Evangelicalism: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

A perennial question faces the evangelical movement when it looks in the mirror: Who are we? What exactly is “evangelicalism”? In an essay for the 1993 volume, Southern Baptists and American Evangelicals, edited by David S. Dockery, Robert Johnston surveyed the opinions of various scholars: Cullen Murphy compared American evangelicalism to a twelve ring circus under a “vast tent.” Thomas Stransky deemed it “a confusing conglomeration.” Leonard Sweet coined a triple aphorism for evangelicalism in the late twentieth century: “First, it is important. Second, it is understudied. Third, it is diverse.”¹

Sweet’s third truth is an understatement. Evangelicalism incorporates descendants from both the German Pietist and English Puritan movements, locates peaceful Mennonites with the Dutch Reformed who once persecuted them, and encloses the Baptists who arose in the seventeenth century with the Methodists who arose in the eighteenth century, the Dispensationalists who arose in the nineteenth century, and the Pentecostals who arose in the twentieth century. However, some members of each of these modern denominations are better characterized not as evangelical but “liberal.” John Stott divided contemporary Western Christianity into three “species”: Catholic, liberal, and evangelical.²

Nonetheless, we still seek to define evangelicalism. Johnston listed several efforts to restrict the meaning of evangelicalism so certain groups might benefit by claiming the whole for their part. Narrow definitions have been offered by partisans from the fundamentalist, revivalist, premillennialist, Baconian, and Calvinist camps.³ Proposing a fuller theological definition for evangelicalism, William Abraham recognized evangelicalism was “an essentially contested concept.”⁴ Alas, historical and systematic theologians may approach despair as they attempt to define it. Donald Bloesch found its meaning “fluid.” Donald Dayton recognized no “univocal definition.” Timothy Weber classified its meaning as “one of the biggest problems.” Norman Kraus concluded, “The movement defies a precise theological
definition.”⁵

Its varieties, fluidities, and imprecisions should not keep scholars from at least describing evangelicalism. J. I. Packer characterized evangelical Christianity generally as practical, pure, unitive, and rational. Its fundamental doctrines include the supremacy of Scripture, the majesty of Christ, and the lordship of the Spirit, as well as conversion, evangelism, and fellowship.⁶ Most famously, David Bebbington, studying the British movement which arose in the eighteenth-century revivals, said evangelicalism could be described under a fourfold rubric: “conversionism,” “activism,” “biblicism,” and “crucicentrism.”⁷ I remember when two editors asked me to write an endorsement for a book celebrating the quadrilateral. I struggled, because the definition seemed both narrow historically and geographically. While those four principles certainly characterize evangelicalism, more than a few Roman Catholics might qualify as evangelicals if shorn of historical context. Don’t get me wrong. This systematic theologian thinks this quadrilateral, written by a treasured friend, is helpful, but it is context limited.

Others have tried different ways of defining evangelicalism. George Marsden used a broad approach of scholarly classification and a narrow approach of self-description to define evangelicals in a lecture in Louisville, Kentucky. Under the broad approach, Marsden discovered five basic views held by evangelicals: the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture; the historical character of divine redemption; salvation by faith alone in the cross of Christ; and the necessities both of evangelism and missions and of spiritual transformation.⁸

Earlier than Marsden, James Leo Garrett Jr., arrived at a similar conclusion. The dean of Southern Baptist theologians said evangelicals “insist upon the supremacy of Scripture, the all-sufficiency of the divine-human Jesus Christ, the necessity of the transforming experience of being born anew or justified by grace through faith, and the inner compulsion to share one’s faith in Christ with those who do not believe.”⁹

Johnston postulated a definition which accounted both for the movement’s center and divisions. “Evangelicals,” he wrote, “are those who believe the gospel is to be experienced personally, defined biblically, and communicated passionately.”¹⁰ These practices appear to be what bring evangelicals together. However, Johnston argued the diversity in this “family” of believers must also be given account.¹¹ Having long studied the movement’s variety,¹² he found two causes for divergence. These causes borrow Scripture’s names for two Persons of the divine Trinity, the Word and the Spirit. Evangelicals inclined toward dogmatic description are characterized by a “theology of the Word.” Other evangelicals, inclined toward personal experience, embrace a “theology of the Spirit.”¹³

The most recent effort to define evangelicalism contains less historical description and more theological prescription. In Recovering a Vintage Faith, Cory Marsh tries to remove the “elasticity” from evangelicalism, “Exorcising the Jello out of Evan-Jello-Calism.”¹⁴ The professor of New Testament at Southern California Seminary offers two doctrinal fundamentals for evangelicalism—“the supremacy of Scripture” and “the exclusivity of Jesus”—and three practices—“zealous evangelism,” “participating in theological education,” and “consistent local church fellowship.”¹⁵ Marsh is concerned that the evangelical label is being coopted or confused by “quasi-Christian cultists,” by derisive terms like “Big Eva” and “Big Tent Evangelicalism,” and by the populist attempt to circumscribe evangelicalism under the American cultural and social group known as “white evangelicals.”¹⁶ He also provides “rants” on “evangelical politics” and “evangelical Christian celebrityism” and makes a case for “biblical fundamentalism.”¹⁷

Recognizing the variability and fluidity found in the many studious descriptions and prescriptions, we can still discern some coherence. So, what exactly draws evangelicals together? Scripture and history can help here. Before considering the present and future of evangelicalism, let us survey the past of the movement. Americans are perhaps the most historically illiterate among the Western nations, but Scripture tells us that the Lord promised never to leave his people alone (Deut 31:6; Josh 1:5; John 14:18; Heb 13:15) and that the Holy Spirit comes to indwell all true believers (John 14:16–17; Rom 8:8–11; 1 Cor 7:40). Pressed by the weight of such inspired texts, we must learn to hear the voices of believers past and present.¹⁸ We begin, however, as any evangelical would, with the voices of the prophets and the apostles, who were themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit.¹⁹

