Are we evangelical?
Sometimes I’m asked, “Is Waypoint Church an evangelical church?” And my first response is usually, “What do you mean by evangelical?”
The NAE defines an evangelical as someone who “takes the Bible seriously and believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord…the evangelical faith focuses on the ‘good news’ of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.[1]” To that definition, we give a hearty “Yes, and amen.” However, many people today hear the word “evangelical” and all sorts of other thoughts and meanings come to mind. “Evangelicalism” has been associated with legalism, anti-scientific thought, a conservative voting bloc, veiled racism and the mistreatment of women in the church.
To better understand why these associations are made, we need to take a brief look at the history of the American Church. We’re going to explore 8 common tenets of the Evangelical movement and explain why we would be hesitant to use the word “Evangelical.”
Where did the word “evangelical” come from?
18th Century
The word evangelical was first used in the mid-1700s to describe preachers who participated in the Great Awakening. At this time, men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and John Wesley traveled around America declaring the gospel (the euangelion in Greek). Their message was simple: people needed to personally believe that Jesus died for their sins in order to be saved.
19th Century
Fast forward to the 1800s, and a new movement rises up in German scholarship, against the basic teaching of these evangelicals, called “Liberalism.” There was some serious academic work done that cast doubt on the trustworthiness of scripture, legitimacy of miracles, and the divinity of Christ. At the same time, another line of academic study was beginning named Darwinism. Many denominations in the American Church began embracing both of these movements.
20th Century
By the time we reach the early 1900s, a reactionary movement was formed to combat liberalism. These “fundamentalists” proclaimed their loyalty to the fundamentals of the Bible.
Rise of Fundamentalism (Early 1900’s)
In the 1970s, fundamentalism will eventually merge with modern evangelicalism. So, while it goes by a different name, many of the tenets of fundamentalism are still found in the modern evangelical movement. For this reason let’s look at some of the tenets of fundamentalism:
Fundamentalist Tenet #1: Anti-scientific thought and Literalism
The fundamentalist movement was defined by some as “anti-scientific & anti-intellectual” as it set literalistic scriptural interpretations against scientific & academic developments[2]. If you are wondering what a literalistic interpretation is, let's go back for a moment to 1543.
When Copernicus discovered that the Earth revolves around the sun, the religious leaders in those days saw this as a direct scientific attack on the Bible. The Bible describes in “literal” terms that the sun “rises and falls.” Because of this language, they argued that it describes the Earth as stationary and the sun as moving. So, to them, an assertion that the sun remains still and the Earth moves was an attack on the validity and literal truth of scripture. The religious leaders were making a literalistic argument– “The Bible says the sun rises and falls, therefore I don’t believe Copernicus.” End of discussion. No nuance, no engagement. Over time we have learned that Copernicus was right, the sun does remain stationary. But we have also learned that his scientific discovery did not negate the truth and validity of the Bible. The descriptors “rise and fall” were not intended to be scientific descriptions of how celestial bodies moved in relation to one another. Rather, Moses and others were just describing movement from their perspective. They saw the sun rise from the horizon and fall to the horizon. A “literalistic” reading of the Bible oversimplifies and leads to misunderstandings.
This first tenet is something that makes Waypoint Church hesitant to use the label" “evangelical.” We don’t believe scripture should be interpreted in such a simplistic way. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) explains that the Bible was written by men, through the inspiration of God. The Bible was written in the context of cultures thousands of years removed from ours in languages not the same as ours, therefore careful study must be made in the history and grammar of the text.
Fundamentalist Tenet #2: Cultural Disengagement and a Racist Past
Another important detail in the rise of fundamentalism is that it largely took place in the American south. At this time the American south was still deeply segregated and so many proponents of fundamentalism were also proponents of racial segregation. This stance on segregation was a blatant contradiction of their Christian faith.
So how did they hold onto both Christianity and segregation? Well, fundamentalist leaders began to advocate for a position where the church would withdraw and disengage from “cultural” issues (such as segregation) and only focus on spiritual issues (such as individual belief). This belief severely limited the mission of the church by excluding social activism[3]. The church is called to both spiritual and cultural renewal. This view of cultural disengagement allowed fundamentalist organizations like Bob Jones University and fundamentalist grade schools to remained segregated[4].
We believe it's important to acknowledge that fundamentalism and evangelicalism have a complicated and sinful past regarding racism. The fundamentalist tenet of “cultural disengagement” is still used in white evangelical churches to justify inaction in the realm of racial justice[5]. You will still hear people say, in regards to race, “Those are social issues and not for the church.” However, those same churches usually have no trouble engaging in social activism on other political and social issues, like abortion and marriage.
