Nathan Finn posted a question on his blog not too long ago entitled, “Defining Fundamentalism,” where he requested his readers to supply some rudimentary definitions of fundamentalism. In the spirit of Finn-ness, I present today’s post.
This afternoon I began reading America’s God by Mark Noll, Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. This well-reviewed work is a “contextual history of Christian theology” in the United States from the 1730’s to the 1860’s. Noll argues that evangelical Christianity has historically played the dominant role in shaping American religious and political life.
In the introduction, Dr. Noll refers to David Bebbington’s definition of evangelicalism, which consists of four defining characteristics:
1. Biblicism: reliance on the Bible as ultimate religious authority
2. Conversionism: emphasis on the new birth
3. Activism: energetic, individualistic engagement in personal and social duties
4. Crucicentrism: focus on Christ’s redeeming work as the heart of true religion (p.5)
My question for you is, “Has Bebbington accurately and adequately described what it means to be an evangelical? If not, then what does it mean to be an evangelical?”
I hope that this generates some interesting conversation. After a few comments I’ll respond with some of my own ideas.
________________________________________
Source: Mark A. Noll, America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
My first question is about his requirement of ‘Biblicism’. It seems a little watered down to me, in the fact that I think there’s a difference between saying the Bible is the ultimate religious authority and saying the Bible is the only source and authority for Christianity. I think his definition leaves room for tradition, the Wesleyan quadrilateral, etc. to be on equal par with Scripture as long as those things don’t contradict Scripture. I think the regulative principle seems to be a stronger representation of what evangelicals really believe about the Bible’s authority, i.e. we do only what Scripture prescribes and nothing else that is based on tradition alone. However, he seems to be including Methodists and Anglicans/Episcopalians in his grouping of evangelicals, and in that case I guess that definition is accurate. But I don’t know if I would group them in with Baptists and Presbyterians, simply for the above distinction in how we view the Bible’s authority.
Matt,
You seem to be bringing up a “theory vs. practice” argument. In theory, Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians would say that (at least those with a high view of Scripture) that they would hold to “Biblicism.” However, in practice, do they? In other words, do they hold to the sufficiency of Scripture?
For the most part, yes. The Methodist church in my opinion is the farthest away in practice from that definition. Their hermeneutic, the Wesleyan quadrilateral, states that Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are all used to interpret Scripture, with the condition that the latter three never supercede Scripture itself. However, in the last 50 years, that has obviously not been the case. Of course, the same could be said for Southern Baptists before the conservative resurgence.
I think that the Wesleyan quadrilateral isn’t too far from the mark, Matt. When we come to a text of Scripture we can’t act as if we have no presuppositions (reason, experiences, and ecclesiastical tradition), but we realize that these are tools to interpret Scripture. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture, and must always be foremost, but I’m not so naive as to think that I don’t already lean heavily on the orthodox, Protestant, and Reformed traditions in helping me to interpret Scripture.
CAJ
I agree that it isn’t too far from the mark; in fact, I think it is a great model. My comment was that Methodism has elevated tradition, reason, and experience to be on par or even to supercede Scripture in their interpretation and practice of the Bible.
p.s. sorry if that wasn’t clear enough in the previous post
Ah, I see, and I agree.
CAJ
Two thoughts. First, in response to Matt’s comments about Methodism, I (as well as Noll and Bebbington) would argue that historically Methodists were the quintessential evangelicals. That is to say, Methodists were the heart and soul of American evangelicalism into the early 20th century. And as for the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” that is largely the creation of 20th century theologians reading back into Wesley. It does not reflect the “historic” Methodist hermeneutic, which was significantly *more* biblicist (i.e. literal) than Presbyterians and Baptists, most of whom held to varying degrees of Covenant theology. And I am not sure that Matt is being fair to even contemporary evangelical Methodists, who certainly don’t exalt tradition to higher place than Scripture, at least no more so than other Protestants, all of whom have “authoritative interpretations” and “traditions,” even if unofficially and informally.
All that said, my second thought is that Bebbington and Noll are way too simplistic in their definition. It is a great definition for historical theologians, but it takes almost nothing social into account. So what do you do with the scads of people who claim to be evangelical now, but do not neatly fit the paradigm? Like every movement, intellectual (in this case theological), social, and cultural characteristics must be taken into account to arrive at a balanced definition. Some, like Noll, are all over Bebbington’s definition. Others, ranging from George Marsden to Donald Dayton, think it is too simplistic. I side with the latter on this one.
NAF
Nathan, always glad to have you. I agree, Bebbington’s definiton of evangelical is basic (though not in a pejorative sense), and I think this is probably intentional. The evangelical movement is so broad that I am not sure a precise yet one-size-fits-all definition can be reached given the “big-tent” nature of modern evangelicalism. I’d be interested in hearing an historical response to this.
Also, in defense of my brother Matt, he grew up in a moderate to liberal United Methodist congregation, and so that is what he is primarily arguing against. Is that accurate, Matt?
CAJ
I’m not sure I’m being unfair to Methodists. I grew up in the UMC, and have had experiences with the church on almost every level except the national general conference. I understand that there are always going to be different opinions amongst large groups such as denominations, and I recognize that there is a conservative movement within the UMC. It was not the purpose of my post to say that there are not any true evangelical Methodists, but simply to say that the UMC is moving further away from the definition of biblicism given in the original post.
I also never qualified the period of history in my post, and just for clarification I am referring to the current Methodist church. So I competely agree with you, Nathan, about your assessment of historical Methodism. The UMC has made many changes in the last 50 years that do not reflect their heritage.
I also never specified which part of the quadrilateral I thought Methodists put above Scripture, and again, for clarification, I am referring largely to the interpretive use of experience. This is seen very clearly in their stance on women in ministry and more recently their lack of agreement on the issue of and even acceptance of homosexuals in the ministry in some parts of the country. While they make valiant attempts to justify those practices in Scripture, they’re decision ultimately comes down to the fact that this or that person feels ‘called’ to the ministry, and they feel it is not up to them to deny that ‘calling’.
Again, while I recognize that there are very evangelical conservative members of liberal denominations, I still hold to my contention that the UMC as a whole, along with the PC-USA and the Episcopal church has moved very far from ‘biblicism’.
Matt,
Are you prepared for the challenge?
haha sure i guess so
I wouldn’t know how to do it anyway…