OpenTheo

What Does It Mean to Be an Evangelical? With Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones

Life and Books and Everything — Clearly Reformed
00:00
00:00

What Does It Mean to Be an Evangelical? With Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones

October 23, 2024
Life and Books and Everything
Life and Books and EverythingClearly Reformed

A few months ago, a prominent American scholar, Matthew Avery Sutton, published an article arguing there is no “through line” from Christians of the past to today’s post-WWII evangelicals. In order to assess this argument, Kevin invited two scholars of the evangelical movement to join him: Andrew Atherstone from Oxford in England and David Ceri Jones from the University of Aberystwyth in Wales. Together, they explore where the term evangelical comes from, whether the thing we call “evangelicalism” is a recent invention, why people call themselves “evangelical,” the difference between Stott and Lloyd-Jones, the difference between evangelicalism in America, in England, and in Wales, and whether the word “evangelical” is worth retaining. Plus, you’ll hear Kevin’s fantastic idea for Andrew to adopt the slogan “Make Oxford Great Again.”

Chapters:

0:00 intro & Sponsors

4:00 Evangelical Identity

17:45 The Through-line to Evangelicalism

26:42 Evangelicalism Abroad

53:15 The Balancing Act

1:01:43 What is an Evangelical?

1:03:27 Until Next Time…

Books & Everything:

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel: A Liturgy for Daily Worship from Advent to Epiphany

Here We Stand

Puritan Treasures for Today

Westminster Theological Seminary Biblical Language Certificate

Redefining the History and Historiography on American Evangelicalism in the Era of the Religious Right

