The changing face of evangelicalism
By Alan Cairns
From the address at the 120th Anniversary meeting of the Bible League in London, Saturday 23 June 2012.
“I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16).
This is the testimony of every true evangelical, a term that is not easy to define. I think none of us would disagree with what Dr. Lloyd Jones said in 1971: “The situation today is such that we must not take this term ‘evangelical’ for granted. We must rediscover its meaning. We must define it again. And we must be ready to fight for it and defend it.”
Nor would we disagree with what J. I. Packer said in 1978: “What makes an evangelical will be that which in the eyes of the New Testament writers makes a Christian.”
Or with D. A. Carson’s assessment: “Evangelicalism, at its best, is the locus of where the gospel is defended and proclaimed.”
In Romans 1, we have a classic statement of what in the eyes of the apostles made a Christian. Here we have the gospel clearly stated, proclaimed and defended. In summarizing Paul’s teaching in this chapter and indeed this epistle, we may broadly define the gospel as the divine revelation of God’s way of salvation from sin, death and hell into a right relationship with God through the sole merits of the Lord Jesus Christ, provided to us by grace alone and received by faith alone. This is New Testament Christianity. This is true evangelicalism.
If we are genuinely unashamed of the gospel — if we are true evangelicals — we will demonstrate our faith in,, and faithfulness to, the gospel by declaring it with great clarity, confidence and courage. Here are the classic elements of evangelicalism. Historically evangelicals have differed on many things, but on these they were united.
But not any longer. Once, despite their differences, we had “evangelicals.” Today we have a bewildering array of people claiming the name: New Evangelical, Conservative Evangelicals; Post-conservative Evangelicals, Young Evangelical, Radical Evangelicals, Worldly Evangelicals, Liberal Evangelicals, and even Roman Catholic Evangelicals. Just to list such groupings of professed evangelicals gives us a broad hint as to the changing face of evangelicalism. I suggest three basic areas where we see disturbing trends:
CONFUSING THE IDENTITY OF EVANGELICALS
A few years ago, a Canadian company, The Angus Reid Group, did a survey of people in 33 countries to discover the varying identities of evangelicals. They formulated their questions around British historian David Bebbington’s four identifying beliefs of evangelicals: the centrality of (1) the Cross; (2) the Bible; (3) conversion; and (4) evangelism. In this survey, a person qualified as an evangelical if he could strongly agree with these four statements:
“Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God provided a way for the forgiveness of my sins.”
“The Bible is the inspired word of God” — or to whatever degree, “The Bible is God’s word and is to be taken literally, word for word.”
“I have committed my life to Christ and consider myself to be a converted Christian.”
“It is important to encourage non-Christians to become Christians.”
The problem with this approach is that the questions posed do not probe the identity of a true evangelical. They are deliberately vague where historically evangelicalism has been explicit and definitive. Thus, it is not much wonder that, as New Evangelical historian Mark Noll said, “The distribution of beliefs and practices traditionally known as ‘evangelical’ is surprisingly wide.”
This is the kind of grab-bag definition of evangelicalism being used by many of today’s evangelicals. On this basis, we learn that a Roman Catholic who believes all his church’s dogmas may really be an evangelical. In fact, according Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II was the greatest evangelist of the 20th century.
This vague way of identifying an evangelical is the basis for the late Chuck Colson’s argument for Evangelical-Roman Catholic togetherness: He argued that we face a common enemy, secular humanism, and there are just too many Roman Catholics in the world for us to leave them out of our reckoning. They are true Christians and thus our fellow soldiers in the cause of Christ. Using the same indefinite way of identifying evangelicals, we now have Oneness Pentecostalists such as T.D. Jakes and word of faith prosperity preachers welcomed as evangelicals. By today’s confusing standards, evangelicalism has become a very big tent that houses all sorts of deviant beliefs and practices.
