Still Evangelical?


I follow different publishers on Twitter as one way of learning about their latest books. On Saturday, I saw and responded to this tweet from InterVarsity Press:

Bob Trube on Twitter Yes I am still evangelical Evangelicals who have become ensnared with the politics of the Left or the Right have left in sacrificing the centrality of Christ …

I sent this reply:

“Yes, I am still evangelical. Evangelicals who have become ensnared with the politics of the Left or the Right have left [evangelicalism] in sacrificing the centrality of Christ [for political access and influence].” (Bracketed words add clarity for what was an abbreviated, tweet response.)

The tweet is no doubt part of a campaign to promote a new book, Still Evangelical?, that wrestles with the question, in the aftermath of the 2016 election, whether they still want to identify with the evangelical tribe. The book is on my “to read” pile, so look for a review in the near future.

My response reflected a “moment of clarity” earlier in the week. I was participating in a retreat of faith leaders involved in collegiate ministry at the university where I have worked in collegiate ministry over twenty years. The majority of those in the room were mainline Protestant, Catholic, or representatives of other religions. In the course of the day, exercises moved from fun, but relatively non-threatening discussion to the point of sharing about our religious identity. I was paired with a woman from what I would characterize as a “progressive Protestant denomination” and her views reflected that. Do I play coy, go vague, or tell the truth?

I went for truth with the qualification that evangelicalism for me had nothing to do with political captivity to the Left or the Right (and I do think both have occurred in recent American religious and political history). I went on to say that for me, this identifier goes back to the root of the word “evangel” as good news, and that David Bebbington’s “Quadrilateral” is still a useful rubric for what I consider near and dear, and in what I believe this good news consists:

  • Biblicism doesn’t mean for me a wooden literalism but that God hasn’t left us in the dark, but in a variety of ways from poetry to prophecy to history, God has spoken a trustworthy word to bring us the light of God’s grace and how we might live in consequence of that grace, and that the Bible is crucial in defining the character of the new community of God’s people and how they live out the life of faith together.
  • Crucicentrism,  that God has broken into our estrangement from him in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves, what we desperately needed. As I said in my tweet, Christ is central to my faith, the focal point of all of scripture and my hope in life and death.
  • Conversionism. The good news is that because of what Christ accomplished, we are no longer left to efforts to try harder to be better, struggling against the tyranny of self. We are “new creations” in Christ, people in whom life has begun anew, cleaning the slate of all our wrongs, and providing a new capacity, the indwelling Spirit of God, enabling us to live into that new creation life.
  • Activism. The grace of God moves us to a life of pursuing the beauty and goodness that reflects that grace, while making known in our words as well as our deeds the extravagant love of God revealed in Christ and the offer of new life in him for all who believe.

This movement, with all its flaws led the way to the abolition of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic, provided the basis of social work in our cities, has fought human trafficking on a global basis, as well as provided the impetus for a missions movement, flawed at times, but also resulting in indigenously led Christian movements throughout the world, including one in China that may soon be the largest in the world.

In sharing this, I came to a moment of clarity that “evangel” and “evangelical” are good words, and there is really nothing quite like them as identifiers for a life shaped by this good news. I have also been reading To Light a Fire on Earth by Bishop Robert A. Barron, one of the leaders of the “New Evangelization” in the Catholic Church and have been impressed by how unashamedly he uses the terms “evangelism,” “evangelical,” and “evangel” throughout the work.

No doubt these carry some distinctive valences for Barron, and yet what strikes me is not only his unashamed use of these good words that so many evangelicals are fleeing from, but also that in the effort he is leading within Catholicism, one can detect some of the same distinctives one sees in Bebbington’s Quadrilateral, distinctives I will elaborate in my forthcoming review.

All this leads me to the conclusion that it is time to reclaim this identity, and this good word rather than to slink away from it, either in identification or affiliation. It’s time for us to say to those who have co-opted this identity for a politically captive idolatry that they have lost their way, they have strayed from their first love, and we would love for them to repent, but that they should not use “evangelical” for what is a type of “national” or “political”  or racially homogeneous religion.