So we hesitate to use the word “evangelical” because we disagree with this tenet of fundamentalism and believe that Christians are to engage with our faith in all areas of life. This includes fighting for the equality and dignity of all people made in his image, especially the vulnerable and oppressed.
Fundamentalist Tenet #3: Legalism
Another factor that resulted from the movement's geography, is that the culturally conservative south added many cultural norms and standards to their faith. So things like dancing, drinking, and card-playing were all forbidden at fundamentalist organizations and churches.
You still see this today in churches around the use of alcohol, prohibition of tattoos, or the celebration of certain holidays, like Halloween. Since these things aren’t expressly forbidden in scripture, they are much more related to an individual's conscience and change based on your cultural context. Romans 14 was written to address this very issue. It was ok for some to exercise Christian liberty where the scriptures allowed it, and likewise ok for Christians to avoid something due to a guilty conscience. Paul's advice was the same to both groups: not to pass judgment on either group and to work toward both obedience to the scriptures and the liberty earned for us in the gospel.
A New Movement is Formed: Neo-Evangelical (Early 1950’s)
By the 1950s, for all the reasons just outlined, many other Christians also became concerned with the fundamentalist movement. They rejected the anti-intellectual reasoning of a literalistic interpretation. They saw how the grace and mercy of God stood opposed to legalism. They disagreed with the cultural disengagement of the fundamentalists, believing the gospel should be declared boldly in the public like the early evangelists of the Great Awakening. And so new evangelicalism, also known as “neo-evangelicalism,” was formed, seeking to find a 3rd way between liberalism and fundamentalism. The best-known representative of this movement is Billy Graham.
NEO-Evangelical Tenet #1: Engagement in the Marketplace of Ideas: Consumerism & Populism
One thing evangelicalism did well was bring the gospel to the public sphere. Thanks to evangelicalism there are radio stations, TV shows, and book publishers all in existence today to share and argue Christian thought. Billy Graham’s live and televised revivals resulted in thousands of conversions.
However, concerns arise from making our faith “marketable.” Efforts to make it attractive in the public arena tend to allow the most popular ideas in Christianity to win out. Yet, the most biblically accurate ideas are not always the most popular. The Reformed Church movement has always tried to counter this by emphasizing the theological study of confessions and catechisms.
The competition to make our faith marketable has often led to the “commodifying” of Christianity. Churches are viewed as places that offer a product, such as worship experiences, programs for children and adults, etc. This diminishes the role churches have had over the centuries as places where people are held accountable and are challenged toward deeper transformation.
Neo-Evangelical tenent #2: Low value of local church institutions
From even the 1700’s, the ministry of the traveling evangelists was separate from the local church and centered around celebrity preachers. This carries into Billy Graham’s Crusade ministry and into the para-church movement. Many Evangelical groups operate independently from denominations or local churches. This also stems from the anti-authority and anti-institutional sentiment which is strongly held by many Americans.
Denominations and local church institutions, with elected and biblically examined elders, can provide stability and protective oversight of churches and their members. But many Evangelical churches and organizations prefer to operate independently and outside of these guard rails in order to avoid some of the common challenges that come with that type of protective oversight.
A Merge Between Fundamentalists and Neo-Evangelicals into “Evangelicalism” (Mid 1970’s)
In 1974, an event caused the fundamentalist movement to come out of its “cultural disengagement” shell. The Supreme Court ruled that fundamentalist schools violated the Civil Rights Act because of their segregationist policies. This led fundamentalism to go on the political offensive.
At the same time, evangelicals were beginning to engage politically. This was partly because of court cases like Roe vs. Wade and the legalization of abortion in the US. Because both movements began engaging in politics around the same time, a merger happened. The two groups came together to form one, more influential, voting bloc and both took the name “evangelical.[6]” Because of this, many of the tenets of fundamentalism are found within evangelical churches.
Evangelical Tenet #1: Affiliation with Conservative Politics
This is when things started to get complicated with the evangelical movement. The desire to have a more powerful public voice led the movement to be co-opted by conservative politics[7]. This is also why many people hear “evangelical” and they think “white Conservative Christian.”
This should be concerning for us. While our faith should influence our politics, there is NOT one political party in the US that perfectly aligns with Christian values. Having spoken on this subject with The New York Times, Tim Keller states:
Christians should be committed to racial justice and the poor, but also to the understanding that sex is only for marriage and for nurturing family. One of those views seems liberal and the other looks oppressively conservative. The historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments.
