Intro
Hans and I were in a Latin American country with colleagues from a country and religion not our own— that is, not the USA and not Christian— driving through the capital and passing beautiful cathedrals. We commented to the driver about them and eventually asked whether or not she was a Christian. She replied in Spanish,
“Yes, I am a Catholic, not an Evangelical.”
This was not a diss at Evangelicals but more of a cultural way of differentiating between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Hans’ colleague, who now resides in America, later, privately asked,
“What are Evangelicals? I don’t think I like them.”
His statement makes sense.
In recent decades, the word evangelical has become a derogatory label, or the very least, divisive. In the shorthand of journalists, it often signals a (bigoted) voting bloc. For many outside the church (such as the colleague), and even some within it, the word now carries connotations of Christian nationalism, amongst other things.
The tragedy of this shift is that “evangelical” once meant “a Christian”— someone who talked about and pledged allegiance to Christ.
Evangelical Origins
The word evangelical is not a modern invention. It is derived from the Greek word evangelion, used throughout the New Testament to mean “good news” or “gospel.” Saint Mark begins his account with, “The beginning of the gospel (euangelion) of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Saint Paul declares, “I am not ashamed of the gospel (euangelion), for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).
From the beginning of the history of Christ-centered faith, to be evangelical was to be centered on the proclamation of Christ’s saving work.
The Reformation reinforced this identity. Martin Luther and his followers referred to themselves as evangelische — evangelicals. Their opponents may have called them “Lutherans,” but they insisted their identity was not in Luther but in Jesus and his calling on their life: to gossip the gospel.
Thus from the very start and for nearly two thousand years, evangelical was a theological identity as opposed to a political one.
The Evangelical Quadrilateral
But what does “evangelical” mean? J.I. Packer writes in his book The Heritage of Anglican Theology of “Bebbington’s Quadrilateral.” This quadrilateral is a framework composed of four points created by British historian David W. Bebbington.
Those points are:
Conversion-oriented: the necessity of personal conversion, the “new birth” of John 3.
Bible-based: the supreme authority of Scripture in matters of faith and life.
Cross-centered: the centrality of the cross of Christ for salvation.
Mission-attuned: the call to evangelism, social engagement, and holy living.
Packer endorses these four points by writing that this definition. . .
. . . has rung a bell among both historians and theologians, with [Bebbington’s] analysis being accepted as accurate by just about all of them.
Evangelicals, we see, were not —and are not— distinguished by denominational or political structures but instead evangelicals are distinguished by their shared commitment to first-tier beliefs and practices— that is, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. To be a Bible-believing Christian who believes in sharing the gospel is to be an evangelical.
(As a side note: J.I. Packer also writes that “evangelical” should encompass one more descriptive term: Church-focused. He states:
“Evangelicals know and never forget that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it and present to himself a glorious church not have spot or wrinkle or any such thing. . . Evangelicals who prioritize true piety [a sincere, loving, obedient personal friendship with the Lord, as Packer defines earlier] are as centered and focused on the church as they are on anything— because we know that the church is Christ’s focus. . . We seek to serve the Lord of the church in the church, through the church, for the church.”)
Evangelical Fervor
It was evangelical fervor that propelled the great missionary movements of the nineteenth century and twentieth century:
William Carey’s call to take the gospel to India,
Hudson Taylor’s work in China,
Student Volunteer Movement’s slogan, “the evangelization of the world in this generation”
Billy Graham, the mighty evangelist
Samaritan’s Purse, Billy Graham’s organization with this slogan: Help in Jesus’ Name
These people and movements were born out of evangelical identity: gospel proclamation to the nations. These were people who were “not ashamed of the gospel,” not ashamed to evangelize.
So what happened?
To be sure, I am no Church historian. I’m afraid to comment too much. But what I can attest to is a political hijacking of the word.
The Political Hijack
I’d say and others agree that in the final decades of the twentieth century, the meaning of “evangelical” shifted.
The rise of what has been called the “Religious Right” in the 1970s and 1980s — with leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson — tied evangelical identity closely to conservative politics. Opposition to abortion after Roe v. Wade (1973), advocacy for school prayer, and defense of traditional family structures (all very good, and even maybe biblical things) became the defining markers of “evangelical” in the public square, as opposed to Bebbington’s “evangelical quadrilateral” (the four points) mentioned earlier.
This is where secular politics began sneakily redefining a very Christian term, and the connotation has sadly stuck.