Making Evangelical History

Share

Transcript

I want to thank our sponsors for this episode of LBE. Grateful for Crossway, their partnership over many years. And in particular today, I want to mention Johnny Gibson's book, Oh, Come, Oh, Come, Emmanuel, a Liturgy for Daily Worship from Advent to Epiphany.
Johnny's professor at Westminster.
Seminary in Philadelphia. He's also a friend, good preacher, scholar, that David is his brother.
Those
Gibson brothers do a lot of good things. Johnny has come out with several of these volumes. One for general, one to be down my vision, one for Lent, and then for Advent, this one, Oh, Come, Oh, Come, but really a liturgy for the season that gives you prayers, and readings, and scripture.
So check it out, Oh, Come, Oh, Come, Emmanuel from Crossway. And then also desiring God, as we are still in the month of October, want to mention the DG program this month celebrating the heroes of the Reformation, highlighting well-known figures, and some lesser-known champions of the faith. So 31-day journey you can read or listen to short powerful biographies of men and women who defended the Bible and its truth.
Over 100,000 people have subscribed
to this journey in celebration of the Reformation during the month of October. Here we stand. You can visit desiring God.org slash stand.
And while we are mentioning desiring God and
thinking about John Piper, want to invite you to the Corum Deo Pastors Workshop. John will be the keynote speaker for that here at Christ Covenant February 13, 2025, just a few months away. We are limiting the seats to keep it to a small-ish gathering, and there are just a few seats available.
So check out Corum Deo.org for the pastor's workshop. John
also check out corumdeo.org. Greetings and salutations. Welcome to Life and Books and Everything.
I'm Kevin Deung,
senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina. And I'm joined by two returning guests. We have live coming at you from Oxford.
I assume that's where you are
at the moment, Andrew Atherstone. And then David Jones in the middle, if you're watching this, from Everest with. I've been to Oxford several times, and I'm sad to say I've never been to Wales.
I really should remedy that. So David teaches at the university there in
Everest. A great hymn tune among other things.
And Andrew there at Whitcliffe Hall in Oxford.
We're going to talk about evangelical identity, and what does it mean to be an evangelical? And I will just explain the launching off point for this discussion. But these two scholars friends have done a lot of work.
There's this fine book that Rutledge did making evangelical
history, faith scholarship, and evangelical past. And they also are editing this Rutledge studies and evangelicalism, which I've had the privilege of also being a part of and having them as the general editors. And they were on a year or two ago to talk about their big book about fundamentalism.
So they really do have a knowledge in this. So I'm just going
to start. Andrew, how did you get interested in this whole topic of evangelical identity and feel free to talk about any other things that you have coming down the pipe about this or other related historical matters? Thank you.
Lovely to be with you again. As a young
Christian was nurtured within the evangelical movement. So I'm a member of the Church of England.
I'm a minister in the Church of England, and self-consciously within an evangelical stream
within it. So this would be the tradition of people like John Stort, Jeremy Packer, going to think of J.C. Royal, Charles Simeon, George Whitfield, that sort of school. And so I've always been interested in questions of identity, self-identity.
What do we mean when we talk
about being part of that movement, which maybe goes on for two or three centuries? And I teach, as you say, at this little college in Oxford, and our strap line, we're a seminary part of the University of Oxford, but our strap line is the evangelical college in the heart of Oxford. And very often, therefore, people are asking us, well, what do you mean by this? If it's on the branding, if it's on the headed note paper, what is evangelicalism? Who counts? Who's in? Who's not in? All of those sorts of questions. So it's a very live question for me ministerially and occasionally, but also, therefore, historically, trying to use the resources of the past to try and answer some of those questions.
And what about you, David? It is the
the situation different in Wales or same kinds of issues and questions and answers. I think it's different. The Encyclopedia Britannica used to say it in a four-wheel C England, which is not true at all.
And Wales is similar, but different. I'm like Andrew,
I'm kind of brought up in the evangelical tradition, but not an Anglican tradition in Wales. The Anglican tradition is much smaller.
So I was brought up in the sort of
non-conformist, free church tradition, very much under the influence and legacy of Martin Lloyd-Jones. I was brought up in his first church in South Wales long after these days, of course. So in a sense, all my kind of historical work then, writing on the history of evangelicalism is dealing with that legacy and non-conformist evangelicalism being so so much a part of Wales and Welsh identity as well as evangelicalism itself.
So trying to
understand that, I'm trying to talk at the minute on evangelicalism in Wales since 1945. So trying to understand my evangelical tradition and how that relates to other evangelical traditions in Wales at the same time. So it's part of the story of British evangelicalism more widely, but also distinct in and of itself.
So let me ask a follow-up question before I get to this
article. You talk about England, you talk about Wales, you talk about British evangelicalism more broadly. American evangelicalism is similar, but of course different.
And this
article from Matthew Avery Sutton has, in particular in mind, the political, unique political dynamics of evangelicalism in the United States. So we'll come back to that, but I would love to hear from one or both of you, and feel free to just be candid and honest. How does this whole discussion get shaped for good or ill by the American variety of evangelicalism? And how do Brits or how do the Welsh look at, do they say, oh, evangelicalism in America? Yeah, that's our tribe, or is there a sense of, wow, we want to distance ourselves from whatever's going on there? Go ahead.
I'm unoffendable. I would say it was much more of the second, which is evangelicalism,
but not of the American variety, and trying to get away from a kind of American centric way of describing the movements. It is that a recent, just because of Trump order predates that.
Oh, it goes a long way back. So, yeah, plenty of transatlantic connections, of course, for centuries, as people are going across in boats and then on jet planes across the Atlantic, and a massive influence of American evangelicals in Britain. And you might think of someone like DL Moody and Sanke coming in the 1870s and 80s and really stirring things up here.
You might think of Billy Graham,
of course, famously in the 40s and 50s and 60s, frequently coming over on missions. And the English evangelicals wanting to welcome, and definitely wanting to learn and use those evangelists, but also trying to say, well, we're a bit different from this. So we'll put Billy Graham in our pulpit in Cambridge to the undergraduates in 1955 at the famous Kiki mission, but always trying to say, well, these are Cambridge undergraduates.
We're not farmers from Tennessee, different cultural
ambiance going on. So there's a bit of cultural one-upmanship, I think happening, a bit of a lot, England is not like America, but the same is true, England is not like Wales. So there's quite a bit of sort of English elitism still as part of our culture here.
Well, I'm glad you could say it. So we didn't have to. And I think us as in Wales would be keen to say that we are not like England, as well as not like America.
And in Wales, there's a big tradition of defining ourselves
against the English. Wales is a population of 3 million people, England's a population of, what, 50 million people or something around that. So we've always been dominated by our larger, more populous neighbor next door.
But from the outside looking in at the American instance,
at the moment, it's very, it's a lot of fun seeing how evangelicals, especially American academics, get their header on Trump and the way in which I suppose they try to academically distance themselves from what the bulk of the evangelical movement attended, I think, politically at the present time. And we don't, in Wales, at least, evangelicals don't have that kind of purchase. We are a very small minority who don't have the kind of political influence that you have in America, really.
