Needless to say, my first post about evangelicalism was incomplete. There’s so much more to be said about this subject. Here I want to continue my delineation of the term “evangelical” and the movement called “evangelicalism.” I’m not going to take back anything I wrote there, but I’d like to add to it.
First, about Noll’s and Bebbington’s four hallmarks of authentic evangelicalism. I would add a fifth as part of the historical-theological core of the evangelical movement and its theology: a general respect for the Great Tradition of Christian orthodoxy as that was carved out by the early church fathers and the first four ecumenical councils (which were all accepted by the Protestant Reformers) and as that was expressed consensually by the Protestant reformers of the 16th century. To the best of my knowledge, the evangelical movement as a whole–going back to Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley (who I consider the twin “grandfathers” of the evangelical movement)–has always held that consensual tradition of Christian Protestant orthodoxy in high respect. That doesn’t mean slavish adherence; this respect is consistent with occasionally challenging some part of it (and especially ways in which it has been interpreted and enforced).
That means the evangelical consensual core includes acceptance of the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone as normative. Am I now identifying a boundary? I don’t think so. Let me give an example. Some years ago a young evangelical scholar wrote an article for Christian Scholar’s Review challenging the Chalcedonian definition of Christology. He argued from Scripture and reason that a better formula is “the one-natured God-man.” He demonstrated that his was not merely a repetition of monophysitism or the Eutychian heresy. Some people wanted to cast him out of the evangelical movement. (My response is, of course–Who has the authority or power to do that?) One evangelical journal declined to publish his article simply because it raised questions about Chalcedon!
This man’s name is not important and I don’t want to cite it here because I don’t want to cause him any grief if he has gone on to teach in an evangelical college or university. My point is that in my postconservative paradigm of evangelicalism he is NOT automatically non-evangelical just because he dared to raise serious questions and doubts about the Chalcedonian definition of Christology. I would have problems acknowledging him as a fellow evangelical, however, if he declared that he does not believe in the basic Christian theme of the incarnation. He did not do that. He affirmed belief, with all evangelicals, that Jesus Christ is God and Savior.
Much of the debate about who is and who is not an evangelical comes down to differences of opinion about the importance of certain doctrines. I have my doubts about the authenticity of a person’s evangelicalism (to say nothing of his or her Christian faith) who blatantly and knowingly denied the deity of Christ, the Trinity (God is one substance shared equally by three eternal persons), salvation by grace alone through faith alone or the sole supreme authority of Scripture for all matters of faith and Christian life. HOWEVER, these core doctrines are open to varying interpretations and it is not always easy to tell who really does and who does not believe them.
For example, I have good friends who say they do not believe in the Trinity but who very openly and passionately embrace the deity of Jesus Christ. They are “Oneness Pentecostals.” I have come to believe they are simply confused. I attended one of their churches and a soloist sang the song “Oh, Lamb of God.” The first line (as I recall) is “From your side you sent your Son.” Afterwards, I queried my Oneness Pentecostal host about this and he affirmed his belief that the “your” is the Father. I said “Well, you’ve just affirmed the basic idea of the Trinity.” His response? “Well, we believe whatever the Bible says.” I just shook my head at such confusion.
In every other way my Oneness friends are evangelical. (Yes, they baptize in the “name of Jesus Christ” and some of them think they are the only “real Christians.” But I don’t consider the first characteristic heretical and I see real softening of the second one among them.) Are some Oneness Pentecostals evangelicals? You see, in my paradigm of evangelicalism, there’s usually no absolute, black-or-white answer to such a question. Why not just say “They are except in this one area where perhaps they are not yet fully with the historical evangelical consensus?” Who doesn’t harbor some heresy in some corner of his or her mind?
In my book Reformed and Always Reforming I point out that for years many conservative evangelicals were insisting that the Local Church movement of Witness Lee and his followers was not evangelical or even Christian. Most of them have recently had to back off of that claim. Gradually, through dialogue and further, more carefuly study, even some of the movement’s harshest evangelical critics have had to admit that they were wrong. Could it be that in many cases what people say is not always exactly what they mean? Could it be that knowing what they mean often takes long, careful dialogue? I think so. I have found that to be the case in so many situations where I thought a person or group was heretical but after much hard work and sympathetic listening discovered they are not.
Let me explain by citing one more example. Some good folks who believe in baptismal regeneration claim to be evangelicals IN THE SENSE of the movement identified by Noll and Bebbington (and I might add by Marsden and other historians of the evangelical movement). This would seem to conflict with the second hallmark: conversionism. I struggle with this. Does their belief in baptismal regeneration automatically mean they are not authentically evangelical? I have to say not. However, I would say that AT THIS POINT their belief and practice is not fully consistent with the historic evangelical consensus UNLESS they go on to say that a person saved by baptism must later experience a personal conversion in order to enjoy the fullness of regeneration. (John Wesley fell into this category as did many of the early Pietists.)
My basic point is that there are five general hallmarks of authentic evangelical faith, but these are not litmus tests that can be used to kick someone out of the movement (if that were even possible). I believe we evangelicals can agree to disagree about many matters of faith and practice while together enjoying the gospel of Jesus Christ and its transforming benefits. Let’s stop talking about “evangelical boundaries” in a way that demonstrates an intention to exercise magisterial control by excluding people from our movement.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In