Ryan Hoselton, a postdoctoral instructor at the University of Heidelberg, asks a good question about my feature today at Current:
Perhaps “Bebbington but” is the best way to define evangelicalism. I still use Bebbington when I define the term in conversations with students, churchgoers, and the general public. It is still the best definition for teaching.
I have said this somewhere before, but I see evangelical Christianity as wing of orthodox Christianity that prioritizes biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism (like Tommy Kidd and John Stackhouse, I might also add the reliance of the work of the Holy Spirit to the mix). Throughout American history, evangelicals have been:
- White
- Black
- Hispanic
- Asian
- Indigenous
- Intellectuals
- Anti-intellectuals
- High church
- Low church
- Populists
- Dispensationalists
- Calvinists
- Inerrantists
- Barthians
- Misogynists
- Patriarchs
- Egalitarians
- Complementarians
- Racists
- Slaveholders
- Segregationalists
- Abolitionists
- Civil Rights advocates
- Opponents of Critical Race Theory
- Supporters of Critical Race Theory
- Worshippers of political power
- Opponents of the pursuit of political power
- Christian nationalists
- Opponents of Christian nationalism
- Conservatives
- Liberals
- Progressives
- Libertarians
- Trumpists
- Globalists
- Localists
- Pro-life
- Pro-choice
- Pro-capital punishment
- Anti-capital punishment
- Socialists
- Capitalists
- Missionaries
- Humanitarians
- Social justice warriors
- Evangelists
- Relief workers
- Fundamentalists’
- Civic humanists
- Working class
- Middle class
- Wealthy
- Poor
- Environmentalists
- Anti-environmentalists
You get the idea. People who believe in the Bebbington Quadrilateral can be found in all of these categories and more. If you want to make a case that people cannot be evangelicals if they identify with one of these categories, you will need to make a theological argument, not a historical one.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.