So we'll come back to that. Let me just give a brief abstract here. So this article, and Matthew Avery Sutton is a very well known, well respected scholar in this field.
He's in America. And he had
an article come out earlier this year, redefining the history and historiography on American evangelicalism in the era of the religious right. And I'm trying to be fair to his argument.
I think the burden of
this paper and you can, you know, someone can go find it online. I didn't have to subscribe to anything to download the PDF is that there's no through line from historical evangelicals to at least American evangelicals in the present. And this is one of his important historical claims that we'll want to talk about.
He says that beginning in the late 1970s, this whole batch
of evangelical historians, Noel Hatch, Marston, Ballmer, Grant Wacker, Harry Stout, and others decided to describe because they themselves wanted to be distanced from the religious right, described an evangelical quoting here as someone who affirmed a specific set of abstract theological ideas in the movement as centered on a set of general convictions and doctrines that transcended time and space evangelicalism was not as they characterized it defined by its practices, networks, or cultural affinities, and certainly not by evangelicals commitments to ideas about race, gender, sexuality, or class. So he builds on this argument, making the case that they picked this new evangelical historiography, a set of principles, theological ideas, which sort of allowed you to go back in the past and pick the good guys, the good men and women, the people that you like to say, Oh, look it, well, they believe the same things and you could pick your heroes. And it was a convenient way to find a continuity with the past that he's arguing doesn't really exist.
So bringing it to the present and then I'll turn it over to you. He
comes to his conclusion at the end. So how does he define evangelicalism? Here's what he says.
Here it is. I argue that post World War II evangelicalism is best defined as a white patriarchal nationalist religious movement made up of Christians who seek power to transform American culture through conservative leaning politics and free market economics. Contemporary evangelicalism is the direct descendant of early 20th century fundamentalism, north and south.
Both movements are distinct from antebellum forms of Christianity. There is no multi century evangelical through line. It's toward the end of his piece.
Well, much more we could say and we
jumping off place, let's just start with that last line. Andrew, what do you make of the claim? And it's it's not new, but that there is no multi century evangelical through line. What should we think of that Andrew? I mean, I like the article.
I really warmed to Professor Sutton's desire to
challenge the consensus. And we definitely have a consensus. You know, so some of those major figures he's engaging with, Mark Knoll, David Bebington, very significant scholars in our generation of evangelicalism.
And he's trying to say, let's think outside the boxes, there are a new way
looking at it. So there's plenty in that that I that I warmed to. I think at the end of the day, I'm not convinced by the argument because there are plenty of people right across the world and down the centuries who've used that evangelical language of themselves, who've chosen that name.
So to suggest that before 1942, we can't we shouldn't really use the evangelical language at all. I think is a well, what would you do with somebody like J.C. Ryle, who died in 1900 and is very frequently in his writings describing evangelicalism, speaking of the evangelical gospel, using that as a language for himself, we have to take it away from him. I certainly agree with the suggestion, we shouldn't go around baptizing everything we see, especially if we warm to it, theologically as oh, it must be an evangelical movement.
We can do that much too quickly.
And I want to the idea of trying to write a history of something like the evangelical revival without using the word evangelical. These are intriguing suggestions.
But to say there's no through line, I mean, there must there must always be a through line. Every every movement has forerunners, nothing is born de novo. That's right.
And it obviously this this piece is is directed most immediately to
an American context. You can hear that in the very end of his definition, American evangelicalism, white, patriarchal, nationalist, religious movement devoted to free market economics. I can tell you here that in the age of Trump, evangelicals, a lot of them don't give a rip about free market economics anymore.
So yeah, I certainly disagree
with where he lands. If for no other reason than, you know, I think of the famous Quentin Skinner, you know, seeing things their way. I don't know any evangelical, I suppose this some exist, who would think of themselves white, patriarchal, nationalist, religious movement, seeking power to transform America.
No doubt that describes some people. But the, you know,
2000 people in my church, all of whom I think would raise their hand and say I'm an evangelical, I'm not sure that describes much or any of them. It's not to say that there isn't a benefit in what he's trying to do.
So David, how do you read? Let me just tweak the question slightly,
because to say there's a through line to evangelicals might be different than saying, is there a through line to evangelicalism? So do you see that differently? This ism. How old is this ism? Well, the classic statement, isn't it? The defining even there is that we all sort of start with and jump off from is David Bevinton's four characteristics. The emphasis on the Bible, the cross activism and conversionism.
And he raises a number of times in that article about that being
so broad as to be, to fit any Christian, pretty much. I've got an element of sympathy with that. I think it always needs to be qualified.
And each of those points need to be opened up and explained.
But I think you can define evangelicalism in terms of its characteristic theological beliefs or spiritual emphases, but also in terms of a coherent movement that linked together certain people in certain places at different times. A lot of my work is on George Whitfield, for example.
I'm trying as best I can to edit his correspondence at the minute,
3000 items of correspondence from mid 1730s to 1770. And that correspondence is a means by which he created a movement, bringing together people around himself as much as anything else. And he almost defined evangelicalism to be an evangelical was somebody who looked to Whitfield and was connected to him in some way or other.
I suppose that tells us something about
evangelical's tendency to look for charismatic figures and coalesce around individuals, perhaps rather than churches and institutions like that. And the individualism that's at the heart of it. But you can also you can define evangelicalism in those terms, as well as defining it in terms of beliefs and theological attitudes as well.
One of the things that I certainly agree with on Sutton is he says evangelicalism is also a series of networks and institutions. And that's clearly the case. And in an American context, when controversies blow up in our evangelical world, it's not so much because this person signed this statement of faith and this person did, but it's somebody at Wheaton said something or someone at one of our, you know, at Christianity today, something that's considered an institution in the movement.
So oftentimes the sparks fly because, well, wait a minute, you're connected to
something we consider or have considered part of the the ism. And now, you know, people are disagreeing about what they say. So I think he's certainly right in that.
I wonder, you know,
Andrew, you talk about JC Ryle and I think you're working or have completed a book on JC Ryle. Is that correct? I've just written the, what is it called, Ryle on the Christian Life? Yeah. Life series.
So that's been been enjoyable. I've spent the last three or four years reading
as many of Ryle's tracks and sermons as I can get my hands on. My friends at Crossway really, they rave about that, what you've, what you've done there, look forward to coming out.
And so you
mentioned he, he uses the word evangelical. I'm curious, David. I assume Whitfield is using the word evangelical all the time.
Not really, though, really hard push to find him using, using that term.
What does he use to distinguish, you know, the good guys from the bad guys? He, he was reluctant to talk, you know, often Whitfield would talk in terms of a kind of inter, you know, pan denomination of artistry, you wouldn't want to be tied to any particular group or define too much. And he often talks about the new birth being the thing that, that unites people and nothing else.