The Biblical Basis of Evangelicalism

Toward the end of my tenure as a Master of Divinity student at this conservative evangelical seminary, I passed the associational ordination council called by my Southern Baptist church in Shreveport, Louisiana. During this sacred occasion, I was asked several memorable questions. The most important came from a pastor who wanted my definition of “the gospel.” I took him to the first words of Jesus in the first written Gospel account: “After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!’” (Mark 1:14–15). But he wanted to go beyond Jesus, kingdom, repentance, and faith, and get into historic arguments over Calvinism and Arminianism. At first, I failed to hear the real question behind his stated question. Nevertheless, he set me on a positive lifelong journey of clarifying the gospel.

Many systematic theologies presume or provide a quick definition of the gospel. Because of the training and impassioning I received from Roy J. Fish, the holder of the L. R. Scarborough Chair of Evangelism (“Chair of Fire”) here at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I am deeply convicted to proclaim the gospel upon every occasion possible—every sermon, every wedding, every funeral, every counseling session, every civic prayer, etc. But to proclaim ton euangelion, “the gospel,” one must understand what the gospel is. As a result, perhaps my most developed lecture dwells upon the gospel. I also point students to the utility of the creeds of classical Christianity—the Apostles’ Creed in the mind properly orients one’s thoughts toward the gospel during proclamation.

In my systematic theology, the longest chapter thus answers the question, “Who will save us?” After rehearsing the biblical evidence for grounding salvation in Trinitarian grace,²⁰ for a holistic understanding of Christ’s divine and human work,²¹ and of the significant gospel themes and terms of the Bible, such as “Word,” “truth,” “faith,” “teaching,” “testimony,” and “tradition,”²² as well as “promise,” “God and Savior,” “God and Man,” “proclamation,” and “gospel,”²³ I summarized the gospel as follows:

1. The gospel includes the truth about both Christ’s person and his work: Jesus is the Lord God incarnate, the promised Messiah who brings God’s Kingdom.
2. For our salvation, Jesus died on the cross and was buried.
3. For our justification, he arose from the dead and was seen by many. By his life, death, and resurrection, he recapitulated humanity itself.
4. Jesus Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father, where he now intercedes for his followers and will soon return to judge the living and the dead.
5. The church must call upon all human beings to respond in repentance toward and faith in the man Christ Jesus as the one Lord God if they would be saved.
6. Saving faith, which comes through the verbal proclamation of the Word and by the internal grace of the Holy Spirit, requires both faith and confession.
7. The gospel was so prominent in the preaching of the Lord and his apostles, and its eternal consequences are so critical, that we can only conclude every Christian proclamation must highlight the gospel.24

A few notes before we leave the biblical basis of evangelicalism. First, the effort to clarify the gospel bears fruit, even in the seminary classroom. One Presbyterian student interrupted a class of one hundred to announce he just believed the gospel and had become a believer. We rejoiced.25 He is now a rising New Testament scholar.

Second, I disagree with Marsh, who argues the “content” of the gospel changes with each divine administration (dispensation).26 A careful study of the Bible’s language of “promise” (Hebrew dabar; Greek epangelia) and “covenant” (Hebrew berith; Greek diatheke) demonstrates the continuity of gospel content across redemptive history is located in the promised Messiah and his redemptive work upon the cross and in his resurrection.27 Third, without an emphasis on proclaiming the euangelion, there can be no “evangelicalism.”

The Rediscovery of Evangelicalism in the Sixteenth Century

While I use the language of “rediscovery” regarding evangelicalism in the Protestant Reformation, please do not hear me saying it was somehow lost in the previous centuries. Any evangelical who has carefully and generously read the orthodox church fathers—from Polycarp of Smyrna to Athanasius of Alexandria to Gregory Nazianzus and Augustine of Hippo—alongside the great theologians of the long medieval period—from Boethius to Anselm of Canterbury to Thomas Aquinas to John Wyclif and Jan Hus—recognizes such Christians have much to teach us about the gospel in its substance and import. The Roman Catholic Church does not exclusively own the sum of Christianity before the sixteenth century.

What I mean by “rediscovery” concerns the undeniable fact that the souls of such Christians as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Katharina Schütz Zell, and Pilgram Marpeck, as well as Balthasar Hübmaier, William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, and Anne Askew were profoundly stirred by the gospel of Jesus Christ. They acted with conviction and wrote at length about their faith in terms of its rediscovery as well as its antiquity. The latter four were brutally martyred for their explicitly “evangelical” faith by those who rejected it as a novelty.²⁴

Marsden noted that, “despite all the varieties of evangelicalism,” “most of them are connected by a common heritage that produces common traits. All reflect the sixteenth-century Reformation effort to get back to the pure Scriptures as the only ultimate authority and to confine salvation to the God-given faith in Christ, unencumbered by presumptuous human authority.”²⁵

As mentioned above, Leo Garrett proposed a similar historiography. Garrett also focused his review of evangelicalism on four broader land areas.²⁶ His chronologically longer and geographically wider approach yields similar results to that of Bebbington. But Garrett has the advantage of pushing us outward to global Christianity from a predominantly Anglo-American worldview. He also has the advantage of reminding us of the roots of modern evangelicalism in the sixteenth century.