REVISING THEOLOGY
Albert Mohler has observed, “A good many who claim to be evangelicals now want to affirm something other than evangelical theology.” He is right. For some years now, many professed evangelicals have been plotting a radically different theological course from historic evangelicalism. Roger Olson, a New Evangelical historian, listed the trends he saw in those evangelicals who are “shedding theological conservatism.” In his list were eagerness to engage in ecumenical dialogue; refusing to be limited to the Bible as the source of their theology; adopting an “open” view of God in which He no longer is the omniscient Sovereign Lord who works all things according to the counsel of His will, but is rather a “risk taker” for whom the future is hidden, because it depends on the free choices of His creatures; and acceptance of some form of universalism.
Thus, at the most vital points in the doctrinal beliefs of evangelicalism, many modern professed evangelicals have adopted heretical views. We will consider two major theological shifts: with regard to Scripture, and Salvation.
Scripture
The gospel is a divine revelation, conveyed to us by and in the inspired and infallible Word of God, the Bible. Historically, you could never be considered an evangelical if you did not believe this. However, today many professed evangelicals no longer hold this view of Scripture. Some have adopted what is known as modified inerrancy. According to this, the Bible contains a variety of errors, especially in the areas of history and science, and records a number of conversations and events that probably never actually took place. Yet, they insist, the Bible is without error in all that it “intends” to teach.
Other “evangelicals” go even further. They propose the theory of limited infallibility — that is, the Bible claims to be an infallible guide only in matters of faith and practice. By so limiting the infallibility of Scripture, Daniel Fuller wrote, “One can be relaxed in the presence of all scientific and historical inquiries, even those which impinge on the subjects alluded to in Scripture.”
F.F. Bruce lent his support to an even more radical view of Scripture when he wrote the foreword for a book by Dewey M. Beegle that went a lot further than even Fuller dared to go. According to Beegle, even biblical doctrine may be wrong! Many years ago, another professed evangelical, Clarence Bass, wrote: “Many of us admit that the Bible unquestionably contains factual errors, but we still maintain it is inerrant in Divine purpose.”
This downward trend continues. Some “evangelicals” now use redaction criticism to tell us that New Testament writers “modified” the written sources they allegedly employed and the oral tradition that supposedly lay behind them to suit their own purpose — for example, putting words into the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ that He never spoke, and creating events in His ministry that never happened.
Thankfully, men that are more orthodox have written cogently to expose and refute such heretical views, though sadly they rarely allow what they believe to lead them to any meaningful separation from those who are in reality denying the faith.
Salvation
In recent times, some “evangelicals” have revived ancient heresies to attack the evangelical faith at its very core – the doctrine of salvation. Consider the “evangelical” attacks on three vital aspects of that doctrine.
Atonement and Penal Satisfaction
The truth that the Lord Jesus Christ made a substitutionary atonement, that his death was one of penal satisfaction, forms the very heart of the gospel. On that all evangelicals have been united. Now, professing evangelicals outspokenly deny and attack it.
Clark Pinnock and Robert C. Brow are two of a growing number of professed evangelicals who believe that Anselm and Calvin led us astray with their views of penal satisfaction and vicarious atonement. They propose a “less violent” or punitive view of atonement. In fact, in 2001, Eerdmans (reputedly an evangelical publisher) published The Nonviolent Atonement, by J. Denny Weaver. Here in the UK, Bishop N.T. Wright called the traditional interpretation of Galatians 3:10-13 “Nonsense.”
Steve Chalke, an Emergent Church writer, called penal substitution “cosmic child abuse.” Another Emergent leader, Brian McLaren wrote, “Bona fide evangelicals (such as Mark Baker, Joel Green, and N.T. Wright) are suggesting that the gospel is not atonement-centred, or, at least, not penal- substitutionary-atonement-centred.” McLaren gives his own view that penal substitution “presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.”
In 2000, IVF published a blistering rejection of the old evangelical doctrine of the atonement, written by Joel Green and Mark Baker. This book charges those of us who maintain it with preaching “the perceived necessity of placating an emotion-laden God ever on the verge of striking out against any who disobey his every will.”