And although he kind of argued with Wesley over
predestination and things like that, there was that tendency with which we not to define things too sharply. And to be this kind of magnanimous person who transcended all of those divisions, a mere Christian, not. So, you know, he would, although he was a loyal Anglican in many ways, he wouldn't ove emphasize that.
And in America, you would play that down quite significantly. So,
you know, it's that idea that evangelical evangelicals can be highly individualistic and can elevate an individual rather than a creed or an ecclesiastical structure or not or a denomination. And that's always been the case.
But, but for some evangelical, that certainly is,
is the case. And, and being pragmatic, you know, being adaptable in different places. And, you know, Whitfield, there's a famous quotation by his story about Whitfield in England, he could be an Anglican in America, he was a dissenter.
And he could, he could act the two parts equally well. And I think
that's, that's kind of a little bit typical of, of evangelicals sometimes. Yeah, as strikes me, David, as you talk, you're really hitting on even today, the strengths and weaknesses, you know, of an evangelical, we think of someone who's, you know, earnest and heartfelt and wants a personal relationship, flexible, but at times, pragmatic.
And today, lots of people decry the celebrity pastor culture and rightly, rightly so.
But I mean, has there ever been a bigger celebrity in evangelicalism than Whitfield? No, and I think Whitfield is the archetypal celebrity preacher, isn't he? And, and if you trace, if you, if you trace the beginnings of evangelicalism to Whitfield, or at least to the revivers, then he's kind of set the agenda and set the toll for much of what came afterwards. And a lot of, a lot of people who looked back to earlier generations, a period in generations, lots of non-conformists and dissenters in England when Whitfield emerges are perplexed by him really.
And find the lack of theological definition to be problematic. And I think for me, from a kind of more reformed tradition, the theologically, then, then that could sometimes be an equal frustration at the same time, you know, and whereas I look more to a reformed, kind of worthy than the evangelical one, maybe, or straggle or two, at least. There's, I mean, there's lots of interesting parallels between a Whitfield character and a royal character in how they're describing the sort of movement that they're part of, and the way in which they, they have this sort of evangelical clothing that they're trying to wear.
So, Royal famously has a text called the Christian leaders of the last century, which in cricketing terms is like his first 11 that he would want to send out onto the cricket Armenians from the 18th century. So, he's very happy to speak highly in praise of John Wesley and of Fletcher as well, not so keen on top lady, keen on top ladies theology as a Calvinist, but not really so much on top ladies' personal interactions. And, and Royal gets a lot of pushback from readers on this, because they say you're much too broad in your capacity of who you're willing to work with.
This isn't evangelicalism, this is realism, they say. Evangelicalism is reformed,
it's Calvinistic. We can't have these, these, these, these, Wesleyans involved.
And at the same time, he's trying to stretch the movement backwards as far as possible. So, very strong on saying it wasn't born in the 18th century, remember the Puritans of the 17th, remember the Reformers of the 16th, that, that it's really a 500-year movement rather than a 300-year movement. He has his parallel book on the reformers as well, doesn't he? Indeed, at the same time.
Yeah. So, let, let me ask the same question in a little different way to you, Andrew. So, I'm, I'm reading here from your fine book that you both edited, Making Evangelical History, Public by, I was by Rutledge.
And there's a, a fine chapter in the back by Mark Knoll about
Timothy Smith, George Marsden, and David Bebbington. And then, I think the next chapter is about Mark Knoll by somebody else. But he says, this was really fascinating.
He says, in the Google
in-gram viewer, Evangelical shows up frequently from the 17th century to the present. The situation differs for Evangelicalism with only marginal appearance in the in-gram viewer for British books until the early 20th century and with no meaningful frequency until about 1950. For American books, the word barely registers until about 1950.
I have a, a friendly back and forth with
Miles Smith. He's a professor at Hillsdale in Michigan and Miles is a friend and a very good historian. He's, we go back and forth because I think he would say Evangelicals didn't exist and we should just refer to them as Protestants.
And I would say, well, I, Evangelicals did,
but you may have a point with Evangelicalism and even Knoll acknowledges that. So how do you think as, as an ism, Andrew, that this is, this really is just a 1940s, 1950s phenomenon. The word Evangelicalism goes back at least to the 1820s and begins as a term of abuse from those outside the movement of their opponents.
Evangelicalism, it sounds very unspiritual.
It sounds very formulaic. It's an ism.
No one really wants to be part of an ism,
very lifeless sort of, sort of idea. But then it begins to be, begins to catch on amongst the Evangelicals themselves as they're looking for a sense of international connection and part of a global movement rather than just isolated congregations and speaking of themselves as being, being part of this as an idea. Yes, I mean, I'd be very happy to abandon the idea of Evangelicalism and talk about the multiplicity of, of Evangelical life in, in different parts of the world.
But you
couldn't, there must be a way historically of, of showing interconnections that no congregation is just little Evangelical island by itself. It is connected to others. So how are you going to describe this, this thing? Perhaps simply the Evangelical movement would be a way of describing it or the Evangelical renewal.
Again, a sense of down the centuries, across the world, down the generations,
movement has a sense of, of life by definition. Ism has a sense of kind of scientific box ticking and no one quite ever fits the box. Again, a movement can have lots of people around the edges.
You can have a mainstream and sort of offshoots and flows. Ism, we tend to have,
you know, four ideas, six ideas to, to who's in and who's out. And that's where, that, that's where it becomes very politically dangerous because you as the historian begin to set the agenda of who's part of this movement and who isn't.
In England or Wales, is there any kind of movement
to get rid of the term? Because there certainly is in the States because it's become a political marker. Now I'm one who says, Hey, this is a, this is a Bible word. This is gospel word.
That's
what the word means and it has a historical resonance. So I'm, I'm, you know, I'll tilt against windmills to help to try to define what the word means and take it out of just being a political interest group. But there certainly are people who are saying, give up on the term, it's irredeemable.
And not only from maybe the left, but also from people on the right,
who would say, well, I'm, I'm a conservative Protestant, but I don't know if I'm an evangelical. I want to be fair here. But I think another professor at Hillsdale, I think someone like Darrell Hart might say that.
Look, look, the evangelicals were the, the new lights. They were
the pro revival people. And you know, if, if you didn't think that that was such a good thing or balance, it was, you know, a net neutral and you're with the old lights, then maybe you don't want the term evangelical and you prefer to call yourself a Protestant, a reformed, maybe your particular denomination.
How do people, Wales and England think about the term? Or are they just
happy to stand in the slipstream of Packer and Stott and Dick Lucas and I guess Lloyd Jones a little more complicated history? I think you to pick up on one point that Andrew was making previously, it's, you know, we as historians like to make order of the past, make sense of the past and reduce, sometimes reduce a messy picture to simple ways in which to chop up the past, you know, and I guess that's always been something that historians have done. You know, we talk about periods and medieval periods and early modern and modern and and those things are only helpful in so far as they go, aren't they? So that is, I think Andrew said the point about historians making the running in a sense in terms of the definitions and who's in and who's out and that kind of thing. But in Britain and Wales, I'm not sure there are as many voices calling for evangelicalism as a term to be to be sort of jettisoned.
I think there are plenty of people who
