Contemporary evangelicalism. A changing face?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
This thread springs from the discussion on 'The Rapture' as my general impression is that eschatological speculation of that kind has diminished within evangelical circles in recent years - although it has been given a boost in some quarters by events in the Middle East.
I know that evangelicalism is always in a state of flux and is a pretty dynamic and flexible thing - and indeed, wonder whether it is even possible to think of a coherent definition of the term any more.
Nevertheless, I am interested in exploring changes and developments in the evangelical landscape over the last 30 years or so.
It strikes me that some sections have become more 'reflective' and contemplative and slightly more 'Quaker-y'. These sections have become more eclectic, albeit in a selective way, drawing on popular figures from outside the movement and even outside Protestantism - Nouwen, Rohr etc.
To be fair, there were always more mystical types within evangelicalism, into Madame Guyon and Brother Lawrence and so forth, but I get the impression that there is more awareness of the more Catholic and sacramental traditions than there would have been back in the day.
There also seems to have been a shift in some quarters on 'Epiphany' issues and things like sex before marriage.
At the same time, I think that here in the UK there's also been a definite anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-Islam tendency in some sections of the evangelical constituency - despite the fact that people who weren't born in the UK make up an increasing proportion of evangelical congregations.
There also appears to be more of an acceptance of and emphasis on the arts than there used to be, but in a somewhat pragmatic and utilitarian way - but nevertheless...
I'm saying all of this as an outside observer and realise that my perspective is a partial one. I don't know what's happening with black-led and ethnic minority churches, for instance and my perspective is obviously UK-centric and more suburban than inner-city.
Overall, and I don't mean this in a patronising way, I get the impression that some sections of contemporary evangelicalism are more holistic than they were when I was an earnest young evangelical and other sections less so.
Perhaps t'was ever thus.
I know that evangelicalism is always in a state of flux and is a pretty dynamic and flexible thing - and indeed, wonder whether it is even possible to think of a coherent definition of the term any more.
Nevertheless, I am interested in exploring changes and developments in the evangelical landscape over the last 30 years or so.
It strikes me that some sections have become more 'reflective' and contemplative and slightly more 'Quaker-y'. These sections have become more eclectic, albeit in a selective way, drawing on popular figures from outside the movement and even outside Protestantism - Nouwen, Rohr etc.
To be fair, there were always more mystical types within evangelicalism, into Madame Guyon and Brother Lawrence and so forth, but I get the impression that there is more awareness of the more Catholic and sacramental traditions than there would have been back in the day.
There also seems to have been a shift in some quarters on 'Epiphany' issues and things like sex before marriage.
At the same time, I think that here in the UK there's also been a definite anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-Islam tendency in some sections of the evangelical constituency - despite the fact that people who weren't born in the UK make up an increasing proportion of evangelical congregations.
There also appears to be more of an acceptance of and emphasis on the arts than there used to be, but in a somewhat pragmatic and utilitarian way - but nevertheless...
I'm saying all of this as an outside observer and realise that my perspective is a partial one. I don't know what's happening with black-led and ethnic minority churches, for instance and my perspective is obviously UK-centric and more suburban than inner-city.
Overall, and I don't mean this in a patronising way, I get the impression that some sections of contemporary evangelicalism are more holistic than they were when I was an earnest young evangelical and other sections less so.
Perhaps t'was ever thus.
Comments
I think you're probably right.
Perhaps 10 years or even 5 years ago there'd have been more of a response. There aren't many evangelicals aboard Ship these days and yes, the fragmentation and range of expressions makes it hard to generalise.
It's a tradition I'm still interested in, though and not simply because I used to be involved with it.
I'd still consider myself evangelical in terms of a commitment to the Gospel, even though I wouldn't frame that in quite the same way as I would have done.
Evangelicalism has always been a tapestry of different threads. Derek tidball (former principal of London bible college iirc) used the analogy of a rubicks cube to describe the range of options in regard to various layers of theology and praxis (soteriology, ecclesiology, worship styles, eschatology, politics/social action etc etc).
