometimes even encouraged!

As for the term "Reformed," that is a non-starter too (in my opinion), if purity of doctrine is your issue. The liberal PCUSA would call itself a "Reformed" denomination as would the Christian Reformed Church in America. Even in Grand Rapids, there are miles of theological difference separating Beeke's PRTS from the nearby (in physical miles) Calvin College and Seminary. Grymir would react . . . well actually go into an apoplectic rant . . . if I were to name Karl Barth as the most famous "Reformed" theologian of the last century.

So, all of the available "inside baseball" names have some problem with them.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 8, 2009)

A very recent White Horse Inn episode (The year end round up) had an interesting discussion (fifteen minutes and forty seconds into the programme) about what "evangelical" means and a definition by an offical of the National Association of Evangelicals was quoted that comprised of:

A belief in biblical innerancy in the original autograph
Born again experience
Shares this message through evangelism

The point was well made that very many sects and false religions would be happy to share this definition, In particular a Mormon would have no problem affirming all three points.

What has been lost is a central belief in what the Gospel actually is, not only is it not central but Evangelicals can diifer over what the Gospel actually is.

Modern reformation has an interesting article by Robert Godfrey at Modern Reformation - Articles that will be online until 22nd January 2009 which discusses "What is the Future of Evangelicalism?".


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 8, 2009)

I was fascinated by that episode too and almost brought up the same point, Mike. Thanks for catching it and adding it to our discussion! The fact that it was the NAE officer who provided the quote is astounding on the one hand and not surprising on the other.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 8, 2009)

> *DMcFadden *
> McFadderator Minimizing
> 
> As for the term "Reformed," that is a non-starter too (in my opinion), if purity of doctrine is your issue. The liberal PCUSA would



Perhaps I see the term "reformed" being used much more specifically in this generation. 

Good overall summary of the history and specifics since WWII especially.

When someone says "reformed" it seems they are recognized as "reformed theology" (Calvinism + covenant theology + historic confession), it really means something.

The mainline denominations (e.g. PCUSA do not really denominate themselves as "reformed" and from what I can tell, have not for a long time). They are mainline protestants and want to be known for a different "inclusive" (liberal, humanist) theology if they talk about theology at all, not "reformed theology" at all.

The evangel is part of "reformed theology" and something that is shared historically with all protestants. But reformed is more, it is catholic, evangelical, doctrines of grace, covenant theology, a historic confession and even more (e.g. a "high" view of the sacraments, of the church generally). All these distinctives make for "reformed" as opposed to "(broad) evangelical" and then distinguished from mainline and liberal denominations.

But "reformed theology" seems to be a line of demarcation- even among conservative evangelicals- they know it is known for something to do with "Calvinism," and perhaps that is not dispensational also.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 8, 2009)

Hippo said:


> A very recent White Horse Inn episode (The year end round up) had an interesting discussion (fifteen minutes and forty seconds into the programme) about what "evangelical" means and a definition by an offical of the National Association of Evangelicals was quoted that comprised of:
> 
> A belief in biblical innerancy in the original autograph
> Born again experience
> ...



Sometimes the WHI/ModernRef fellows go overboard with their critiques, and make themselves look a little foolish as they attack a straw man. 

Statements such as the above are not very accurate, since no Mormon would ever affirm the limits of the Canon (which must be included in any discussion of what constitutes an inerrant autographa) to the exclusion of their own writings. 

Likewise, if we get down to defining a born again experience to include a discussion of the work of the Holy Spirit as described in the epistles, there would be no similarity. 

"Shares this message through evangelism" - what? What message are they talking about? Certainly not the message of "Inerrancy and experience". I don't know of any evangelicals from my upbrining that would have seen that as being the message. Most evangelicals in the churches that I attended during my youth were actually quite knowledgeable about the basics of salvation, even if only by means of "The Romans Road" and such systems, and the message that they shared was actually the Gospel.

I'm all for calling evangelical churches out on wackiness when it is due, and certainly there was a fair share of that in the churches in which I grew up, but give me a break - sometimes the WHI guys act like there is no existing spectrum between Geneva, and Benny Hinn!

-----Added 1/8/2009 at 03:56:38 EST-----

BTW, Godfrey is always worth reading. He possesses a great sense of theological balance, and I find that his understated critiques to be both humorous and accurate.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 8, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Sometimes the WHI/ModernRef fellows go overboard with their critiques, and make themselves look a little foolish as they attack a straw man.
> 
> Statements such as the above are not very accurate, since no Mormon would ever affirm the limits of the Canon (which must be included in any discussion of what constitutes an inerrant autographa) to the exclusion of their own writings.
> 
> ...



If you listen to the discussion that I am referring to I doubt that you would find it to be foolish, they were making an interesting observation that in its context was quite reasonable. 

The point that they were making was that the distinctives of modern Evangelicalism are moving away from the actual Gospel. I like the quote that they often refer to from a rather sound methodist bishop (and I never thought that I would be saying that) that in considering your preaching you should always consider whether Christ would have needed to have died for the message to be true.


----------



## Witsius (Jan 8, 2009)

As an referential aside:

Douglas Sweeney gives a brief, sympathetic overview in The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement (Baker, 2005).
Kenneth Collins belabours the definition of Evangelical in The Evangelical Moment: The Promise of an American Religion (Baker, 2005).
Bebbington and Noll have edited a 5 vol A History of Evangelicalism (IVP), with 3 vols. in print so far: 
Noll - The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitfield and the Wesleys (2003)
Wolffe - The Expansion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Wilberforce, More, Chalmers and Finney (2007)
Bebbington - The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody (2005)

Recently, The Advent of Evangelicalism (2008), a collection of essays reviewing Bebbington's thesis (that evangelicalism "is the result of transatlantic revival in the 1730s , in Evangelicalism and Modern Britain) has come out.
As mentioned previously, neo-evangelicalism is the modern branch of traditional evangelicalism which effected a split from the fundamentalist controversy of the 20s.
It's origins are discussed in the recent The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism (Baker, 2008).
While, Daryl Hart's Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham (Baker, 2004) is one in a long list (including Murray) of Evangelicalism's detractors.

Because of this, and despite its negative connotations, I style myself a Fundamentalist (ie: after The Fundamentals, and Howard's Rebirth of a Nation), Calvinian (after Francis Nigel Lee), Crank (guess) on my facebook profile.


----------



## Archlute (Jan 8, 2009)

Hippo said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes the WHI/ModernRef fellows go overboard with their critiques, and make themselves look a little foolish as they attack a straw man.
> ...




You're preaching to the choir about preaching. I took my M.Div. from WSC.

However, I have also read enough of Mike's books, and sat under enough of his lectures, to hold the opinion that he (and the WHI crew) sometimes does the broader church a disservice by what I would consider a rather sweeping application of labels, and working off of a caricatured description of the evangelical church. I think he's a great guy, and a decent theologian, but that does not keep me from having reservations about some of the WHI's representations of the broader church. There have been more than a couple of occasions where I have come away from an essay or a broadcast thinking that if folk misrepresented Reformed churches the way that the WHI guys sometimes do with Evangelical churches there would be volumes flying off the presses in way of a Reformed counter-response.

They say a lot of good things, a lot of the time. But as Godfrey once wisely said to us in a chapel service, and I paraphrase, "Never allow any personality in the Christian world, no matter how outstanding and attractive, become your Protestant pope." 

Sometimes they don't do as great a job as they should, and that's okay. Nobody is a perfect preacher, either.


----------

