Perhaps you’ve heard the discussion surrounding a recent opinion article in the New York Times, written by David Brooks, titled “The Dissenters Trying to Save Evangelicalism From Itself”. Even if you haven’t seen the article or listened in on the debate surrounding it, it’s been hard to miss the growing division in the American church since 2016.
In his article, Brooks introduces his readers to a handful of American Evangelicals who are looking on with concern as the American church fractures over cultural issues. Brooks writes, “There have been three big issues that have profoundly divided them [evangelicals]: the white evangelical embrace of Donald Trump, sex abuse scandals in evangelical churches and parachurch organizations, and attitudes about race relations, especially after the killing of George Floyd.”
He goes on to quote people like Thabiti Anyabwile, Russell Moore, Tim Keller, Kristin Kobes Du Mez, and Karen Swallow Prior. Each of these, and the others that Brooks quotes, have concerns about the trajectory of American evangelicalism. These are the “dissenters” to whom the title of the article refers.
There has been much controversy surrounding the article and the reaction of the American evangelical world to it. This controversy has served to highlight the division that Brooks notes. There is a division in the American evangelical church over the proper practice of the church in culture. Race, sexual abuse, politics, and power are all sub-issues within that greater issue. And COVID-19 issues like masks have been added to the mix.
WORLD magazine has also highlighted this division in the American evangelical church in a three-part series of articles written by Sophia Lee. The chasm in American evangelicalism is growing. And it’s not necessarily over any particular doctrine but rather a fundamental disagreement about priorities, or perhaps, methods.
What is Evangelicalism?
It’s always good to define our terms and with a term like “evangelical(ism)” fraught with so much baggage, it seems particularly important to define what we’re talking about here.
The definition offered by the National Association of Evangelicals is as follows:
“Evangelicals take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning “the good news” or the “gospel.” Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the “good news” of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.”
Now this is an important definition and one which we will come back to.
Essentially, evangelicals believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and follow Him. They believe the Word of God is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. They believe in the authority of Scripture, the salvation of sinners through Jesus Christ, and the mandate to spread that Gospel with the world.
We will return to this definition later on and discuss its implications. But for now, we turn to the division within evangelicalism and how this definition helps us to think about and understand these divisions.
Guarding the Deposit
O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you.
1 Timothy 6:20a
The letters of Paul to Timothy, in addition to other writings throughout the New Testament, warn against false teaching and unsound doctrine. These writings urge Christians to remain faithful to sound doctrine and to protect the integrity of the Gospel against perversion. The consequences of false doctrine are severe so Christians are commanded to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3).
I believe this perhaps lies at the heart of the division in American evangelicalism: a fear of perverting the Gospel and a strong intent to “guard the deposit”.
On one hand, some American evangelicals are very concerned about the Gospel being perverted by doctrines in the wider culture: Critical Race Theory, liberal feminism, progressivism, etc. They label these ideologies and doctrines as “woke” and seek to protect the Gospel of Jesus Christ from these outside doctrines that will lead others astray.
On the other hand, other evangelicals are concerned about the Gospel being perverted by such things like blind political partisanship, an unfaltering support of men like Donald Trump, and a militaristic culture-war mindset that defines Christianity by what’s it’s against, not what it’s for.
The division in American evangelicalism is in large part due to these two competing “fears” or concerns. I believe that sincere believers on both sides are concerned about the Gospel being perverted. But they differ in what they fear will pervert it most destructively.
The definition of evangelicalism stated above clearly communicates the high priority and value that evangelicals place on the Gospel. And many evangelicals, in a shifting culture like our own, fear that this thing of high value, the Gospel, will be perverted and muddied by other outside influences, whether the politics of Trump or “woke” ideology.
Perhaps that is the first step in restoring unity: acknowledging that (most of) our brothers and sisters on the other side of the political aisle have a sincere desire to see the Gospel protected and proclaimed.
Choosing Sides
So which “side” is more founded in their concern?
This article will not seek to answer that question. I believe for a number of reasons that I can’t get into here, that our faithfulness to the Gospel and to following Christ is undermined by both an over-glorification of the Republican party and the unsound teachings of Critical Theory. I believe that casting our hope on Trump is idolatrous and in the same breath I can say that I believe that letting secular doctrines drip into our churches will have a profoundly damaging impact on our culture, both inside and outside of Christianity.
I refuse to take a side in the struggle between “Trumpers” and “woke” Christians. I think there is cause for concern and discernment in both cases. I think the entire schism shows us clearly and tragically to what degree politics and culture have infiltrated the priorities and methods of the church to the detriment of the Word of God and biblical discipleship. That is not to say that our faith doesn’t have any role to play in public society. Instead, it is to say that the Gospel is something that changes us from the inside-out before leading us to public implications.