would distance themselves from the sort of American bitty-gray-emish revivalist tradition for a more kind of reformed tradition. But in Wales and England, I'm sure we're all heavily influenced by those sort of American movements and American ideas, not just in terms of Evangelism, but more broadly as well, isn't it? American cultural norms carry an enormous sway, really. So we're always kind of struggling with that to some extent.
Yeah, Andrew, how do you see it? I think it's a mixed picture within the Church of England, currently the context that I'm in. So one of the things about America's role globally, religiously, is that if a brand becomes toxic in America, that toxicity spreads right across the planet. And so in Oxford, for example, we might be having conversations.
And if you use
the language of evangelicalism, someone is immediately thinking the sort of rhetorical ideas that you might get in the States. So there can be that sort of sense of needing to, if not jettison the word, certainly explain what you mean and what you don't mean if you do continue to use it. One of the difficulties, of course, is finding a better word.
If we jettison that, well,
you need some sort of way of being able to describe yourself to people. But also within my particular context at the moment, there are quite a lot of, I suppose, theologically progressive, as they turn themselves, who would very much be holding on to the evangelical language. So again, in those sort of political debates and those theological debates, it's easy to say, well, you don't belong in the movement because of where you stand theologically.
And so the
left can say, no, very much. We're still evangelicals. We're still in the tradition of a start, perhaps not of a rile, perhaps not of a wit feel, but certainly if somebody like John Stott, who's seen as the great 20th century bane engaging sort of evangelical character.
And we have that you talked earlier about even class distinctions or, you know, in the states, with certainly a certain group of people, if you style yourself as a British evangelical, well, that's a much more palatable thing, even in America. Oh, a British evangelical. And I'm, hey, I have lots of books by all those people you mentioned in Stott and Packer and in all the rest.
But there, there is a way in which evangelicals, something makes this case,
that evangelical has often been a term to mean a truer kind of Christianity. Now that has a, you know, a flavor that we're just being elitist about it. But here's how he puts it, Protestants feel an active than those they viewed as their religious enemies described themselves as evangelical Protestants of many theological stripes invoke the term to signal authenticity.
And there's,
there's a lot of truth to that doesn't mean it's always wrong. But I do think, and I wonder if you, how you would see this historically, that Protestants have often described themselves evangelical, meaning were something in distinction to someone else. So the first Lutherans were Lutherans, they were evangelicals, meaning they're not Roman Catholics.
I grew up in a mixed
denomination with a lot of left leaning progressive. And so when we called ourselves evangelical, we meant not theologically liberal. But we talked, you know, a year or two ago, for people after World War II, they said evangelical to mean not fundamentalist.
So they were distinguishing
themselves for people to the right. It is such a truth that, or right that very often, this has just been a term to mean, we have we're a certain kind of Christian and not this kind of Christian. How do you see that David? I think that's always the case, isn't it? You always define over against somebody else.
But I think for a lot of evangelicals, the purity element
has been, we are the ones who go back to the Bible always. And we go back to the foundations, we go back to the primitive faith, and the apostolic faith, and we've rediscovered that element of rediscovery has always been part of kind of evangelical identity, isn't it? And whoever that is, in whatever period you're talking about, there's always that, whether it's fundamentalist against liberals, or I've just been reading the new biography of Gresham Mitchell, and charting his move from an engagement with more liberal ideas and higher critical ideas to his later. I don't like to call him a fundamentalist, but I suppose he does get called that as nearly as it is.
I call him a conservative evangelical, really, but that
is a short present period, defined in himself freely over against liberalism, particularly by the 1920s, and the institutional questions that are bound up with that, but all Princeton and things as well. So there's always that, isn't it? Always that tension. I'm an you know, theological liberals would do the same thing or progressives.
They have people they
do not want to be associated with. And every evangelical group or generation tries to make that continuity. We talked about the thoroughfare of evangelical is the past.
Well, all different
groups of evangelicals tend to say, well, these are the people who are in, why think of the are the people I emulate from the past, and whoever they happen to be. You take the banner truth view of kind of reform Christianity, and they have this continuity that goes back to a certain point. And sometimes it's a very odd mix of people who are kind of put together from which feeling his Anglican robes on the cover of any banner book.
Yeah, there's certain yeah, the who gets to be in the Puritan on the Puritan tradition. Yeah, what what what what is it? Oh, go ahead. I was supposed to say, what does it mean in your context for Wycliffe Hall to say we're the evangelical school? It's a very live conversation for us at the moment.
So should we be changing the motto? Especially because we're seeking to invite
students from North America to come and study with us in Oxford. So we're not just marketing the college to Church of England evangelicals. But if you begin to market, make Oxford great again.
Feel free to use it. Thank you.
But there's also a sense in which it's deliberately left hanging.
So it's left as this
big tent word that we try not to redefine. So it gives you a it gives you some strong hints about what seminary life might be like in terms of theological emphasis and scripture and Christ and the cross and conversion and these sorts of things, but is not as close as having a particular doctrinal basis. So that anyone who's attracted to that movement would would be able to to come along and enjoy the ethos and the environment.
Quick, essentially evangelical, isn't it?
Typically evangelicalism. Big, big, big tent evangelicalism. Yes, which, which, you know, someone like again, Darrell Harten is writing, we'd push back quite strongly against.
Right.
Yeah. There's also tradition in the Church of England currently of a revival of focus upon describing yourself as an article's sort of evangelical in terms of the reformed basis of the Church, which is written down in 39 doctrinal points or a prayer book evangelical.
Again, with that sort of
reformation tradition, liturgically and historically shaping your evangelicalism. So that evangelicalism is just this free floating rake of it what you want sort of movements, but does have text switch which kind of imbue it or describe it in some form. Yes, interesting.
So I grew up in the Reformed
Church in America, Dutch Reformed tradition, but more mainline. And so we, you know, conservatives like me often use evangelical. Now I'm in the Presbyterian Church in America, which is in the grand scheme of things, all very conservative.
But there's always a spectrum there too. And I would
say, you know, me and my friends tend to use the language of confessional Presbyterian or ordinary means of grace, which are saying, you know, we take the confession very seriously. We believe that ministry should focus on the word and the sacraments.
So there's always, and somebody else
might say, well, we're missional, which again, is trying to say a different kind of language. There's always these conversations of how to distinguish and it doesn't have to be that we're just trying to pat ourselves on the back. There really are marks of distinction.
I had to go back and it would
be a shame if I didn't mention John Witherspoon at least once in this conversation. In 1768, he published a collection of sermons, practical discourses on the leading truths of the gospel. And I just was pulling up the advertisement for it and it says, there appears to me, so this is from Witherspoon, the greater necessity because the evangelical principles have for some time passed been falling greatly into disrepute, which I take to be the true and the single reason why religion at present is very weak and in a languishing state.
So here's Witherspoon using the