Various linguistic terms such as evangelische (German), évangélique (French), and “evangelical” (English) were used across Europe, from the time of Erasmus onward to describe those who were or are called “Protestant,” “Lutheran,” “Reformed,” “Anglican,” “Anabaptist.”²⁷ The central shared doctrinal characteristics of evangelicals of the Reformation period include continuing affirmation of the classical understanding of Trinity and Christology; an emphasis upon justification by personal or conscientious, though not atomistic or experientially programmatic, faith; a high view of the authority of the Christian scriptures; some appropriation of the doctrine of the royal priesthood of all believers; and a rejection of the Roman doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation, although there remained a range of views on the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Besides their various positions on the eucharist, major divisions among Reformation-era evangelicals can be found in their understandings of water baptism, especially its recipients; their doctrines on the governance of the church, ranging from congregationalism to Presbyterianism to Episcopacy; and their multiple views of the relationship between church and state, from royalism and Erastianism to toleration and religious liberty. The divisions focus primarily although not exclusively on the more practical aspects of the Christian faith. These divisions became solidified in the confessionalization of the various Reformation faiths. Happily, we know much about the Reformers’ understanding of the gospel itself through the great confessions generated in Augsburg, Wittenberg, and Switzerland, as well as London, Heidelberg, and beyond. Sadly, evangelicals can be found not only among the persecuted; the persecuted too often became the persecutors.²⁸

Marsden noted that, “despite all the varieties of evangelicalism,” “most of them are connected by a common heritage that produces common traits. All reflect the sixteenth-century Reformation effort to get back to the pure Scriptures as the only ultimate authority and to confine salvation to the God-given faith in Christ, unencumbered by presumptuous human authority.”²⁹

As mentioned above, Leo Garrett proposed a similar historiography. Garrett also focused his review of evangelicalism on four broader land areas.³⁰ His chronologically longer and geographically wider approach yields similar results to that of Bebbington. But Garrett has the advantage of pushing us outward to global Christianity from a predominantly Anglo-American worldview. He also has the advantage of reminding us of the roots of modern evangelicalism in the sixteenth century.

Various linguistic terms such as evangelische (German), évangélique (French), and “evangelical” (English) were used across Europe, from the time of Erasmus onward to describe those who were or are called “Protestant,” “Lutheran,” “Reformed,” “Anglican,” “Anabaptist.”³¹ The central shared doctrinal characteristics of evangelicals of the Reformation period include continuing affirmation of the classical understanding of Trinity and Christology; an emphasis upon justification by personal or conscientious, though not atomistic or experientially programmatic, faith; a high view of the authority of the Christian scriptures; some appropriation of the doctrine of the royal priesthood of all believers; and a rejection of the Roman doctrines of the sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation, although there remained a range of views on the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Besides their various positions on the eucharist, major divisions among Reformation-era evangelicals can be found in their understandings of water baptism, especially its recipients; their doctrines on the governance of the church, ranging from congregationalism to Presbyterianism to Episcopacy; and their multiple views of the relationship between church and state, from royalism and Erastianism to toleration and religious liberty. The divisions focus primarily although not exclusively on the more practical aspects of the Christian faith. These divisions became solidified in the confessionalization of the various Reformation faiths. Happily, we know much about the Reformers’ understanding of the gospel itself through the great confessions generated in Augsburg, Wittenberg, and Switzerland, as well as London, Heidelberg, and beyond. Sadly, evangelicals can be found not only among the persecuted; the persecuted too often became the persecutors.³²

The Radicalizations of Evangelicalism in the Seventeenth Century

In the seventeenth century, newer churches continued to form and confess their faith alongside the existing evangelical churches of the Reformation. The British Isles and their colonies are instructive, for here the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Quakers have their origins. These denominations extended the logic of the Puritanism which became a major party in the Church of England. The origins of Puritanism are found in Elizabeth Tudor’s reign. The evangelical Queen of England’s steady refusal to reform the nation too fast or too far bothered those who became known as the Puritans.³³

The difference between the evangelical Anglicans and the evangelical Puritans can be seen at first in their temperaments more than in their theologies. Drawing on the phrase of an Elizabethan pamphleteer, Patrick Collinson, the most accomplished scholar of Puritanism, famously described Puritans as the “hotter sort of Protestants.”³⁴ Puritans saw the gospel as requiring not only deep contemplation but vigorous action. They were driven by their brand of Calvinism to seek both personal assurance of salvation and social change through government.

The Germanic-speaking continental context is also instructive. The Pietistic movement memorialized in the life and writings of Philipp Jakob Spener³⁵ had its greatest impact among the Lutherans. Its deep devotional and moral emphases borrowed from the writings of some Puritans, influenced many Reformed Christians on the continent, and persuaded many Mennonites. Pietism’s “second” reformation³⁶ gained traction in the latter part of the seventeenth century. The Moravians, who helped inspire both the modern missions and Methodist movements, became a major arm of Pietism in the early eighteenth century through the tireless efforts of Nicholas von Zinzendorf.³⁷

Both Puritanism and Pietism, and the denominations they changed or spawned, were marked by a radical passion for further reformation, a reformation not merely of the head but of the heart, not only in the person but in the church parishes or pious gatherings (collegia pietatis), indeed in the broader church and society. Whether deservedly or not, both passionate Pietists and dissenting Puritans could by turns be quite critical of Protestant scholasticism for their supposed doctrinal coldness and the state churches for their reticence to require gospel faithfulness in the whole society. It may startle some to learn that neither radical spirituality nor radical “Christian nationalism” is new. Both have roots in the attitudes and actions of European evangelicals.³⁸

The Revival of Evangelicalism in the Eighteenth Century

Like the radical evangelicals of the seventeenth century, the revival evangelicals of the eighteenth century both changed denominations and spawned new groups of Christians. Part of the genius of evangelicalism is its ability to inspire the pursuit of godliness; part of the difficulty of evangelicalism is its propensity to become the cause of division. The multiplicity of denominations in America, whose people were profoundly shaped by the revivals, is truly amazing. One huge group of denominations can trace its roots to the heart and head of the Arminian John Wesley and Charles Wesley, another to the Calvinistic George Whitefield.