There’s a lot to balance in Christianity: truth with love, grace with conviction, personal holiness with public, cultural impact. There’s an extreme of Christians who couldn’t care less that the world was burning as long as they enjoy fellowship with Jesus. And of course, there’s another extreme of Christians who view their ministry in the world as a success as long as the poor are fed, the abortion clinics are closed, the races get along, and the laws of the nation resemble the laws of God, with no concern for the souls of people or the personal walk of faith and fellowship with God.
Christian faith is something both private and public, personal and corporate. If we neglect one or the other, we are missing a great part of our life in Christ.
Back to Brooks
Let’s return now to Brooks’ main thesis and focus in his article: evangelicalism is imploding due to political partisanship, alt-right influences, sexual abuse scandals, and apathy about racial reconciliation. He submits that some evangelicals are fighting back against this implosion and are trying to “save evangelicalism from itself”.
One can go back and forth, debating the seriousness of the peril. We can defend conservative evangelicalism. We can press on in our dire forecast of the sky falling. But this debate has more to do with what we fear and what we hope in.
What if CRT or Trump wasn’t the biggest threat to the Gospel? What if it was just unsound doctrine in general, disunity, division, hypocrisy, and a dependence on man’s authority rather than God’s? What do we fear more: the Gospel being perverted by left-wing or right-wing ideas? Or the Gospel being perverted, period?
And in what do we hope? Do we seek to counterbalance the rise of secular creeds like CT with a more aggressive culture war? Do we seek to counterbalance an aggressively-political partisanship with a softer concern with the hot-button issues of our cultural moment?
In Acts 20:27, Paul tells the Ephesian elders, “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” We must return to the authority of Scripture for proper doctrine and proper practice. The whole counsel of God includes instructions for race relations and socioeconomic renewal (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; Lev. 19:34; Prov. 14:31; 1 John 3:17;). It also includes insistence on sound doctrine, sexual holiness, and prioritizing the Truth (Titus 2:1; 2 Tim. 4:2-2; Eph. 5:3; 1 Cor. 6:9; Jude 3; 2 Peter 2:1;). When the Bible instructs us to show mercy to the poor we should not shrink from declaring it for fear of being (or appearing) “woke”. Likewise, when the Scripture instructs us to keep our way pure we must not shrink from it for fear of being (or appearing) “fundamentalist”.
We should be concerned about the Gospel being perverted by unsound teaching. But we must recognize that the antidote to such teaching is the true doctrine found in God’s Word.
Saving Evangelicalism
This article has covered (or made an attempt to cover, at least) a lot of ground. And there’s so much more we could explore. Time doesn’t allow for us to examine the example of public faith (without the cultural influence) expressed by the persecuted church throughout the world, the deeper concerns of right-wing politics in the church or Critical Theory, or the overarching issue of power that drives many of these divisions and debates within the Body of Christ.
(I have written about some of these topics in the past. For example, see my articles “Two Roads Diverged” and “Blessed are the Meek, Part 4: Meekness and Modern Culture”.)
I’d like to conclude this article by returning one final time to Brooks’ op-ed and examine some of his language surrounding the salvation of evangelicalism.
Brooks’ title itself declares that these dissenters are trying to save evangelicalism “from itself”. I find that an interesting choice of words. If we go back to the National Association of Evangelical’s definition of evangelicalism we see that it is, essentially, a long fancy word for biblical Christianity. Evangelicals are defined as those who believe and spread the Gospel. We are saved by the Gospel (Romans 1:16) and called to spread it (Matthew 28:18-20). The Word of God is the authority in our lives (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Brooks wraps up his article with a list of bullet points that he says express the agenda of Tim Keller to “renew this [evangelical] community”. Those items include a better approach to Christian education, more intellectual rigor, a reformation and renewal of campus ministries, racial justice, a renewal of church planting, and more.
What strikes me about this list is that it doesn’t make mention of the Word of God.
Now, I have listened to hours of Keller’s teaching and read a few of his books. I believe Keller holds a high view of Scripture. But I find it striking that he offers a list of programs, methods, and priorities to rebuild and renew (i.e. in the words of Brooks, to “save”) evangelicalism.
I am not convinced that evangelicalism needs saving. If the reality behind the label has abandoned the sound doctrine of God’s Word, then let it die. And if by evangelicalism we strictly mean the belief in the Gospel, then nothing can truly thwart it. Jesus says the following in Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
We must be sensitive to the Spirit’s conviction in our churches. We must be bold to preach the truth to those among our family who err. But we can also breathe. No one needs to “save” evangelicalism. Either it will be carried on by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, or it will continue drifting away from the true Gospel and will be lost to the dustbin of history, like many other perverted movements before it.
We should seek to reform in love. We should reform in the authority of God’s Word. And let that be our hope and guide in the confusing days in which we live.
“I think the entire schism shows us clearly and tragically to what degree politics and culture have infiltrated the priorities and methods of the church to the detriment of the Word of God and biblical discipleship.”. Well said!