language to distinguish evangelical principles. And you could probably guess what his sermons are about sin, conversion, new birth, regeneration, with a Calvinist bent to a justification by faith, atonement, the cross, the sort of things you would probably guess from the middle part of the 18th century. One of the most interesting chapters in this book you edited was on Erasmus Middleton's Biographia, biography, Evangelica.
Now, maybe, neither of you wrote this was by Darren Schmidt,
but maybe off the top of your head you'll remember. Can you tell us about that? Because I found that very fascinating. I didn't know this thing existed, but here's a guy, Anglican clergyman at the end of the 18th century trying to do this thing we're talking about.
Here's a biography and here are the
200 people that I call evangelicals. What was he trying to do and who did he put into the camp? Go for it, Andrew. Do you remember it? I've read the chapter many times.
Yeah, it's a highlight of the
book. One of the things that all the chapters in the book are trying to do is to show the way in which evangelical historians bring to their craft a number of theological assumptions before they get down to looking at the text. Everyone is shaping the story that you're telling often by your presuppositions and very often the question for the movement is who is in and who is out? Who counts as not even just authentically a gospel person or authentically a Christian? This is one of the things that Middleton is trying to do.
Ransack history, if you like, and he has
some unusual people that we wouldn't consider part of the evangelical movement since the 18th century putting into his dictionary from previous centuries. Can you think of evangelical in the 14th century? Who could we name? And why would we somehow consider them not to be evangelical? That's one of the live questions that he's wrestling with. Are they simply proto-evangelicals who existed within the early church or within Roman Catholicism but were really evangelicals in disguise of an 18th century sort? Or was there such a thing that Middleton is getting us to ask? As a Roman Catholic evangelical, the medieval evangelical, or is this just kind of a range of categories that blows apart as soon as you begin to have such a broad description? John Stosh, certainly in his early writings, simply described an evangelical as a New Testament Christian.
So if you're trying to be a New Testament Christian, if you're trying to follow Jesus and the teaching the apostles, you count as part of the movement. You don't have to be part of this Anglo-stream of Whitfield or Wesley followers since the 1730s. And that really opens the category into a different sort of conversation, I suppose, a conversation that drives us back to the apostolic texts, back to the teaching of Jesus who counts at that level, who are the apostolic Christians, and are those the same as the evangelical Christians? I'm trying to think Andrew about Stott.
I don't recall him saying a lot about
revival. Of course Lloyd Jones has a whole book. Revival is the answer.
I remember when I did my
doctor work, John Coffey, who both of you know, said, one of the shorthand definitions really of evangelicalism in the 18th century are pro-revival Protestants. So it is, was that one of the underlying differences between Stott and Lloyd Jones? I know Lloyd Jones certainly loved revival, and I'm just trying to think if Stott downplayed that aspect of evangelical identity, what David, you know, well, both of you know this well. I'll start with you, David.
Yeah, I'm more familiar with the Lloyd Jones side of it than the Stott one really. You know Lloyd Jones' theology of revival was always tied to his exposition of the baptism and the sealing of the spirit. And Stott famously writes that book, criticising that kind of theology of spirit baptism, and always distanced himself from the charismatic movement as well, didn't he? I'm much more encouraging to a number of early charismatic figures, although you couldn't really call him in any way charismatic himself in that sense.
But for Lloyd Jones, revival, you know, he
has the series of sermons, he preaches in 59. But revival is everywhere with Lloyd Jones, you know, to everything. And it's not couched in terms of evangelism as such.
It's always
talked in terms of God's presence and things like that. So, you know, he's not talking about revivalism at all, especially in the American conception of that, and would distance himself from Billy Graham and others would champion that approach to things. Whereas again, Stott was an early exponent of Graham, wasn't he, and worked with Graham, and on the Graham Crusades, Lloyd Jones famously wouldn't go any other in the 1950s.
So there is a very distinct
understanding of revival that Lloyd Jones is working with, really, and the emphasis is that there's barely a serum and that doesn't reference it. Right. What about on the start side, Andrew? Stott reads, I think, far less history than Lloyd Jones does.
Lloyd Jones is loving the 18th century and bringing it a lot into his teaching and his whole worldview. If there was a historian, if there was a person from the past that Stott loves and models himself upon, it's certainly Charles Simeon at Cambridge, where the emphasis is very much patient Bible teaching in the local congregation. So, going back to the New Testaments and just faithfully, carefully, precisely trying to teach those things week after week after week, and that's what Stott does for much of his ministry.
So, he, I think, would see revival in terms of
individual conversions, the slow growth of congregations as God adds to their number. He's certainly happy to get involved in big platform evangelism, but mostly among students, student missions around the world, largely speaking to undergraduates. And again, it's a sort of faithful, typically, eight addresses, over eight days in a row, a sequence of following through the gospel, from before through to redemption, very carefully explained, rather than, well, is that a revivalism? It's a form of revivalism, but it's a very Cambridge university, I suppose, of revivalism.
It's a part revivalism. I think with Lloyd Jones, what people overlook is the Welshness, and he is shaped by the kind of 18th century Welsh Calvinistic Methodist tradition, and combines that emphasis on preaching and the Holy Spirit that is characteristic of that period. You know, he exemplifies that, and preaching and the unction of the Spirit is, is everything to Lloyd Jones, and it comes from that tradition, then.
Yeah, we can forget, I mean, you wouldn't, but in America, I can forget, there's just no, oh, Lloyd Jones, London, well, he was Welsh, though, and that was a huge imprint on him, obviously. I want to mention a couple more of our sponsors. We're grateful for Reformation Heritage Books, and we're highlighting their series, Puritan Treasures for Today.
If you want to get into the
Puritans, and you should, whether you're a pastor, church leader, new Christian, read the Puritans, and these volumes use an updated language, helpful introductions, and they get you into classic works by John Owen, Jeremiah Burrows, many, many more, perhaps reading some of the old Puritans sounds a bit intimidating, or you just need a refresher, and you can use this series of books, Puritans Treasures for Today. Go to ReformationHeritageBooks, that's heritagebooks.org, slash Puritan Treasures. If you use the coupon clearly at the checkout, you receive 10% off your order.
And also, I want to mention again,
our friends at Westminster Theological Seminary, they're 100% online biblical language certificate program. Really is a good program. If you want to learn where you are right now, biblical Greek, biblical Hebrew, you can begin to understand short passages in the original languages as in as little as six sessions.
So go to wts.edu slash language. We have just about five or 10
minutes left. I just want to zoom out and maybe two final kind of macro questions about history and the state of evangelical historiography.
So the first one, I'll come at this way, how do we,
and I guess I'm giving the answer and the way I ask the question, but how do we get that balance between not doing hagiography, just these are, you know, saints who basically walked on water, or what I call hamartiography, which is just their sinners. And I feel like some modern historiography, if they don't like the person, just, they can't think anything good to say of them. You know, I very much cut my teeth as a young Christian, especially in college, reading the the two volumes Ian Murray on Lloyd Jones and you know, Dallimore on Whitfield and I mean, just, and I'm thankful for the the history that's that really says these are heroes, unique men of God who are used in powerful ways.
I think one of the things that both of you