All three developed their spirituality in the Holy Club which met with other devoted Christians in Oxford in the 1730s.³⁹ Their early lives were marked by intense piety, social service, and controversy over method. John Wesley went to colonial America on mission. After failing and fleeing Georgia, he came under the influence of the Moravians, who had established a work at Fetter Lane in London. Troubled and seeking assurance, Wesley was overcome by divine grace in his personal “moment of Pentecost” on May 24, 1738. He felt his “heart strangely warmed” while Luther’s preface to Romans was read in a Christian meeting at Aldersgate. “I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given to me that He had taken away my sins, even mine.”⁴⁰ Wesley’s experience compelled him into a life of itinerant preaching and active organizing among the Arminian Methodists.

Whitefield followed a similar track with the Calvinist Methodists, and with Jonathan Edwards, became one of the leading lights in the Evangelical Revivals in colonial America. These revivals had a huge impact on American culture. Whitefield both upheld the sovereignty of divine grace in human salvation and freely proclaimed the gospel to everyone he could reach with his voice. His blend of Puritan orthodoxy and activity in calling for personal conversion established a standard for American evangelical piety. Baptists in America were reinforced in doctrine and benefited numerically under the impact of Whitefield’s powerful heartfelt preaching.

Alas, however, Whitefield was a proponent of slavery and Edwards purchased fellow human beings as if they were portable property. Thankfully, Wesley opposed the evil institution. Race-based chattel slavery has long bedeviled the American evangelical movement. It has arguably still not come entirely to grips with its legacy of hierarchy, abuse, and racism.

The Revolutions in Evangelicalism in the Nineteenth Century

In his introduction to Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, Fisher Humphreys argues evangelicals were transformed by three upheavals in “an age of revolution.” These upheavals occurred in the arenas of politics, industry, and intellect, but the intellectual revolution challenged evangelicals most. The rationalism of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment spread through the Protestant academy with the historical critical method of Bible study.

Two kinds of theology thus began to emerge rather early: On the one hand, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Ernst Troeltsch, and Albrecht Ritschl helped create Protestant liberalism in their effort to provide an apologetic to those immersed in the latest intellectual trends. Humphreys, perhaps following Karl Barth’s similar critique of Schleiermacher,⁴¹ opined, “An apologist is always tempted to give away too much to the opposition.”⁴² On the other hand, those who became known as evangelicals “did their work for the community of faith, the church.”⁴³

The intellectual revolution affected conservative evangelicals in ways historians have discussed extensively and in ways we have not. Bebbington noted Edward Irving’s speculation about the potential peccability of Christ in his humanity,⁴⁴ and Michael Watts highlighted the late nineteenth century decline in preaching about hell,⁴⁵ but evidence abounds for further and widespread substantial shifts, especially in Trinity and Christology. There is little doubt evangelicals in the late nineteenth and subsequent centuries began defending the faith against the encroachment of unbelief in the academy. However, evangelicals certainly began to slip, not in the existence of faith, but in its essence.⁴⁶

For instance, evangelicals began dividing over the immutability of the divine Christ. On the one side, scholars like H. P. Liddon, the Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, defended the deity of Jesus Christ. Liddon deployed the Athanasian Creed to remind his readers that Christ is “equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.”⁴⁷ Liddon listed four misconceptions about the Person of Christ, the second and third of which stated, “The Infinite Being was confined within the bounds of the finite Nature which he assumed,” and “God ceased to be really Himself when He thus took on Him man’s nature.”⁴⁸ The New Testament scholar F. J. A. Hort joined Liddon in upholding the divine nature of the eternal Christ.⁴⁹

On the other side were Kenotic theologians like H. R. Mackintosh, Edinburgh professor of systematic theology, and English congregational pastor Peter T. Forsyth. Mackintosh began by accusing “traditional” theologians of shrinking from the truth that Christ was “kinsman Redeemer.”⁵⁰ Differentiating his new diminution of Christ from “the older Kenoticism” of the German conservative Gottfried Thomasius,⁵¹ Mackintosh supported his Kenoticism with four claims. The fourth is heard among conservative evangelicals today: “We cannot predicate of Him two consciences or two wills.” Starting from this monothelite position, which was condemned at the third ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680–681), he argued Christ underwent “a real surrender of the glory and prerogatives of deity,” “a Divine self-reduction,” and “a prior self-adjustment of deity.” Christ, he said, “laid aside the form and privilege of deity.”⁵² Mackintosh went on to mix temporal and eternal categories in the vein of Arianism. He accused those who teach Christ had a truly human mind and a truly divine mind of sinning.⁵³ Forsyth argued that Christ laid aside his “less ethical” divine attributes, such as his omniscience, omnipotence, and ubiquity.⁵⁴ Forsyth’s favored analogies all treat Christ as mere man.⁵⁵

In yet another instance, we find evangelical theologians beginning to diverge over God as Trinity. It surprises us to learn that the most stalwart and respected defender of divine reality and biblical truthfulness within the German academy, Adolf Schlatter, denigrated the Trinity. “For St. John,” he wrote, “the foundation of faith lay solely in Jesus himself—not in a metaphysical Christology or a doctrine of the Trinity, not in a speculation about the life of God before the creation or of the eternal glory of the Son, but in a particular history.”⁵⁶ Schlatter defended the historicity of the biblical text, but diminished the God of the text. He disagreed with his friend and colleague at the University of Berlin, the last great German liberal theologian, Adolf von Harnack, about Scripture.⁵⁷ But Schlatter’s dogmatics focus on philosophical discourse, reflect Harnack’s Hellenization thesis, and promote love at the expense of justification by faith.⁵⁸