I suspect that whichever aspects seem prominent at any given time the others (often contradictory and balancing ) are still to be found somewhere in the mix.
I've certainly seen many of the things that @Gamma Gamaliel mentions.
In this current social media disinformation age the parroting of various right wing "talking points" (by folk in the pews I hasten to add not clergy/official leaders) is concerning.
I also suspect that there are trends that are puffed by the media so one issue will become a hot potato for a bit if it can be marketed to sell books or other stuff.
I can also understand the position of someone like @Alan Cresswell as I think it's entirely possible to be evangelical theologically without subscribing to one or other of the particular subcultures through which it tends to operate.
I'm sure that happens in other Christian traditions too.
I've mentioned my nephew on these boards before. He is fairly liberal in theology but attends a pretty full-on evangelical church as it's the only place he can meet Christians of his own age. There aren't any young people in the more liberal churches in his area.
I'm closer to 60 than 50 and the only place I'd be likely to find people my age or younger would be some Charevo place.
Still rather stick pins in my eyes.
Some US Episcopalian clergy I met during the summer told me that in parts of the Mid-West or the rural South the only options available were charismatic evangelical or conservative evangelical churches of one form or other.
If you weren't an evangelical or a charismatic you didn't go to church at all.
The same would be true in reverse, of course in traditionally Orthodox or RC countries. If you weren't Orthodox or RC there might not be any immediately available alternatives.
To some extent here in the UK I think a parallel applies with the decline of 'traditional' churches and more liberal outfits.
The more liberal Anglican parish here is down to around 30 regulars compared to around 80 before the pandemic.
I remember hearing an interview with a sociologist from Lancaster University who conducted a study of religion in Kendal.
The only churches which were holding their own were the evangelical ones.
The unintended corollary of that was that people got the impression that to be a Christian you had to be prepared to give a 'testimony' in a service or to wave your arms in the air or speak in tongues.
If you weren't prepared to do any of those things then church wasn't for you.
That's not the 'fault' of the evangelicals I'd suggest, if anything it's more of an indictment of the more liberal or sacramental churches.
That's if we are even going to play the blame game of course.
I'd suggest there are complex sociological and societal forces at work that are beyond anyone's control.
I do believe in 'intentionality' in Christian worship and discipleship but don't see that as necessarily tethered to any particular expression of the faith.
You can be a very 'intentional' and committed liberal Christian, of course.
* Pedant alert: Episcopalian is a noun. The adjective is Episcopal.
Evangelicalism used to be a broad spread of positions, ultimately resting on the bible being the ultimate source of authority. And this embraced - just about - a whole lot of views from mine to rampant fundamentalism.
But there has been a rift - a chasm - in the last decades, primarily defined around the whole issue of homosexuality, but actually covering a much wider set of issues. It is the same tensions that have always existed, but the fundamentalist side have demanded that they are the only true evangelicals. In fact, the only true Christians (another title I tend to reject as being associated with far too many repugnant views).
So yes, it is changing. Not for the better. Where this will end, I have no idea, but I suspect the fundamentalist end will become anathema to pretty well everyone in time. Possibly, not before they have destroyed as much as they can.
The ambiguity generated by the multiple denotations and connotations of “evangelical” is the challenge, and the question becomes “what does the average person associate with the word ‘evangelical?’” The answer will depend on context—national context, cultural context, the speaker’s context, etc. In my part of the US, I’d hazard the guess that people are much more likely to associate “evangelical” with Southern Baptists or non-denominational churches than with Lutherans.
@Nick Tamen the Episcopalian clergy I met were largely from the Great Lakes area, Colorado or the Atlantic north-east, so no, they would not be as au-fait with the rural South as your good self.
One was from Florida and another from Kentucky and they'd grown up in fundamentalist churches.
I am aware of the Methodist presence in the Deep South. I've met Methodist ministers from the Southern US who were far from fundamentalist.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there are only fundamentalist churches in Southern US towns and cities. My impression of the Southern US is that all major churches and denominations will be present in the larger towns and then some.