have done in your works and in these books you've edited and you know, there's a separate volume on Lloyd Jones is with a sympathetic eye to still say, well, they were human beings and the historians have shaped a certain view of them. How do you guys approach this? And I imagine you've even had people who are, you know, might read this volume and say, wait a minute, Hudson Taylor was my lifelong hero and now you point out kind of some idiosyncrasies or Lloyd Jones is my my mentor from the grave and now you've ruined him for me. How do you think about how to be honest about the heroes from the past without just being so cynical that we can't have heroes? I think that that's that's always a tough balance to keep.
You know, I I actually, I was on the beach
in France at the age of 16 reading Dalimo. Maybe I should have just been in the sea fooling around or whatever, but you know, but that shaped me and that was my way my way into where I am today. You know, was reading those banner biographies and and getting the taste for the Southern Evangelical past through those.
But I think as soon as you start to to read more deeply, particularly in the
source material, and that's always got to be key. You've got to go back to the to the sources and reconstruct your stories of these people from the primary sources that exist. But as soon as you, you know, in Wales, in many circles, Lloyd Jones is regarded as beyond reproach.
And I've been criticized
for you daring to say something remotely critical of Lloyd Jones. People would would shun me for that, you know, despite being an enormous admirer of him. So, you know, there's always that that goes on as well within within Evangelical circles.
But when you write, you go where the sources
take you. And whatever it says, you tell the truth. And and so be it, really, you are, our priority as Evangelical is writing about the history of Evangelicalism is to the truth, isn't it? And the primary sources dictate that.
Yeah, yeah, maybe this sounds a little pie pie in the sky, but I think of it, especially these people, you know, as a Christian, we'll see in heaven someday. And they they know themselves better than they did on earth. I would hope that maybe they would say, you know what, as best as you could, I felt like you fairly tried to understand who I was.
I was to bear the scrutiny that we put
some of these people under. Yeah, right. You know, good thing none of us will have biographies quite about us, although David Mepington's wife wrote one of him.
So I keep telling that to my
wife when she's going to work on my biography. Andrew, how do you think of this this tightrope walk between heroes, but honesty? Well, real people have real weaknesses. And when I read ministerial accounts from the middle ages of the quintessential hagiography, where they literally were walking on water, I think, what how do I relate to this as a Christian disciple and as a Christian minister? It seems so out of my experience.
That's a that's a form of hero, I
suppose. But when you're able to say, even of the person who had a god bless ministry, which was growing churches and seeing many converted and many, many taught and disciples, yet there were vulnerabilities, yet there were weaknesses, yet there were personal struggles, and those are written in the sources, and therefore they need to come out in any sort of fair appreciation of them. Actually, I can connect much better to that person, because you know, I'm vulnerable and struggling and weak in discipleship and ministry.
So, rather than a plaster cast saint,
actually a full orbit picture, I think is often much more helpful to the Christian, rather than an unattainable life that is impossible to the rest of us. So, here's only ever one hero, isn't it? There's only ever one hero, and everybody has appeared with action. That's right.
And Jesus walked on water because our response is to worship him,
and not to worship these heroes as much as we're right in a Hebrews 11th sense to have them. So, my final question, just big picture, it seems to me that, so we're fully into the next generation of now, Mars and Anolsa, these people have still doing work, but into many of their students or into the next generation of his historiography. And it seems to me like there's some necessary correction tweaking as always happens from one generation to another, that's part of intellectual inquiry.
And yet, maybe an overreaction in some places where
these people who used to be looked at as, you know, somewhat as heroes now are just understood as power grabbing white patriarchalists. Or maybe that's just how it strikes me here in an American context. What do you see as the current state of the guild among evangelical historians? You encouraged? Discouraged? I can say.
Go ahead, David. No, go on, you go.
I think there's some very good reasons to be encouraged, in terms of the number of younger scholars attracted to the fields, wanting to do good quality archival contextual research, carefully written histories, the number of PhDs that are coming through.
I think that's a great
encouragement. I think the other thing that is very encouraging is the pushing of the analysis beyond the Anglo world that we've mostly been talking about and most of the histories have been about over the last 50 years. So the number of new studies that are coming up from the Global South, often written by historians in those sorts of contexts.
The way in which
Pentecostalism and charismatic renewal is beginning to shape the evangelical movement globally, lots and lots of brand new and interesting fields in languages other than English. And those are great signs of a discipline going forward into new pastures. It's one of the best things we do, isn't it, in a way, I'm doing is the Rope-Lude series, where we can encourage those who've just completed PhDs into the first book.
It gives us a role
then in encouraging new research and new insights. And we see the kind of work that's being produced really as as proposals come across our desks and things. So it's really exciting element.
I think of what we do in a way that we can kind of take the display forward really as well. So very last question. You just have 30 seconds.
You're writing in an elevator and someone lo and
beholds takes out this book and says, did you edit this book? I've been reading it at the beach, making evangelical history. Are you a scholar of evangelicalism? I mean, I'm sure we get this all the time. But you have just 20 seconds in the elevator and the person says, so what is an evangelical? Maybe that's where we should have started, but that's where we'll end.
Each give
me your 30 seconds to someone who just meets, they have maybe some basic Christian background. David, what is an evangelical? Good question. It's hard to reduce it down, isn't it? I think I'd always go back to the badminton formula and I'm tired into the early 18th century and talk about a Christian renewal movement that comes into existence in the 1730s.
In the tradition of
Protestant, in the tradition of the Protestant faith and that seeks a renewal of that in the 1730s. So Protestant faith, seeking renewal, origins, movement of revitalization. Yeah, those are all good bullet points.
What else would you say with your short elevator writing? If I was in an
elevator, I think I would go back to the New Testament language of the good news, the Evangel, and say that any evangelical is trying to live out New Testament faith in a contemporary context in the culture and generation that God's placed them in. Very good. We can't go that to say evangelical means good news.
Gospel Christians is certainly part of the answer we
want to give. Well, thank you both for coming on. I hope it will have occasion to have you on again.
My historians in the bullpen, that's a baseball reference, but you used a cricket
reference, which I didn't quite understand. So it's all fair. You have 11 people.
Is that right? 11
people come? Okay. So it's just like football of both kinds. Good.
11. All right. Andrew and
David, thank you all the Lord's best and blessings on your work and look forward to these different works.
So you got J.C. Ryle, is that the next thing coming out? And what did you say you're
working on? You're editing Whitfield course, but you letters, and then a book on even J.I.V. is mid-wheels in the 20th century. Very good. In anything else, Andrew, with the J.C. Ryle, what's next? And after that, it is evangelicalism in the Church of England since the 1960s.
That would be very interesting. Very interesting. Yeah, in both of those.
Very good. Well, thank you
all for joining us on Life in Books and Everything, a ministry of clearly reformed. You can go to clearlyreform.org for episodes like this and lots of other resources.
So thanks for joining us. Until
next time, glorify God, enjoy him forever, and read a good book.