Thankfully, orthodox theologians were still found among evangelicals. R. W. Dale both defended penal substitutionary atonement and rejected the Hellenization thesis that undermined the classical doctrine of the Trinity. The Birmingham Congregationalist pastor expressed appreciation for the fourth-century church’s triumph for the Trinity: “The struggle of Athanasius was a struggle for the very substance of the Gospel of Christ; and the creed of Nicaea is the symbol of his victory.”⁵⁹ Critical Greek New Testament scholar Brooke Foss Westcott likewise connected the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to the gospel.⁶⁰

The intellectual revolutions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries bequeathed a conflicted legacy upon evangelicalism. She surely if slowly began compromising the ontological truth of God and Christ even as she defended the epistemological truth of Scripture. The churches fared little better, as preaching on the doctrine of the Trinity notably declined between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries.⁶¹

We have not mentioned the Second Great Awakening, which began in the early eighteenth century but became organized and energized through the ministry of Charles Grandison Finney. Finney has been criticized practically for instrumentalizing the grace of spiritual “revival” so that it became human “revivalism.”⁶² He can also be criticized theologically for a tendency toward Pelagianism, ascribing to the subject some agency to regenerate itself.⁶³ Whatever the substance of his evangelistic theology, the numeric increase in evangelicalism seemed spectacular.

A Recovery in Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century

The courageous struggle to maintain the epistemological credibility of holy Scripture in the middle decades of the twentieth century is well known. In the 1920s, evangelicals began splitting from modernists over their views of Scripture, especially in the northern denominations. Southern denominations generally remained conservative.⁶⁴ Conservative evangelicals joined together to contribute to the tracts known as The Fundamentals.⁶⁵ Marsden found two contrary impulses among these conservative or fundamentalist evangelicals in the 1930s: a negative “militancy against modernist theology and cultural change,” accompanied by “a positive impulse” to win souls for Christ.⁶⁶

A “new evangelicalism” began to emerge from the fundamentalist movement in the 1940s and 1950s as, among others, Carl F. H. Henry argued for, and Billy Graham carried out, a positive program of social engagement and evangelism.⁶⁷ Alongside these positive pursuits, fundamentalists and evangelicals diverged over theological prioritization. David Dockery noted, “The problem was that fundamentalism struggled to distinguish the core of the Christian faith.” By contrast, evangelicals recognized some doctrines were more important.⁶⁸ However, after the dramatic social changes of the 1960s, evangelicals also began detecting signs of liberalism in their own ranks. Harold Lindsell’s 1976 bestseller, The Battle for the Bible, brought the controversy over biblical inerrancy to widespread public attention.⁶⁹

Two large denominations, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention, developed internal political movements and began changing their institutions in the 1980s and 1990s to forestall any rise of theological liberalism. They were overwhelmingly concerned to preserve the teaching of Scripture’s authority and sufficiency in their schools.

When paired with the Chicago Statements on biblical inerrancy and biblical hermeneutics,⁷⁰ and the phenomenal growth of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), these events demonstrate that the bulk of evangelicals required a robust understanding of biblical authority. The first sentence in the “Doctrinal Basis” of ETS thus states, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”⁷¹

Among others, Dockery dedicated much of his career to recovering and preserving a proper doctrine of the Holy Bible. But Dockery also wisely joined with Timothy George to issue a call for their evangelical denomination to find unity not only in biblical authority but in the classical theology of the Great Tradition.⁷²

The Risk to Evangelicalism in the Twenty-First Century

This brings us to the critical theological problem evangelicals face today. The risk to evangelicalism in the twenty-first century concerns the troubling indications that while evangelicals may have won the battle for the Bible, they have been losing the war for God and Christ. These indications come from both the academy and the people.

Among evangelical theologians both the Trinity and Christology have been diminished. While evangelical scholars generally affirm the dogma of the Trinity, some treat it rather quickly. One scholar affirmed the acceptable if incomplete second sentence of the Evangelical Theological Society’s “Doctrinal Basis,” which states, “God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”⁷³ But his summary rearranged it to say, “God is triune in essence.”⁷⁴ Moreover, as was widely reported, the 2016 meeting of that society prompted deep reflection on the new doctrines of Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware known as “eternal functional subordination” and “eternal relations of authority and submission.” Grudem and Ware corrected their rejection of generation that year but kept their Trinitarian novelties for culture war against feminism.⁷⁵ Finally, the Christological error of Kenoticism continues to be taught by evangelical scholars, even as others roundly reject it.⁷⁶

Professional polls this century have repeatedly shown rank-and-file American evangelicals also undermine the classical dogma of the Trinity. First, according to the latest LifeWay Research poll, released in late 2025, they diminish the doctrine of God: “Nearly half of American evangelicals (47%) agree that ‘God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.’” Second, they diminish Christ: “Only 68% of evangelicals disagree with the heretical claim, ‘Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.’” Third, they diminish the Spirit: “A clear majority of American evangelicals (53%) agree with the heretical statement, ‘The Holy Spirit is a force but is not a personal being.’”⁷⁷ Last March, Barna found only 16 percent of self-proclaimed American Christians are truly Trinitarian.⁷⁸

Next to Billy Graham, the Anglican pastor John Stott was the most well-known evangelical in the world at the turn of the century. Stott led the theological committee that crafted the Lausanne Covenant signed by Graham and evangelicals from over 150 nations in 1974. That covenant contains 15 points, the first of which affirms the eternal Triunity.⁷⁹ The third point exalts Jesus as the unique God–Man.⁸⁰ The remainder of the
Lausanne Covenant is concerned with the practice of evangelism.