But these US Episcopalians did insist that there were places which had just two churches, both different flavours of fundamentalism, sometimes opposite one another on a dusty crossroads somewhere in Tumbleweed or Dust-Bowl County ...
I will defer, though, to your observations on-the-ground.
Within a couple of years, the powers that be in the Christian Union became obsessed with a way of thinking all about power. Meant to be about the power of the Holy Spirit, all too soon it became about the power of those in charge, followed by a leap into full on charismatic stuff, which is where I parted company.
In more recent years our town suffered from the ultra fundamentalist evangelical ( non- charismatic) vicar who would having nothing to do with Christians who did not see or do things his way. He withdrew from anything ecumenical: the Good Friday act of witness, Remembrance Day, Christian Aid, even from the team who led services in care homes. If that is modern evangelicalism, I don’t want to be linked with it in any way.
In the last ten years we have seen a hardening of hearts wrt LBGT issues and women priesthood and we had to move on. We now worship in a very ordinary Anglican church and take great comfort from the regular eucharist services. I pray and share with a lovely Catholic priest.
I'm happy to demonstrate the gifts of the Spirit and remain in touch with old evan friends, but believe that any church that doesn't emphasise and nurture the fruits of the Spirit has gone badly astray. What St Augustine wrote all those many years ago is pertinent:
Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought. If, on the other hand, a man draws a meaning from them that may be used for the building up of love, even though he does not happen upon the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended to express in that place, his error is not pernicious, and he is wholly clear from the charge of deception.” and later “if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads.
From "On Christian Doctrine".
In that sense, it's something of a throwback.
I remember some respected evangelical pundits around 20 years ago now predicting that more fundamentalist forms of conservative evangelicalism would enjoy something of a resurgence, but this would only be a temporary knee-jerk thing.
I tend to agree with their analysis. I've come across a few die-hards like the vicar you mention but my sense is that they are few and far between and don't represent a groundswell as such.
But as other posters have observed, it's hard to generalise - although I've just done so!
I'm not sure anything substantial 'emerged' from the 'emergent' thing of the early 2000s or from 'post-evangelicalism' - jokingly referred to as 'pre-catholicism' at times.
My overall impression though is that other than among the die-hards contemporary evangelicalism in the UK tends to be more 'open' and nuanced but again it's hard to generalise.
With reference to the rapture thread, maybe trying to define evangelicalism in terms of what is believed isn't especially useful (even if there often seems to be a particular emphasis on the detail of what is believed). I'm not convinced worship practices offer many insights, either.
I think there are other ways to characterise church movements, such looking at whether there are patterns to the ways in which different groups have come to be formed, grow, and endure, evolve, merge or wither.
In this context, I wonder whether the swing towards intolerance is a new development, or if cycles of intolerance are part of the modus operandi of evangelicalism?
Ironically, much of what many think of as Evangelicalism aren't included in the Quadrilateral at all. There's nothing within that description that would predict any particular style of worship is Evangelical - many of the classic hymns were written by Evangelicals, many Evangelicals find they worship more naturally without a praise band performing nothing written more than 5 years ago. There's nothing that would require the development of an entire sub-culture of music, novels, holiday camps etc.
It's the Bebbington Quadrilateral that still allows me to hold onto the label "Evangelical" to describe my faith. Unless it's been revised in the last 30 years, I could probably still agree with the doctrinal basis of UCCF (for our non-Brit friends, the evangelical umbrella group for university and college Christian Unions). But, praise band worship does nothing for me. And, I'd agree with Augustine quoted above and reject interpretations of the Bible that don't align with the imperative to love all, or which are so ludicrous that they needlessly portray the Christian faith as nonsense (eg: YEC). I also reject the requirement that true Christians exhibit particular manifestations of the Spirit - which is a characteristic of Charismatics rather than Evangelicals, although there is a significant overlap there are Evangelicals who aren't Charismatic and Charismatics who aren't Evangelical.