While we live in a country with a 2 party system, as Christians we don’t have to accept the package deal of one party or the other. Instead, we can vote based on our Christian principles and only align politically with a group when they are striving toward shared common Christian goals.
The Rise of Communism and its Influence on Evangelicalism
Perhaps no other movement has had more influence in solidifying the bond between conservative politics and evangelicalism than the rise of communism. The size of this political issue, and the fear surrounding its spread, made a significant impact[8].
One effect it had on evangelical churches was that some became overly cautious in their attempts to follow biblical instructions to care for the poor. Anything that looked like communism was avoided at all costs. A program that used tax dollars to help the poor sounded too much like communism and liberal politics, and so the church would choose to disengage. Caring for the poor was labeled “a social issue and a slippery slope to the social gospel.” This old fundamentalist reasoning was used to justify inaction and silence. There was pressure to not respond in a Christian way to issues, because it didn’t align with a conservative political direction.
It’s important to pause here and just remember that two believers can both share the same underlying biblical principle and believe there are different political strategies to accomplish that same biblical principal. For example, two groups of people can share a biblical principle: protect the vulnerable unborn child. However, one believes the best way to influence a mother to carry a child to term is to provide lots of government assistance to support her and her child (primarily a liberal position). While another believes the best way to influence her to carry the child to term is to make abortion illegal (primarily a conservative position)[9]. Both agree on the biblical principle but disagree on the political strategy. To label one group as “not truly Christian” because they don’t share your political strategy would be an error.
Evangelical Tenet #2: Culture Wars Mentality
Another effect the rise of communism had on the evangelical movement was to tie it to a rise in patriotism and nationalism. Communism required nations to adopt atheistic worldviews so evangelicals saw themselves as natural enemies and instead were part of a “Christian nation.” So, Evangelical politics began to take on “Christian nationalist” goals, such as making America a more Christian nation[10].
The problem with this is actually a theological one. God does not intend to establish his kingdom within one particular nation. After the death and resurrection of Christ, God’s people are found in his church, and are not limited to one nation but are spread throughout nations around the whole world. Christians are to seek to live as faithful followers of Christ and work toward the good of the countries they live in as scattered exiles. Christian Nationalism makes an error by expanding the mission of the church to include using political power to establish Christian rule over a country. This often leads to a “winner takes all” mentality and this strategy is often referred to as “culture wars.”
Evangelical Tenet #3: An Overemphasis on Gender Roles
Another popular movement, that came in response to communism, was the idea that strong powerful men were key to the health of a nation. It presented an “ideal” male as someone powerful, directive, physically strong, and dominant. And it portrayed women as physically weak, needing protection, and subservient to men. These “gender role ideals” began to be embraced by the church.
The church already had some notions of “gender roles” but it was primarily the idea that scripture calls men to take responsibility as servant leaders in marriage and that the office of elder has been limited to qualified men. A biblical version of “gender roles” did NOT mean that men should be physically dominant and women should be docile and in the background. God uses physically frail men like Paul to be the most prolific spreaders of the gospel and God uses strong women like Miriam, Deborah, Phoebe, Lydia, and Priscilla to expand his church.
Evangelical adoption of these cultural “gender role” definitions goes beyond what scripture describes and has caused damage in the church[11]. Marriages that don’t fit these “strong man, docile woman” descriptions are labeled as dysfunctional. And the fear of “strong women'' has led many churches to suppress the skills, talents, and gifts of women in their churches.
Summary and a Way Forward (TODAY)
This merger between fundamentalism and evangelicalism has occurred across most all denominations in the American Church. That's why you see the same battles over literalism, cultural withdrawal, and legalism occurring across the board[12]. The correlation is so strong between the word “evangelical” and conservative politics, that those who aren’t even professing Christians will consider themselves “evangelical” because of the way they vote. All these reasons lead me to have many reservations about using the name “evangelical” as a descriptor of our church.
Many of us see how the American Christian Church has become deeply entangled with anti-scientific thought, legalism, political entanglement, culture wars, racial discrimination and an unhealthy view of men and women. Because of their love for the Bible and desire to follow Jesus, many wish to disentangle their faith from these cultural underpinnings.
Richard Lovelace, in his book The Dynamics of Spiritual Life, calls this “disenculturation.” Disenculturation is when you start to see the ways your culture has skewed your faith[13]. Like a fish in water, who struggles to explain what water is because it’s all he’s ever known, we too struggle to see the culture that surrounds us and how it influences our faith. Disenculturation seeks to name these skewing influences and begins to move beyond them so that faith can become more aligned with the scriptures.