A quarter of a century later, Stott wrote Evangelical Truth to place worldwide evangelicalism on a firmer theological basis. He argued that evangelicalism must distinguish between “essentials” and “indifferent things” (Greek adiaphora).⁸¹ Before defining these terms, however, he provided three disclaimers: evangelicalism is “not a recent innovation” but harkens to the New Testament; evangelicalism is “not a deviation from Christian orthodoxy” but has deep roots in Christian history; and evangelicalism is “not a synonym for fundamentalism,” although it holds to the fundamentals of the faith.⁸²

The first essential truth for evangelicalism is that its gospel is “trinitarian.”⁸³ Stott then listed six “noteworthy” aspects of the gospel that derive from this essential truth. The gospel is Christological, biblical, historical, theological, apostolic, and personal.⁸⁴ The essentials concern “the initiative of God the Father in revealing himself to us, in redeeming us through Christ crucified, and in transforming us through the indwelling Spirit. For the evangelical faith is the trinitarian faith.”⁸⁵ The three essentials of the gospel as understood by evangelicals then form the subject matter of the first three chapters of his book. Practical issues follow from the essentials.

Stott used a slogan that originated with the seventeenth-century Lutheran theologian, Peter Meiderlin: “In truth unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity.”⁸⁶ The essential Christian truths are contained in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, and “together with the great Reformation emphases on the supreme authority of Scripture, the atoning death of Christ, the justification of sinners by grace alone through faith alone, and the indispensable ministry of the Holy Spirit. On these we must insist.”⁸⁷ We require these matters, being prepared to suffer for them,⁸⁸ while we allow freedom on doubtful matters.⁸⁹

Our recently deceased friend, Daniel Treier, Gunther H. Knoedler Chair of Theology at Wheaton College, also prioritized the essentials of the Christian faith in his 2019 volume Introducing Evangelical Theology.⁹⁰ Dan highlighted the Nicene Creed at the beginning of his system then allowed the form of baptism commanded by Christ to shape his entire project.⁹¹ Treier defined evangelical theology according to the gospel and defined the gospel by the Trinity. “Evangelical theology,” he said, “announces a primary theme: the gospel. This good news of the Triune God’s love for sinners and redemption of the whole creation is the heart of the Bible’s story.”⁹² The Trinitarian gospel: This is how evangelicals will restore integrity to their theology and practice.⁹³

Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

Evangelicalism is a deep movement with a history of support for the gospel coupled with splintering over orthodoxy and practice. The risk evangelicalism faces in the next few decades concerns its willingness to embrace wholeheartedly both the genius and genus of Christianity. John Stott provided a taxonomy of religious labels to describe himself with three labels: “genus: Christian, species: Evangelical, subspecies: Anglican.”⁹⁴ If we accept his taxonomy, the crisis facing us today concerns the ascription to all evangelicals the genus of Christianity.

It is providential that the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ garnered the attention of Christians in the first seven centuries of the history of the church of the God–Man Jesus Christ. It is also providential that the Nicene Creed of 381 became the most universally accepted confession among Christian churches and theologians. Alas, evangelicals since the nineteenth century have been fudging the foundational Nicene (and Chalcedonian) dogmas of the Christian faith. If we do not proclaim the one and only God of the gospel with integrity, we ought not claim we proclaim the one and only “gospel of God” (Rom 1:1–4).

Yesterday, in 1989 to be exact, George Marsden was concerned that evangelical accommodation to popular American culture might undermine the Christian faith. He pointed to the problems of “American nationalism,” “militarism,” and “the autonomy of the self.”95 Other evangelicals in Marsden’s day would doubtless have listed a different set of social problems. But perhaps their controversy over culture was never really the primary issue.

That brings us to today, a half-century after evangelicalism became widely known as a major cultural movement. Unlike the great scholar of twentieth-century evangelicalism, I think the primary problem in evangelicalism today resides not with our anthropology. There definitely are severe crises requiring immediate and long-term correction in our anthropological and cultural views. Rhyne Putman and I thus argue for the recovery of human dignity.96 However, the primary problem in evangelicalism today concerns our doctrine of God. Improper theology leads to improper anthropology. To correct the latter, we must recover the former.

As for tomorrow, we are not without hope. In his own call for hope, Marsden alluded to perhaps the most misunderstood parable told by Jesus. “The tares will grow with the wheat.”97 Jesus reminded us that evil must grow along with good until the final judgment of the world (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43). Sometimes, those tares will claim to be Christian. They may also push their doctrinal and moral perversities under the label “evangelical.” But the true believer must be careful never to use the name of the Lord in vain or distort his saving gospel, the euangelion.

We will all face the divine Judge, the eternal Lord Jesus Christ, and provide an account for every untoward attitude, every self-serving word, every evil deed. And those of us who are teachers will be required to give a higher accounting (Jas 3:1). Are we truly ready for that Day? Are we proclaiming the one and only God as well as his one and only gospel?