Justification
The doctrine of justification, famously identified by Martin Luther as the truth that marks either the standing or falling of a church, is another inalienable mark of true evangelicalism. Now it also is under attack, especially in branches of evangelical Reformed Churches.
The major challenge is coming from what is termed “The New Perspective(s) on Paul” (NPP). This novel theory is based on the ideas of theological liberals, but has been championed by a number of professed evangelicals. The theory takes a new look at the Protestant Reformation and its central doctrine, justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Over the past number of years, NPP has gained a lot of traction, especially through the efforts of the English “evangelical” Bishop, N.T Wright.
In short, NPP teaches that the Reformers grievously misunderstood Paul. They were wrong in their view that he taught a forensic justification. Such an idea was never part of his thinking. They were also wrong in teaching that Paul condemned the Jews for a works-salvation theology. That, according to NPP, was not what the Jews believed. They were not given to self-righteousness or legalism.
According to NPP, the Reformers were also wrong in their belief that justification deals with how a person gets right with God. It is not even a doctrine of soteriology at all, but of ecclesiology. It is not God’s declaring us righteous by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness but His declaration that the believer is already a member of the people of God, a relationship entered through baptism.
Again, the Reformers were wrong in emphasizing the salvation of individual sinners instead of God’s world-transforming power proclaimed in the gospel about Christ the Lord. Paul did not preach a new
religious experience but simply announced what he saw as a public fact — Christ had been crucified, had risen again, and was therefore validated as Israel’s Messiah.
Yet again, according to NPP, the Reformers were wrong in insisting on sola fide, justification by faith alone. Wright distinguishes present justification from future justification at the last day. Present justification is our acceptance as members of the covenant community and is entered by baptism. Future justification is by faith, which includes both faith and faithfulness. That is, ultimately our final justification and entrance into glory will be based on how faithful we have been; it is justification by one’s own works. In this, NPP adopts essentially the theology of the Council of Trent. NPP is a total repudiation of the Reformation. Yet its proponents in many cases are accepted as evangelicals.
Pluralism Replacing the Exclusiveness of Christ
Pluralism is the belief that many may be saved through merits of Christ who never personally place their faith in Him. The idea is that people can be saved through knowledge of God in general revelation despite their ignorance of the gospel or even of the very name of Jesus. This was the idea behind Billy Graham’s famous statements to Robert Schuller:
I think everybody who knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. … God’s purpose is to call out a people for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, the Buddhist world, the Christian world, the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus. …I think they are saved and are going to be in heaven with us.
I’ve met people in various parts of the world … that have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God (emphasis added).
In case some may still be left outside the number of the saved, some “evangelicals” propose a couple of other old heresies, post-mortem encounter, sometimes rather grandly called eschatological evangelism. This piece of jargon simply means that the gospel will be preached to the dead, who then will have the chance to respond believingly. And if that doesn’t bring them in, according to many professed evangelicals, they still will not go to hell. They will be annihilated.
REALIGNING RELATIONSHIPS
Modern evangelicalism is realigning itself in two areas, the Church and the world.
Church Relations
Many years ago, Dr. Lloyd Jones asked:
Is it right to tolerate in the same church people whose views on the essentials of the faith are diametrically opposed? Is it right in the light of NT teaching that we regard such people as ‘brethren’?
Today’s evangelicals answer with a resounding Yes! Since all baptized persons are to be treated as Christian brethren, ecumenical togetherness is the order of the day.
Billy Graham expressed the new evangelical ecumenical spirit when at the 1961 WCC Congress in New Delhi he asked the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, an avowed liberal: “Do we have to part company because we disagree on methods and theology?” Graham evidently believed the answer should be “No,” and many modern evangelicals entirely agree.