However, many do not believe evangelicalism needs to undergo disenculturation. They do not think cultural influences play a factor in the movement. They see evangelicalism as purely biblical and therefore criticisms of evangelicalism are unbiblical. You might hear someone discussing biblical views on race, politics, or gender roles and have someone else label it as unbiblical because they feel it has liberal connotations. The logic is, incorrectly, assumed to be: If someone criticizes a tenet of evangelicalism, and evangelicalism is against liberalism and communism, then the critics must be liberal or communist.
I couldn’t disagree more. A desire to think critically about the cultural and historical influences on a movement is a desire to disentangle biblical faith from error. Advocating for biblical scholarship over literalism is a good thing. Examining some of the ways racism may have influenced our faith is a good thing. Advocating for the vulnerable and poor, without the constraints of one political party, is a good thing. Embracing the gifts of women in our church is a good thing.
We hope to try and disentangle some of the cultural issues tied to evangelicalism from our faith. Though I resonate with the definition of what an evangelical is, as one who takes the Bible seriously and believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, this term has so much more tangled up in it nowadays. This is exactly why I wanted to give a longer answer to the question of if Waypoint Church is evangelical. It’s complicated to give a quick answer, as seen from this longer response, but I hope now it is more clear where we stand on this term. It’s because of our commitment to the Bible and its beliefs that we wanted to give you this resource to understand exactly what we mean when we say we are evangelical.
SUMMARY:
Common Pit-falls of “Evangelicalism”:
Anti-scientific thought and Literalism
Cultural Disengagement and a Racist Past
Legalism
Consumerism and Populism
Low Value of Local Church Institutions
Over association with Conservative Politics
Culture Wars Mentality & Christian Nationalism
An Overemphasis on Gender Roles
Toward Disenculturation:
Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics & avoiding literalism “Litmus tests” for orthodoxy.
Fully participating in God’s mission for his church to restore all things from the fall, in all areas of life.
Christian Liberty, giving freedom where scripture allows and contextualized to different cultures.
Historical Orthodox Reformed Faith.
High value of the biblical organizational & leadership model. Where examined church elders lead local groups of believers and participate corporately in leading the institution of the larger church.
Understanding there are multiple political strategies from different parties to accomplish Christian priorities.
Valuing American Pluralism and the freedom of religion
Holding to orthodox view of male eldership but not pressuring conformity to culturally narrow views of gender roles.
[1] https://www.nae.org/what-is-an-evangelical/
[2] For more on the anti-intellectual leanings of evangelicalism you can read: Noll, Mark A. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Eerdmans, 1995
[3] For more on the mission of the church, check out: Wright, Christopher J.H. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission. Zondervan, 2010
[4] Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist college, didn’t allow interracial dating until the year 2000.
[5] To learn more about Evangelicalism as it relates to race, I encourage you to read these to books:
Emerson, Michael O. & Smith, Christian. Divided by faith: Evangelical religion and the problem of race in America. Oxford University Press, 2000
Tisby, Jemar. The Color of Compromise: The truth about the American Church’s complicity in Racism. Zondervan, 2020
[6] For more on this merger between Evangelicalism and Conservative Politics you can read: Fea, John. Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump. Eerdmans, 2018
[7] A helpful video on this same topic can be found at The Holy Post: https://www.holypost.com/post/what-is-an-evangelical-holy-post-video
[8] A great resource to explore this topic is: Kobes, Du Mez Kristin. Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. Liveright Publishing Corporation, a Division of W.W. Norton & Company, 2021.
[9] Another helpful video can be found on this topic at The Holy Post: https://www.holypost.com/post/but-what-about-abortion
[10] For more on the American Churches adoption of Christian Nationalism, I encourage you to read: Hunter, James Davison. To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Oxford University Press, 2010
[11] For more information on this topic I encourage you to read: Byrd, Aimee. Recovering from Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose. Zondervan, 2020
[12] For more on the current division in the church around these issues, I refer you to these two articles:
Graham, Michael. The Six Way Fracturing of Evangelicalism. https://mereorthodoxy.com/six-way-fracturing-evangelicalism/
Kevin DeYoung. Why Reformed Evangelicalism Has Splintered: Four Approaches to Race, Politics, and Gender. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/
[13] It may be helpful to distinguish this word “disenculturation” from “deconstruction” for more on the two words, this article is helpful: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/deconstruct-culture-not-faith/