1. Robert K. Johnston, “Varieties of American Evangelicalism,” in Southern Baptists and American Evangelicals: The Conversation Continues, ed. David S. Dockery (B&H, 1993), 40. ↩︎
2. John Stott, Evangelical Truth: A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity, and Faithfulness (2003; Langham, 2013), xiii. ↩︎
3. Johnston, “Varieties of American Evangelicalism,” 41. ↩︎
4. William J. Abraham, The Coming Great Revival: Recovering the Full Evangelical Tradition (Harper & Row, 1984), 72. ↩︎
5. Johnston, “Varieties of American Evangelicalism,” 42–43. ↩︎
6. J. I. Packer, The Evangelical Identity Problem (Latimer House, 1978), 15–23. ↩︎
7. David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (Routledge, 1989), 203. Cf. Bebbington, The Evangelical Quadrilateral: Characterizing the British Gospel Movement (Baylor University Press, 2011). ↩︎
8. George M. Marsden, “Contemporary American Evangelicalism,” 28–29. ↩︎
9. James Leo Garrett Jr., “Who are the ‘Evangelicals’?” in Are Southern Baptists “Evangelicals”?, James Leo Garrett Jr., E. Glenn Hinson, and James E. Tull (Mercer University Press, 1983), 63. ↩︎
10. Johnston, “Varieties of American Evangelicalism,” 48. ↩︎
11. The descriptor, “family,” derives from Samuel S. Hill. Johnston, “Varieties of American Evangelicalism,” 46. ↩︎
12. Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston, eds., The Variety of American Evangelicalism (University of Tennessee Press, 1991). ↩︎
13. Johnston, “Varieties of American Evangelicalism,” 49–51. ↩︎
14. Cory M. Marsh, Recovering a Vintage Faith: Five Fundamentals of Evangelical Identity (Mentor, 2026), 9. ↩︎
15. Marsh, Recovering a Vintage Faith, chs. 2–6. ↩︎
16. Marsh, Recovering a Vintage Faith, 12–16. ↩︎
17. Marsh, Recovering a Vintage Faith, chs. 7–9. ↩︎
18. This was the burden of the second half of Malcolm B. Yarnell III, The Formation of Christian Doctrine (B&H Academic, 2007), chs. 4–6. ↩︎
19. Cf. David S. Dockery and Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Special Revelation and Scripture (B&H Academic, 2024). ↩︎
20. Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Word, Theology for Every Person, vol. 2 (B&H, 2026), 242–43. ↩︎
21. Yarnell, Word, 243–46. ↩︎
22. Yarnell, Word, 246–52. ↩︎
23. Yarnell, Word, 252–75. ↩︎
24. Historians generally consider “evangelical” a proper description for most English Reformers. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (Yale University Press, 1996), 2. However, sixteenth-century evangelicals do not exhibit the same characteristics as eighteenth-century evangelicals, as seen in their differing attitudes toward “conversionism.” Alec Ryrie, Being Protestant in Reformation Britain (Oxford University Press, 2013), 397–405. ↩︎
25. Marsden, “Contemporary American Evangelicalism,” 29. ↩︎
26. Garrett, “Who Are the ‘Evangelicals’?” 35. ↩︎
27. “Continental Europe, the British Isles, Latin America, and the United States.” Garrett, “Who Are the ‘Evangelicals’?” 35–38. ↩︎
28. Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “Religious Liberty: A Survey of its Progress and Challenges in Christian History,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 6.1 (Spring 2009): 119–38; Yarnell, “Roger Williams’s Contribution to Religious Liberty and Baptists: A Reassessment,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 67.1 (Fall 2024): 9–29. ↩︎
29. Marsden, “Contemporary American Evangelicalism,” 29. ↩︎
30. Garrett, “Who Are the ‘Evangelicals’?” 35. ↩︎
31. “Continental Europe, the British Isles, Latin America, and the United States.” Garrett, “Who
    Are the ‘Evangelicals’?” 35–38. ↩︎
32. Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “Religious Liberty: A Survey of its Progress and Challenges in Christian History,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 6.1 (Spring 2009): 119–38; Yarnell, “Roger Williams’s Contribution to Religious Liberty and Baptists: A Reassessment,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 67.1 (Fall 2024): 9–29. ↩︎
33. On Elizabeth’s Lutheran-leaning evangelical faith, see Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “The Theology of Elizabeth I: Politique or Believer?” Southwestern Journal of Theology 62.1 (Fall 2019): 3–31. ↩︎
34. Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (1967; Oxford University Press, 1998), 26–27. ↩︎
35. Philip Jacob Spener, Pia Desideria, transl. Theodore G. Tappert (1675; Fortress Press, 1964). ↩︎
36. Roger Olsen and Christian T. Collins Winn, Reclaiming Pietism: Retrieving an Evangelical
    Tradition (Eerdmans, 2015). ↩︎
37. J. E. Hutton, Illustrated History of the Moravian Church (Hosanna Fellowship Press, 2017), 147–249. ↩︎
38. For an example of early Christian nationalism taken to radical extremes, see the Fifth Monarchist movement which swept up some Congregationalists and Baptists. Bernard S. Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men: A Study in Seventeenth-Century Millenarianism (Faber, 1972). ↩︎
39. Luke Tyerman, The Oxford Methodists (London, 1837). ↩︎
40. Roy Hattersley, The Life of John Wesley: A Brand from the Burning (Doubleday, 2003), 136. ↩︎
41. Karl Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century, new ed., transl. Brian Cozens and
    John Bowden (1947; Eerdmans, 2002), 430. ↩︎
42. Humphreys, “Introduction,” in Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, ed. Fisher Humphreys, Christian Classics (Broadman Press, 1981), 12. ↩︎
43. Humphreys, “Introduction,” 13. ↩︎
44. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 93. ↩︎
45. Michael R. Watts, John Clifford and Radical Nonconformity, ed. Joel C. Gregory and David W. Bebbington (Baylor University Press, 2025), xv, 45, 53, 57, 99, 113; Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 145. ↩︎
46. Innovation can be seen in the very arrangement of representative nineteenth-century theological texts. Humphreys placed the doctrine of the Trinity at the end of his systematic ordering of evangelical texts, mimicking the approach of Schleiermacher. Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith: A New Translation and Critical Edition, transl. Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler, 2 vols. (Westminster John Knox, 2016), 1019–37. ↩︎
