Who is an evangelical? That is a complex question. We often hear the term evangelical used today in reference to American politics, but that is a very narrow (one might say misguided) understanding of historical evangelicals and evangelicalism. In Who Is an Evangelical?, Thomas Kidd attempts to answer the question historically by tracing the roots of American evangelicalism from the eighteenth century through the election of Donald Trump. According to Kidd, the moniker “evangelical” has come to mean something like “Republican insider evangelicals,” whom Kidd argues, “abetted the politicization of the movement.”[1] And while evangelicals often engage political issues, evangelicalism has concerned itself more fundamentally with the new birth (conversion), an infallible Bible, and God’s discernible presence through the Holy Spirit.[2]
Kidd argues that these emphases are still true of evangelicalism if we define it as referring to those who hold evangelical beliefs, rather than limiting the definition to those who might self-identify as evangelical. Self-identification is yet another piece of this complex puzzle as many non-whites who hold evangelical beliefs would not identify with evangelicals or evangelicalism due to a perceived lack of concern for social issues among white evangelicals for over a century—what Kidd calls “equivocation.”[3] But evangelical beliefs regarding conversion, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are not true only of whites that tend to vote Republican. That’s never been the case. But it is true that many view evangelical and Republican as nearly synonymous.
Therefore, a crisis has emerged among modern evangelicals on a variety of fronts. Yet Kidd reminds us not only of the flaws of the movement but also of the core convictions that evangelicals have always shared that ought to serve as the source of greater unity among those who hold them.
A History of Evangelicalism
Kidd traces the roots of evangelicalism from the influence of the German pietists to the First Great Awakening in figures such as George Whitefield, Sarah Osborn, Jonathan Edwards, and Phillis Wheatley. Whitefield and Edwards in particular were instrumental in what we now refer to as the “First Great Awakening.” Whitefield was most notable for his preaching and the publication of his sermons. Edwards, who is well known for some of his sermons, was actually more instrumental in the movement because of his published accounts of the revival that took place in Northampton, Massachusetts. Edwards’s accounts were published on both sides of the Atlantic. His theological writings also had an enduring legacy among evangelicals.
Kidd encourages us to ask exactly what defines evangelicals and the evangelical movement across the last three centuries. David Bebbington offered his now well-known “quadrilateral” to encapsulate evangelical beliefs: conversionism, biblicism, activism, and crucicentrism as the hallmarks of evangelicals throughout history. Kidd’s hallmarks are slightly different: conversion, an inerrant Bible, and the active work of the Holy Spirit.
We can see these doctrinal hallmarks in the writings of the figures mentioned above, as well as in the work of D. L. Moody, J. Gresham Machen, and Neo-evangelicals such as Carl F. H. Henry and Harold John Ockenga. During Machen’s lifetime, these major hallmarks came under attack with the rise of Protestant Liberalism in America. The Neo-evangelicals in the mid-twentieth century not only defended these evangelical doctrinal hallmarks, but they also brought with them a renewed vision of social engagement that they believed was the natural consequence of evangelical beliefs. Yet even for Neo-evangelicals, evangelism and conversion, like the evangelicals who came before them, were the primary means through which to achieve societal change.
A consistent theme in Kidd’s work is that evangelicals and evangelical history are not without blemish, particularly on the issue of slavery. Kidd writes:
Edwards, Osborn, and Whitefield all embraced common beliefs of early Anglo-American evangelicals. But they also illustrated one of the basic problems of evangelicalism: the struggle over race and inequality, a problem that continues to mark evangelicalism today. Racial conflict and oppression have been enduring themes of American history generally, but evangelicals have an especially conflicted relationship to race. White evangelicals such as Edwards, Osborn, and Whitefield all wished to see African Americans come to faith in Christ. In a spiritual sense, they saw all people as equal before God because God had created all. Yet each of these figures also owned slaves.[4]
Kidd rightly recognizes that many Christians who held evangelical beliefs, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, were instrumental in the abolition of slavery. Unfortunately, others continued to fall short on issues related to race in the following centuries as well.[5]
Evangelicals and Political Involvement
Evangelicals have always had some level of what we might deem political involvement. This was often not the case in the earliest years of evangelicalism in Europe and America, since these evangelicals were insignificant in number and thus lacked political influence. The most significant political involvement of the earliest evangelicals usually came about when a society restricted their freedom to preach the gospel.