I wouldn't say that was an exclusively evangelical thing.
There's a particularly virulent fundamentalist thing going on within Orthodoxy at the moment.
These things tend to surface during times of uncertainty and change.
Some early evangelicals were very prominent in the Abolition movement, for instance. Others promoted slavery.
At the moment I think some sections within evangelicalism feel under threat - as did the early Fundamentalists - and so are taking a hard line for that reason.
@chrisstiles - I think Bebbington's Quadrilateral is a useful 'marker' but think things have moved on since he devised it.
I also agree with @Pease and @Baptist Trainfan that it is no longer sufficient - if it ever was - simply to look at stated beliefs.
All religious groups are more than the sum total of their particular belief system. We are dealing with people after all not creedal formularies, written or unwritten.
The pace of change is quickening too.
I remember reading a reflection by the late Dr Andrew Walker on his book about the UK restorationist scene, Restoring the Kingdom.
He observed that no sooner had he completed one chapter then alliances and emphases changed so that it was immediately out of date.
He couldn't write the book quickly enough to keep pace with shifts and changes.
I would posit that this holds true to some extent across the evangelical scene as a whole. A constant shift in fads and trends.
Subject to the various caveats Alan mentions. In any case, at least at one point evangelicalism could be defined in some way by the quadrilateral, so it should be possible to define current day evangelicalism in terms of in relation to the same. Looking at the barest outlines:
Conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
Activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
Biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible
Crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
[Deliberately presented in the order and manner they first appear in Bebbington's book - because the following sections go on to trace how they've played out in varied and different ways historically].
These elements are all still present -- even if they function differently to how they once did, and there's a reasonable case that this if you start off with a movement defined via a series of tendencies rather than firm beliefs, add in a lack of intellectual heft (Noll) and a heavy dose of pragmatism (a la Fuller and major American evangelical figures in the post war era) the end state isn't all that surprising.
In fairness, "I'll start my own [blank]. With blackjack. And hookers." is a pretty universal human impulse. The Reformation boosted it, and enlightenment ideas turbo-charged it. The mediaeval and early modern church diverted it into religious orders where possible and suppressed it as heretical where not.
That isn't to say that we don't have our differences and divisions, generally over jurisdictional and power-play issues rather than doctrinal spats.
The current egregious schism between Moscow and Constantinople is a case in point.
Most Christian heresies started in the Christian East, though. The poor old Cathars in France were influenced by ideas from the eastern Mediterranean.
Would there have been more flux and flexibility within the Eastern Churches had it not been for subjection under the Ottomans and Communists?
Probably.
As I understand it, it is descriptive not prescriptive. It's also a way of analysing common threads over two and a half centuries of diverse theologies and behaviours.
As for whether I’m correct for where I am, this is from “An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church,” found at the website of The Episcopal Church: and
There is also this, found on The Episcopal Church’s Writing Style Guide:
I’ve heard American Episcopalians insist on the Episcopal/Episcopalian distinction many times. And as the clergy @Gamma Gamaliel was talking about were American Episcopalians, I think it’s a very safe bet they would not refer to themselves as “Episcopalian clergy.”
Returning the definition of evangelical, and out of curiosity, I took a look at the website of the (US) National Association of Evangelicals to see how they define “Evangelical,” assuming they did at all. I found this, following reference to the Bebbington Quadrilateral, on the page “What Is an Evangelical”: FYI, LifeWay Research is the polling and survey division of LifeWay Christian Resources, the publication/media and business services entity of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I also found this NAE Statement of Faith: FWIW.
I type quickly and tend not to edit my posts as much as I ought.
Over here, both terms are used, although I'm not at all surprised to see 'Scottish Episcopal' rather than 'Scottish Episcopalian' used in the reference you cite. I wouldn't really expect it be otherwise.
In mitigation, I s'pose that as the American group consisted of both clergy and laity, I was more inclined to use the term Episcopalian as a generic term for members of a particular church which 'denominates' itself that way.