More From Life and Books and Everything

Everyday Gospel with Paul Tripp
Everyday Gospel with Paul Tripp
Life and Books and Everything
November 6, 2024
Most Christians in conservative churches are familiar with Paul Tripp’s books. He’s one of the most popular authors in the church today, with a knack
The Life and Ministry of R.C. Sproul with Stephen Nichols
The Life and Ministry of R.C. Sproul with Stephen Nichols
Life and Books and Everything
November 21, 2024
Recently, Steve Nichols spoke at the Faithful Conference, an annual conference for Christ Covenant Church. After giving a lecture on R.C. Sproul, Stev
Evaluating the Thought of Cornelius Van Til with Keith Mathison and James Anderson
Evaluating the Thought of Cornelius Van Til with Keith Mathison and James Anderson
Life and Books and Everything
November 27, 2024
It is hard to exaggerate the influence of Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987) in conservative Reformed circles over the past hundred years. And yet, there c
A Critical Look at Critical Theory with Carl Trueman
A Critical Look at Critical Theory with Carl Trueman
Life and Books and Everything
October 16, 2024
In his new book To Change All Worlds: Critical Theory from Marx to Marcuse, Carl Trueman argues that “Critical theory [sees] any notion of human natur
Westminster Divines, Spiritual Warfare, and the Neglected Practice of Hospitality with Chad Van Dixhoorn
Westminster Divines, Spiritual Warfare, and the Neglected Practice of Hospitality with Chad Van Dixhoorn
Life and Books and Everything
September 25, 2024
It’s not everyday you get to hear from the world’s expert on the Westminster Assembly (and who among us does not wish to know more about the Westminst
Life, and Ministry, and Laughter with Jason Helopoulos
Life, and Ministry, and Laughter with Jason Helopoulos
Life and Books and Everything
August 28, 2024
Listen as the two friends talk about the Land of Lincoln, about influential books and authors in their lives, and how the importance of friendship. Yo
More From "Life and Books and Everything"

More on OpenTheo

God Didn’t Do Anything to Earn Being God, So How Did He Become So Judgmental?
God Didn’t Do Anything to Earn Being God, So How Did He Become So Judgmental?
#STRask
May 15, 2025
Questions about how God became so judgmental if he didn’t do anything to become God, and how we can think the flood really happened if no definition o
More on the Midwest and Midlife with Kevin, Collin, and Justin
More on the Midwest and Midlife with Kevin, Collin, and Justin
Life and Books and Everything
May 19, 2025
The triumvirate comes back together to wrap up another season of LBE. Along with the obligatory sports chatter, the three guys talk at length about th
Why Do You Say Human Beings Are the Most Valuable Things in the Universe?
Why Do You Say Human Beings Are the Most Valuable Things in the Universe?
#STRask
May 29, 2025
Questions about reasons to think human beings are the most valuable things in the universe, how terms like “identity in Christ” and “child of God” can
What Questions Should I Ask Someone Who Believes in a Higher Power?
What Questions Should I Ask Someone Who Believes in a Higher Power?
#STRask
May 26, 2025
Questions about what to ask someone who believes merely in a “higher power,” how to make a case for the existence of the afterlife, and whether or not
Jay Richards: Economics, Gender Ideology and MAHA
Jay Richards: Economics, Gender Ideology and MAHA
Knight & Rose Show
April 19, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose welcome Heritage Foundation policy expert Dr. Jay Richards to discuss policy and culture. Jay explains how economic fre
Why Do Some Churches Say You Need to Keep the Mosaic Law?
Why Do Some Churches Say You Need to Keep the Mosaic Law?
#STRask
May 5, 2025
Questions about why some churches say you need to keep the Mosaic Law and the gospel of Christ to be saved, and whether or not it’s inappropriate for
What Should I Say to Someone Who Believes Zodiac Signs Determine Personality?
What Should I Say to Someone Who Believes Zodiac Signs Determine Personality?
#STRask
June 5, 2025
Questions about how to respond to a family member who believes Zodiac signs determine personality and what to say to a co-worker who believes aliens c
If Sin Is a Disease We’re Born with, How Can We Be Guilty When We Sin?
If Sin Is a Disease We’re Born with, How Can We Be Guilty When We Sin?
#STRask
June 19, 2025
Questions about how we can be guilty when we sin if sin is a disease we’re born with, how it can be that we’ll have free will in Heaven but not have t
Can You Really Say Evil Is Just a Privation of Good?
Can You Really Say Evil Is Just a Privation of Good?
#STRask
April 21, 2025
Questions about whether one can legitimately say evil is a privation of good, how the Bible can say sin and death entered the world at the fall if ang
Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead? Licona vs. Ehrman
Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead? Licona vs. Ehrman
Risen Jesus
May 7, 2025
In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman face off for the second time on whether historians can prove the resurrection. Dr. Ehrman says no
Sean McDowell: The Fate of the Apostles
Sean McDowell: The Fate of the Apostles
Knight & Rose Show
May 10, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose welcome Dr. Sean McDowell to discuss the fate of the twelve Apostles, as well as Paul and James the brother of Jesus. M
Licona and Martin: A Dialogue on Jesus' Claim of Divinity
Licona and Martin: A Dialogue on Jesus' Claim of Divinity
Risen Jesus
May 14, 2025
In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Dale Martin discuss their differing views of Jesus’ claim of divinity. Licona proposes that “it is more proba
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 1
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 1
Risen Jesus
July 9, 2025
In this episode, we have Dr. Mike Licona's first-ever debate. In 2003, Licona sparred with Dan Barker at the University of Wisonsin-Madison. Once a Ch
Could Inherently Sinful Humans Have Accurately Recorded the Word of God?
Could Inherently Sinful Humans Have Accurately Recorded the Word of God?
#STRask
July 7, 2025
Questions about whether or not inherently sinful humans could have accurately recorded the Word of God, whether the words about Moses in Acts 7:22 and
Is It Okay to Ask God for the Repentance of Someone Who Has Passed Away?
Is It Okay to Ask God for the Repentance of Someone Who Has Passed Away?
#STRask
April 24, 2025
Questions about asking God for the repentance of someone who has passed away, how to respond to a request to pray for a deceased person, reconciling H