I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Lately I've been wondering: what does “evangelical” mean?

In reading up on the subject, people have been called evangelical in 3 different historical time periods with 3 different meanings:

1. 1500s - “Evangelical” was almost universally synonymous with Lutherans. As the split appeared between the followers of Calvin and the followers of Luther, most of the former took the label of “Reformed” and most of the latter took the appellation of “Evangelical.” Yet, some Reformed would also refer to themselves as evangelical, as this merely identified themselves with Luther’s recovery of the gospel. [Hence, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America claim the label of evangelical, meaning little of what is meant today]

2. 1700s - “Evangelical” refered to the new religious furvor associated with the Wesleys and Whitefield in the Methodist revival movement in England. The emphasis of the “evangelicals” was on personal conversion and an experiential response to the gospel (John Wesley described it as a “strange warming”). Evangelicals often insulted the Anglican establishment by preaching the need of conversion (the gospel) to baptized church members.

3. 1900s - After the 20s and 30s revealed the inadequacies of mere “Fundamentalism” in its blunt, militant, separatist reaction to theological liberalism, the neo-evangelicals adapted some of the revival techniques of the Second Great Awakening attempting to be “nice fundamentalists.” In America, this movement was most commonly associated with Billy Graham and Harold Ockenga, a Baptist and Presbyterian respectively and in England with Martin-Lloyd Jones and John Stott, a separatist Methodist Calvinist and an Anglican minister respectively. Yet after these leaders, evangelicalism began to focus on the same fundamentals that all Christians share, and ignore distinctives.

D.G. Hart recently wrote an entertainingly controversial book where he contends that “evangelical” means little more than “someone who likes Billy Graham.” Some may have an affinity for J.I. Packer, but his Reformed Anglican views offend many separatists, and some like Christianity Today, though it is derided by many a purist. Even the doctrine of "faith alone" is questioned as a necessity by the keepers of the gate. In an increasingly post-Graham world, the loose alliance of people may shatter between those who often like to "take their ball and go home" in regards to denominations. Hart voices the opinion of some Reformed and most Lutheran theologians who like their distinctives and rather not abandon them. Hart claims the term is no longer meaningful or useful in historiography as those called evangelicals will have no common identity after Graham and now that evangelistic revivals have fallen out of favor.

While I agree with much of Hart‘s criticisms of “generic evangelicalism,” and bad theology coming from revival evangelism, I think he might be a little too harsh on “the e-word.” I am not quite ready to abandon the term “evangelical” as long as it can be an adjective describing a general alliance, rather than noun conveying a lowest common denominator. In other words, the depths of Christian spirituality are found in its traditions, be they Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican or pietist/puritan. These traditions can come together in common cause, for the gospel. But in doing so, they should not lose the depths of the spiritual insights gained by the Reformed focus on the doctrines of grace, or the Lutheran/Anglican sacramental spirituality, or the puritan communion with God through the word. If they lose these distinctions, they run the risk of becoming irrelevant while chasing relevancy and dull while “sharpening” our gospel message.

So check out Hart's book if you want your assumptions challenged, though most will not agree with his solutions, his diagnosis is important to contend with...