“Evangelical” came to mean, almost exclusively, “white conservative Protestant voter.” It’s linguistic theft.
I love how Hillary Morgan Ferrer puts it:
Linguistic theft occurs when people take a concept, virtue, or idea that most people already agree with, and then change the definition to promote their own agenda. Without understanding that this change has taken place, many people swallow an agenda to which they might normally object.
The fallout has been quite sad.
Many outside the church now hear “evangelical” and think “partisan activist,” instead of “mission-minded Jesus lover.”
Younger Christians reject the label, even if they hold to the historic convictions it represents.
In short, our spiritual identity was hijacked by political reductionism, and the hijacking has splintered our unity.
Why the Distortion Matters
The loss of the true meaning of evangelical has consequences.
First, the gospel itself is obscured. If evangelical no longer points to the good news of salvation in Christ, then the church has forfeited its testimony. The term is emptied of its biblical meaning and left to the tossing waves of culture and politics. The flip side is that by talking about this “theft” we have an opportunity to talk about Jesus!
Second, mission is confused. If evangelical is equated with national politics, then gospel work is equated with political activism. Want to see Americans come to know Jesus? Now you're a Christian Nationalist.
Third, unity is fractured. As a college student, I remember seeing a FaceBook post by a lady in my childhood church that said she no longer identified as an Evangelical. I knew what she was saying. She was saying,
“I don’t want to be identified with those Christians. I am politically different from them.”
But what I don’t think she recognized, and what I maintain now, is that she let culture define and divide her from her Christian family with a Christian term. It’s one thing to say those Christians are Republicans and those Christians are Democrats. Or those Christians are Mexican and those Christians are Korean. But she allowed a Christian word to be used in a non-Christian context and divide herself from other Christians. Our political positions and our places of birth are non-religious identifiers. But “evangelical” (both the word and its meaning) is staunchly and biblically Christian.
More broadly, evangelicalism historically transcended denominational and cultural boundaries; it didn’t matter what your denomination was or where you were born, you were a child of God and you were bonded together with other believers by the same Father and His same saving outward and inward work!
Today, however, the label often functions as a badge of exclusion. Instead of uniting us in the amazing saving work of Jesus and our desire to talk about it, we have a label that divides believers along a political spectrum.
Reclaiming Language
What, then, must be done? Abandoning the word would be a mistake. To discard evangelical is to disregard centuries of spiritual heritage. Instead, evangelicals must reclaim the term.
First, return to the gospel definition. Evangelical must mean gospel-centered people committed to Scripture, the cross, conversion, and mission. And like Packer, I’d suggest: church-focused. This must first be the definition in our own minds and in our own Christian gatherings if we are to change other people’s minds.
Second, refuse political reductionism. Evangelicals can and will differ politically, but they must reject “evangelical” as a shorthand for political affiliation. We may differ politically, but that cannot — and will not — come between us and our historic evangelical Christian unity.
Third, remember the global story. Highlighting the vitality of African, Asian, and Latin American evangelicals reminds the world that evangelicalism is theological and missional, not political.
Fourth, teach our history. Let’s study church history! Pastors and scholars must remind the church that evangelical identity predates the culture wars by centuries! We come from a long line of Christian witnesses that proudly bore the name evangelical. Our church fathers and mothers must shape our moorings and anchors— our identity!— more than “talking heads”.
Conclusion
To be evangelical is to be enthusiastic about the gospel. It is life! It is joy! And peace! It is fellowship and unity with a (fallible) family! We are to be, in William Booth’s words, fighters “to the very end” for lost souls. This is not a term to be hijacked by those seeking to undermine the church for political gain.
Let us use the word properly and gently encourage others to use the word properly. Let the world see evangelical enthusiasm and unity once again!
post-script:
Like it or not, “evangelical” has been hijacked. We say the word and people do think of conservative voters— whatever that even means anymore. Words do connote meaning and so— however unfounded that connotation might be— we recognize that when we use “evangelical,” people are not going to think historic evangelical.
So in our first wave of rescuing “evangelical,” might we add some helpful descriptors, such as historic or political?
Well, yes, I myself am a historic evangelical, but I do see that political evangelicals have quite a presence in our city.
It’s not my favorite but, ya know, maybe it will prompt some questions and give us the opportunity to share why evangelicals, and evangelists, and evangelism and evangelion (good news) really are rather great after all.