I will try to be more pedantic in future. 😉
In relation to the Bebbington Quadrilateral, "activism" looks to be rather a broad term - it covers a wide range of sins. For example, comparing it with the NAE/LifeWay statement, my long-time observation is that being evangelical doesn't always correlate with direct personal involvement in evangelism, although it does usually correlate with an attitude towards evangelism. (ie the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk.)
I used to read rather more evangelical statements of faith than was entirely healthy. Given the context, I was often intrigued about what they said regarding the church. Considering the relevant statement from above: "We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ", I'm put in mind of John Nelson Darby (from the segment of his wikipedia entry on the Rapture thread): There seems to be a distinctive idea of church being alluded to, although I've yet to work out how to articulate it.
It occurred to me that this is true of all of the quadrilateral - at least in their summary formation, and the more specific definitions are historically contingent. That was the reason for extracting them in their earliest and least developed form.
That isn't to say that it doesn't have an ecclesiology, but it does differ of course from the 'higher' ecclesiology of the more sacramental historic Churches and indeed, those of the 'Magisterial Reformation' ... the Lutherans and classic Reformed Churches.
Darby's ecumenical group gathering to 'break bread' was no doubt pretty ground-breaking in its day, but I can't imagine they'd have welcomed Catholics to the table any more than the RCs or Orthodox would have welcomed them either.
In some ways, I'd suggest the UK restorationist movement tried to develop an ecclesiology in reaction to the individualistic 'me and Jesus' tendency to which evangelicalism can be prone.
There are, of course, 'gathered covenant communities' on a Congregationalist model, and I'm not decrying that as an ecclesial form.
What the restorationists did was ratchet that up a few degrees and effective develop a 'charismatic episcopacy' to which they gave fancy names - 'apostles and prophets'.
You could be called Dave or Fred and be on first name terms with everyone and not wear a cope or a funny hat but you'd still have a flash car and better treatment at the Bible Weeks.
In some ways the 'covenant relationships' espoused by the restorationists, with varying degrees of elasticity, mirrored the kind of 'covenant' commitments espoused by older religious orders, only applied to a 'gathered' church community rather than a monastic or neo-monastic setting.
I'm 'seeing' a woman from an evangelical background and, surprise, surprise, her ecclesiology and approach is far more 'individualistic' than mine.
She likes to do Bible studies, which is fine of course, but I notice that my approach and interpretation tends to be more 'corporate' than hers. What does this say to the people of God as a whole, rather than me as an individual, as it were.
I wouldn't want to overstate that but I do think it's an issue.
I'd also say that whilst I think a kind of 'evangelical ecumenism' is generally good and benign - within its own parameters - it can lead to greater levels of consumerist 'shopping around'. We've has a thread about that recently.
The charismatic movement has often been described as 'a spirituality in search of a theology.'
I'd suggest that much of evangelicalism is a spirituality/theology in search of an ecclesiology.
I think evangelicalism doesn’t have a single ecclesiology.
IME evangelical Anglicans have a clear ecclesiology, evangelical Baptists have a clear but different ecclesiology, evangelical Methodists different again.
I think all have in common the principle that scriptural warrant trumps ecclesiastical structure if the two are seen to be in conflict.
Of course, they're all wrong ... 😉
I can't say I've noticed evangelical Anglicans having a particularly clear ecclesiology mainly because a lot of people in evangelical Anglican parishes tend to gravitate to the evangelical aspect rather than the Anglican aspect.
That probably differs at ministerial level though and with what used to be known as 'Prayer Book evangelicals.'
Baptists tend to have a pretty clear ecclesiology IME.
At the risk of sounding patronising, many evangelicals strike me as not having very much of an ecclesiology at all.
Baptists do because the way they organise themselves is predicated on a particular ecclesiology and so it's part of the warpath and woof of how they operate in a way that might be less immediately apparent in other groups.
That's my impression anyway and I'm willing to be challenged on it.
I think individualism comes before ecclesiology for many evangelicals.
@Baptist Trainfan - precisely that also.