Alister McGrath argues that rigorous definition of evangelicalism excludes a large number of people who regard themselves, and are regarded by others, as evangelicals. That thinking induces evangelical ministries to embrace openly non-evangelicals as evangelical brethren. For example, Navpress published a book by the Roman Catholic “evangelical” priest, Keith Fournier. Eerdmans went even further and published a book by Robert L. Millet, with a Foreword by Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary. Millet is a Mormon who tenaciously holds on to every particle of his cult’s dogmas, but somehow, with the realignment modern evangelicals are making with other faith groups, he now passes as some kind of evangelical.
We may add an almost endless body of evidence of this realignment. J. I. Packer joined Chuck Colson and other evangelical leaders to produce Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). Evangelicals routinely hold “discussions” with all sorts of groups, as if their differences were all a matter of misunderstanding. Evangelicals are fully involved in the World Council of Churches (WCC) and other ecumenical endeavours. Not only is this ecumenical involvement a betrayal of evangelical theology, it is a negation of the mission evangelicals have always pursued. Both the WCC and ECT are unhappy with evangelizing Roman Catholics and, of course, if evangelicals have accepted that all baptized persons are to be regarded as Christians, they can hardly disagree.
There is another ecumenical realignment trend that is very evident in evangelical circles, what has been called “Christian co-belligerency” against a common foe. Frequently evangelicals join forces with Roman Catholics and other non-evangelicals to form a united “Christian” witness against abortion or similar social evil. Thus not only at denominational level but at grass roots level evangelicals are being conditioned to fudge or deny the distinctives of evangelicalism in favour of a new ecumenical definition of what makes a Christian.
Compromise with anti-Christian error can never further the cause of the gospel. That is a truth that has identified evangelicalism. However, today’s New Evangelicals deliberately eschew all idea of separation from and confrontation of perverters of the gospel. They set out to be non-confrontational, except for condemning Fundamentalists or Pietists! It seems that today’s evangelicals are against almost nothing. However, as Martyn Lloyd Jones pointed, “One of the first signs that a man is ceasing to be truly evangelical is that he ceases to be concerned about negatives.” We cannot be for Christ without being against all that is against His gospel.
Relations with the World
Increasingly, evangelicals are joining the liberal chorus about redeeming our culture — always, it seems, by becoming immersed in it. They routinely condemn anyone who seeks to live by the old evangelical standards as a pietist and a legalist. Historically, evangelicals have not embraced popular culture but have lived in separation from it — not as legalists seeking to merit divine favour but as grateful recipients of free grace. Once again, I may quote Dr. Lloyd Jones:
Evangelicals pay great attention to the way in which people live. They are strict in their behaviour. This used to be one of the most prominent characteristics of evangelicalism. [People] used to describe … the evangelicals in these terms, Ah, they’re people who don’t go to cinemas, they don’t drink, and they don’t smoke. I do not think they say that about them anymore. There has been a great change, but I am one of those who believe that there was a great deal to be said for the old position.
To put it bluntly, most modern evangelicals of all stripes are what our forefathers would have called worldly. Thankfully, the picture is not altogether bleak. There is evidence that some evangelicals are seeing the need for a return to a genuine experience of holiness of life, a holiness that is a Spirit- powered, gospel-driven, and faith-fuelled commitment to an active pursuit of sanctifying grace. This is a welcome development, but it is very much a minority movement. Evangelicalism in general is deeply mired in worldliness.
WHAT MUST BE OUR RESPONSE?
Faced with such departures from, and attack upon, evangelical faith and practice by “evangelicals,” what must be our response? We must grasp with fresh clarity the true evangelical faith. We must act on what we believe and live separated, holy lives in the power of the Holy Spirit; we must practice genuine piety. Then we must stand without fear or compromise for the essentials of our faith. That calls us to separation from the great apostasy from the faith we are witnessing all around us. We must, however, distinguish separation from schism. We must stand together with those “of like precious faith” and not indulge in needless division in the ranks of true evangelical believers. And we must give ourselves to prayer, for it is only as we prevail with God that we can ever experience His power and blessing on our lives and labours. Finally, we must disseminate the good seed of the Word everywhere. We must take the gospel to the masses and adopt Paul’s words as our motto: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.”