My fear, and it is a temptation I recognize in myself, is that in walking away from the identifier “evangelical,” whether we leave the “tribe” or not, is that we will also walk away from the good distinctives that are part of Bebbington’s Quadrilateral. (I am aware that some, like Timothy Gloege have advocated that we ought to abandon these, and I think John Fea has responded well to this contention.) This temptation to mute our identification and what makes it distinctive seems to leave us with a vague religion defined by what we are not, perhaps some form of personal piety, and maybe an impetus toward do-good-ism.

My sense is that instead we need to press more fully into that identity in ways that address our present crisis. I could see us pressing into listening hard to the whole counsel of God in the Bible rather than our selective readings. I could see us pressing into the way the work of Christ is for all without distinctions of gender, class, race, or national origins and the implications for a society deeply riven by these divisions. I could see us pressing into the transforming power of conversion and what that means for so many in our society without hope. I could see us pressing into an activism that explores how each and all of us might live out callings that pursue beauty, goodness and truth in a world where there is far too much ugliness, evil, and lie.

All this lies behind my response to InterVarsity Press’s tweet. Yes, I’m still evangelical. And unashamedly so.

[I would also commend a great article by a colleague that explores this same landscape, Evangelicalism: It’s a Brand but its Also a Space.]

11 thoughts on “Still Evangelical?

  1. Excellent comments! I can’t add a thing to what you have said, I very much feel the same. Thank you for giving words to what I believe are the sentiments of many.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Good response to IVP and good clarification of your response, but it still feels like the label has been damaged. Perhaps it’s time go go with ‘evangelical’ rather then ‘Evangelical,’ kind of like supporting the concept of intelligent design without supporting Intelligent Design. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m left wondering, what in those 4 points would distinguish an evangelical from a mainline Protestant? Are there points which are substantively different that what you’d find in an ELCA (Lutheran) or PCUSA (Presbyterian) statement of beliefs, and the set of beliefs articulated by almost everybody in a mainline church pew? (And for that matter, any Roman Catholic.)

    In practice, a mainline Protestant might decide he supports women’s leadership in the church, or the full inclusion of lgbt members — and that is said by some evangelicals to demonstrate a lack of seriousness about the Bible, though that it is not what it means to that mainline person at all, who sees only a difference in interpretation. And a view of salvation that might include those who aren’t Christian is said to indicate a failure to see Christ as central. But that is to take a particular understanding of Christ’s centrality in one way, and not in another.

    As I read them, your 4 points would seem true for all of Christendom, and not merely a subset of evangelicalism. But maybe I’m missing something?


    • Tanya, thank you for your comment. I think you are right in observing that the “distinctives” I discuss ought be characteristic of all Christianity. Evangelicalism arose as a movement concerned with the eclipse of biblical authority, mainline churches that saw Christ as but one good teacher among man, that replaced conversion with moral striving to be better, and disconnected activism in the world from the proclamation of the good news.

      The thing that has troubled evangelicals, at least in the past, is that while the confessions of mainline churches formally affirm the things they believe, the practice of those churches have drifted from them.

      That, however is not the focus of what I am writing about, but rather a critique of “evangelicals” who are politically captive to one or another political party and thus have drifted from these distinctives.


  4. Pingback: Review: To Light a Fire on the Earth | Bob on Books

  5. Thanks for this post, Bob. In the liberal (politically and theologically) campuses where I’ve worked for 25 years, I’ve found the word “evangelical” to be extremely helpful. My aim is to give others a way to identify me. Secondly, I hope to defeat any negative stereotypes they may have about evangelicals.

    The main claim I am making about “evangelical” is that I stand with the church historic going all the way back to the apostles and their teaching. That claim is made in distinction from “progressive” Christian, a position which tends to modify the faith according to standards of contemporary culture. Of course, these categories are not always neat and clean, and things can vary with the individual. But in general terms I think they hold.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: The Month in Reviews: January 2018 | Bob on Books

  7. Pingback: Review: Still Evangelical? | Bob on Books

  8. Pingback: 2018 Best of the Rest | Bob on Books

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.