Kidd argues that evangelical political involvement began to change through the connections of Billy Graham to many influential figures in both politics and business (especially with Dwight Eisenhower), and even more drastically with the rise of Jerry Falwell Sr.’s “Moral Majority.”[6] Kidd writes concerning Falwell: “He told Christians that it was sinful not to vote. Asking pastors to hold voter registration drives, Falwell told them that they needed to get people ‘saved, baptized, and registered’ to vote. The agenda of the Republican evangelical insider was born.”[7]
The perception of evangelicalism as a deeply political involvement changed even more with the election of Donald Trump to the United States Presidency in 2016. Kidd describes white evangelical support for Donald Trump as “the most shattering experience for evangelicals since the Scopes Trial.”[8] He sees the 2016 as a unique phenomenon:
From Eisenhower to Romney, white evangelical voters had supported Republican candidates who seems to model personal dignity and respect for religion, even if they did not have evangelical bona fides. At times Republicans have been incredulous about Republican candidates, especially Richard Nixon. But 2016 found white evangelicals in a different mode. The profane Trump gloried in a personal history that openly contradicted evangelical standards of sexual behavior and marital fidelity, and based much of his campaign on tough national policy against immigrants. . . . His 1990 appearance on the cover of Playboy was illustrative of his personal traits, yet self-identifying white evangelical voters maintained their obeisance to the GOP.[9]
The essence of Kidd’s argument regarding evangelicals and political involvement is as follows: Evangelicals have always demonstrated some level of political involvement, but a transition has occurred within evangelicalism from political involvement to a characterization of their relationship with the Republican party. Consider the seismic shift in perception: “Evangelical” and “evangelicalism” have become monikers not for certain theological beliefs but for a relationship with a particular party and even a particular president of the United States. It is worth quoting Kidd at length:
But white evangelicals who quixotically sought power in the GOP had come to represent evangelicalism itself for much of the American public. It would be easy to blame the media for this phenomenon. Much of the media cares about religion only to the extent that religion is connected to scandal, politics, or conflict. But GOP evangelical insiders have also supplied a ready-made narrative of their quest for influence, a quest that has stayed consistent since Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency.[10]
Evangelicals must reflect on what part they’ve played in supplying a “ready-made” narrative.
The Future of Evangelicalism
If evangelical refers simply to those who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, then we might say that evangelicalism has changed significantly from its earliest days and that its future as a movement is bleak. Yet if evangelicals are defined not primarily by political beliefs but by their theological convictions (the necessity of spiritual conversion, an inerrant Bible, and the active work of the Holy Spirit), then evangelicalism is growing and its future is bright. It is growing in the sense that, although those who might self-identify as evangelicals may be decreasing, the number of people who hold evangelical beliefs is steady and growing worldwide. This reality should give great hope to those who hold evangelical beliefs.
Conclusion
Thomas Kidd is, from what I can tell, both theologically and politically conservative. He is no radical left-wing critic of evangelicalism or the Republican party. And for all of the time that Kidd spends discussing politics in Who Is an Evangelical? his primary concern seems to be that a political party has co-opted a movement once defined by biblical doctrine, preaching, and evangelism.[11] Again, we might partially blame this on the media. But it would be worthwhile for self-identifying evangelicals to ask ourselves if we have too closely identified evangelicalism with a particular political party. Obviously, we could also ask the same thing of professing Christians who do not self-identify as evangelical but appear to be co-opted by the Democratic party.
Ultimately
my main takeaway from Kidd’s book is not that evangelicals shouldn’t express
their theological convictions in the voting booth. Rather, we should show
consistency in our theological convictions, which will require criticizing the
immoral actions, words, and policies of presidents, whether they are Republican
or Democrat or other. Similarly, we should praise the actions, words, and
policies that are good and right—again, whatever their party affiliation. We must
be a people who are guided by the principles of the Bible and who are involved
in the affairs of this world but who never forfeit the Kingdom of God in order
to prop up earthly nations, kings, or presidents. Using Kidd’s hallmarks for
evangelicals throughout history, evangelicals must return to being known for
their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, the necessity of conversion, and
the active work of the Holy Spirit.
[1]Thomas S. Kidd, Who Is An Evangelical? The History of a Movement in Crisis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019), 1.
[2]Ibid., 156.
[3]Ibid., 64.
[4]Ibid., 23.
[5]Ibid., 48–49.
[6]Ibid., 92.
[7]Ibid., 120
[8]Ibid., 143.
[9]Ibid., 146–47.
[10]Ibid., 142.
[11]Ibid., 155.
Recent Comments