And yes, predictive text got the better of me.
Warp and woof.
All that said, the flipside is that despite the tendency towards individualism and consumerism many evangelicals demonstrate remarkable levels of commitment and energy to whatever congregations they end up in that more liberal or sacramental Christians would envy.
See my comment acknowledging the energy and commitment that many evangelicals bring to their congregations, and indeed to other causes and initiatives.
What I would say is that by its very nature, though, evangelicalism is going to display a degree of individualism and consumerism in the way it works out on the ground.
I'd also add that if individual evangelicals don't 'think about ecclesiology much' then that isn't their 'fault', nor is it a state of affairs restricted to evangelicalism.
I've known Baptist churches which have run preaching and teaching sessions outlining their particular ecclesiology. The restorationist churches in the UK also emphasised their 'distinctives' in this respect.
I'd posit, though, that across evangelicalism more broadly ecclesiology isn't seen as a priority issue.
Heck, I've come across evangelical Anglicans who sit very loosely indeed by Anglican rubrics and polity and flaunt that proudly.
Also, @TurquoiseTastic's comment appears to imply that most evangelicals have been converted into it from unchurched backgrounds. That certainly happens but there's also 'transfer growth' with people moving into evangelicalism from other Christian traditions or from nominal adherence.
I can't cite figures but I suspect the transfer rate isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Are all evangelicals motivated purely by individualism and consumerism?
No of course not.
Do these things feature in the evangelical landscape?
Yes. Most certainly.
But they aren't the only features.
In other times and places that may not have been true, when Covenantors went to their death to defend their church from having a different ecclesiology imposed on them this was probably much more prominent. But, today in the UK ... well, most people in churches simply don't care, and thus don't learn what the ecclesiology of their church is.
Yes, yes, I know, 'those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.'
But I'm not sure I'd have wanted the Covenanters running the show in my town.
Anyway - I think something we also need to bear in mind is that people don't just join or choose their religious affiliation. Plenty of regulars in whatever church we are talking about were brought up in them - although this may be less the case now than it would hsve been a few generations back.
We Orthodox have plenty of 'cradle-Orthodox' who only roll up at Easter and other key festivals, and our rubrics allow for that, even though it does cause problems.
So, no, I'm not saying that your average Anglican goes home and discusses the finer points of Episcopal polity over their Sunday dinner.
Nor that the average Methodist is fixated with Connexional issues, or the URC with the convolutions (or convulsions?) of congregational polity - at least not until there's an 'issue'.
Perhaps it's the case that evangelicals tend to come in for scrutiny on boards like this because us theology wonks find it strange that they should be so 'vocal' about some aspects of their faith - whether personal relationship with Christ, primacy of scripture, particular views on the end-times, spiritual gifts, modes of baptism etc etc - and less outspoken as it were on other issues such as ecclesial ones.
The experience and doctrine is seen as more important than the particular way it's organised and expressed in 'structural' terms as it were.
The converse can be the case elsewhere. In my own setting I often think - tell it not in Gath - that the emphasis we place on Episcopal polity is sometimes in inverse proportion to the actual input we get from these fellas. It varies across the board.
Just thinking aloud. Thinking allowed.
Abstract begins: Introduction begins:
As I'm too busy to read it right now, what does he conclude?
If we are looking for sources; it's been a while since I read it, but "Economy of Desire" from the Church and Postmodern Culture series may be relevant here, particular Bell's (Daniel M Bell) conception of the Church as an alternate economy of desire
I downloaded it ... 287 pages!!! Which I don't pretend to understand.
- Bell, Daniel. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books, 1996.
- ________. The Economy of Desire: Christianity and Capitalism in a Postmodern World. The Church and Postmodern Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.
- ________. Liberation Theology after the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering. Radical Orthodoxy. London: Routledge, 2001.
- ________. “What Gift Is Given? A Response to Volf.” Modern Theology, 19 (2003): 271–280.
It does seem to be quite comprehensive! I'm having to scratch my head about some of the terminology.