47. H. P. Liddon, “The Incarnation of Christ,” in Humphreys, Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, 189. ↩︎
48. Liddon, “The Incarnation of Christ,” 189. ↩︎
49. Fenton John Anthony Hort, “Jesus the Lord,” in Humphreys, Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, 212–14. ↩︎
50. H. R. Mackintosh, “A Kenotic Christology,” in Humphreys, Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, 193. ↩︎
51. Mackintosh, “A Kenotic Christology,” 194. ↩︎
52. Mackintosh, “A Kenotic Christology,” 196. ↩︎
53. Mackintosh, “A Kenotic Christology,” 201. ↩︎
54. P. T. Forsyth, “Analogies for the Incarnation,” in Humphreys, Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, 203. ↩︎
55. Forsyth, “Analogies for the Incarnation,” 204–6. ↩︎
56. Adolf Schlatter, “Jesus the Word of God,” in Humphreys, Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, 218. ↩︎
57. Werner Neuer, Adolf Schlatter: A Biography of Germany’s Premier Biblical Theologian, transl. Robert W. Yarbrough (Baker, 1995), 96–97. ↩︎
58. Neuer, Adolf Schlatter, 103, 121, 125. ↩︎
59. R. W. Dale, “The Revelation of the Holy Trinity,” in Humphreys, Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, 388. ↩︎
60. Brooke Foss Westcott, “The Glory of the Holy Trinity,” in Humphreys, Nineteenth Century Evangelical Theology, 391. ↩︎
61. Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “Preaching,” in, The Trinity in the Canon: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Proposal, ed. Brandon D. Smith (B&H Academic, 2023), 369–400. ↩︎
62. Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism,
    1750–1858 (Banner of Truth, 1994). ↩︎
63. Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, New Expanded Edition, ed. Dennis Carroll, Bill Nicely, and L. G. Parkhurst Jr. (1878; Bethany House, 1994), 274–75. ↩︎
64. George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925 (Oxford University Press, 1980). ↩︎
65. R. A. Torrey and Charles L. Feinberg, eds., The Fundamentals: The Famous Sourcebook of Foundational Biblical Truths, updated ed. (1910–15; Kregel, 1958). ↩︎
66. Marsden, “Contemporary American Evangelicalism,” 32. ↩︎
67. Marsden, “Contemporary American Evangelicalism,” 32–34. ↩︎
68. David S. Dockery, “Evangelicalism: Past, Present, and Future,” Trinity Journal, new series
    36 (2015): 12. ↩︎
69. Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Zondervan, 1976). ↩︎
70. “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” Themelios 4.3 (1979), https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy/; “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25.4 (1982): 397–401, https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/files_JETS-PDFs_25_25-4_25-4-pp397-401_JETS.pdf. ↩︎
71. “Doctrinal Basis,” Evangelical Theological Society, https://etsjets.org/about/. ↩︎
72. David S. Dockery and Timothy George, Building Bridges (Convention Press, 2007), https://www.uu.edu/dockery/BuildingBridges.pdfs. ↩︎
73. “Doctrinal Basis,” Evangelical Theological Society, https://etsjets.org/about/. ↩︎
74. Marsh, Recovering a Vintage Faith, 3. ↩︎
75. Yarnell, Word, 39, 368–70. ↩︎
76. Yarnell, Word, 352–56. ↩︎
77. Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “Identifying the Crisis in Evangelical Theology Today,” LifeWay Research, November 2025, ht t ps://resea rch.l i feway.com/2025/11/03/identifying-the-crisis-in-evangelical-theology-today/. ↩︎
78. George Barna, “Most Americans—Including Christian Churchgoers—Reject the Trinity,” Arizona Christian University, March 2025, https://www.arizonachristian.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AWVI-2025_03_Most-Americans-Reject-the-Trinity_FINAL_03_26_2025.pdf. ↩︎
79. John Stott, The Lausanne Covenant: Complete Text with Study Guide (Lausanne Movement, 2009), 21, https://lausanne.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Lausanne-Covenant-%E2%80%93-Pages.pdf. ↩︎
80. Stott, The Lausanne Covenant, 32. ↩︎
81. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 1, 90. ↩︎
82. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 2–4. He showed how fundamentalism differed from evangelicalism, not only historically but in ten tendencies of fundamentalism that evangelicals reject. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 5–7. ↩︎
83. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 11. ↩︎
84. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 13–14. ↩︎
85. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 18. ↩︎
86. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 91. ↩︎
87. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 91. ↩︎
88. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 91–93. ↩︎
89. What are the indifferent things over which evangelicals should not divide? Here, Stott places various more practical issues surrounding baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church government, liturgy, spiritual gifts, women in ministry, ecumenical pursuits, fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, degrees of holiness, relations between church and state, the pursuit of social justice, and some matters in eschatology. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 90. ↩︎
90. Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Evangelical Theology (Baker Academic, 2019). ↩︎
91. The first part of his book was titled, “Knowing the Trinitarian God;” the remaining three parts honor each divine Person respectively. Treier, Introducing Evangelical Theology, xvii. ↩︎
92. Treier, Introducing Evangelical Theology, 1. ↩︎
93. My own popular-level evangelical system follows lines similar to those encouraged by Stott and exemplified by Treier. The first volume is God, the second Word, and the third will be entitled “Spirit.” ↩︎
94. Stott, Evangelical Truth, xiii. ↩︎