#bebbington

In this episode of Signposts, I am joined by Dr. Mark Noll, research professor at Regent College, and the former Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. He is also the author of Evangelicals: Who they Have Been, Are Now, and Could Be (with George Marsden and David Bebbington, Eerdmans, 2019), In the Beginning Was the Word: The Bible in American Public Life (OUP, 2015), The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1995). In our conversation we talk the how t

What are the weaknesses of conservative evangelicalism?

It’s anti-intellectual.

It’s riddled with hero-worship.

Its private efforts are anti-charitable.

It defaults to culture wars.

it presumes a spiritual elitism. 

We recently supplied a Veranda system in Bebbington, Cheshire.

http://www.canoports.co.uk/i/veranda-bebbington-cheshire-ch63/

#Veranda #Bebbington #Cheshire

Self-portrait, Bebbington, England  2012

    Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s by D. W. Bebbington is – as the title suggests -- a text about a historical exploration of Evangelicalism in modern Britain.  However, it is also about much more than this.  While Bebbington specifically reviews the socio-cultural aspects of Evangelicalism in Britain, there are themes that he discusses that have influenced Evangelical movements world-wide. 

     For instance, in beginning the text, Bebbington notes that among other varying attributes of Evangelicalism that he understands to have been emphasized, four characteristics remain consistently core: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism.  “Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism.” While his discussion of these aspects related to the specific topic of the text is eminently helpful in its own right, these are also qualities with which most Evangelicals world-wide find affinity.  For instance, in the mid-twentieth century Albert Outler coined his own quadrilateral -- what he called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.  Outler’s version consists of Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience.  Later Howard Snyder of Asbury Theological Seminary added a fifth component – making a pentalateral -- that he suggested was implicit within those already stated – Service.  While it can be noted that of all the characteristics, Outler’s version – who did his Ph.D. work at Yale, taught at both Yale and Duke and was an officially invited observer at the Second Vatican Council – seems to contain the least implicit and/or explicit specific reference to crucicentrism the realities of the day showcased otherwise.  As Bebbington notes in his text, the idea of Biblicism/scripture was often left out various permutations of core doctrinaire assumptions produced by British Evangelicals. This was not due to their lack of commitment.  Rather, it was often due to their being so immersed in the text that they felt no need to reference it.  This same orientation could be similarly suggested of Outler’s rendition related to crucicentrism.

     However, overall, despite the relevance of discussing the rationale for an even greater understanding of similarity in the midst of a common core of overlapping emphases, what I find particularly important about Bebbington’s historical review, actually, is its notation of particular personalities, consistent shiftings of emphases within similarity and even some larger shifts of focus beyond the boundaries of easily understood similarity.  My reason for suggesting my own emphasis on noting consistent historical shift over stability within Evangelicalism is due to what has been in the last thirty plus years a rigidification of understanding of doctrine and its adherence in some Evangelical camps and a reciprocal rigidification (ironically) of what amounts to a laissez-faire approach to spirituality in other Evangelical camps.  The tensions of the “middle ground” in Evangelicalism of both “Love of God” (biblicism/crucicentrism) and “Love of Neighbor” (conversionism/activism) has not been an easy road to navigate.  This is a rough sketch of this idea and more specificity would be needed to adequately convey a full connectivity of the above concepts, but I hope a semblance of the issue is communicated.  It is important to note socio-cultural change because I find that this offers room for personal and corporate grace while also still humbly reminding of commonalities from which change occurs. 

“We are New Testament Christians.  We have no creed but Christ.  Where the Bible speaks, we speak.  Where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”  And so went the basic beliefs of the church I attended during my college years and for many years after.  Each foundational statement sounded really good. But, something was amiss. I couldn’t figure out why this supposed  “New Testament Church” looked liked and felt more like1900 AD than 100 AD?  This included their music and their practices as well as the list prohibitions (no smoking, drinking or dancing).  Further, my church was absolutely confident that they had it right while most other churches were wrong. After much confusion and diligent research, I discovered that my church held a view of the Bible that more reflected the Enlightenment than the first century.  The church had started with the honorable intention of unify all Christianity by finding the essential elements of the faith that all denominations could agree on.  This very search for basic elements came from the rationalist, scientific thinking of the Enlightenment, and, ironically, resulted in creating greater divisions due to disagreements over what exactly were the essentials.  Since their approach to the Bible was clearly influenced by the thinking at the time of its origins, the church has continued in that mindset and the accompanying practices reminiscent of the early 1900s, believing them to be thoroughly biblical. In other words, my church was stuck in a time warp.

My church was also thoroughly Evangelical and fits perfectly into the story that D. W. Bebbington writes in Evangelicalism in Modern Britain.  Bebbington’s central idea is: “The Evangelical version of Protestantism was created by the Enlightenment”[i] and it continued to evolve over the next two hundred years with each new development in philosophy.  Bebbington does a brilliant job of meticulously tracing the history of Evangelicalism, showing how the thinking of the day not only brought Evangelicalism into being, but contributed to the direction of Evangelicalism throughout its existence. 

What stands out so starkly in this study is high regard of Evangelicals for the authority of the Bible (like my church).  “They have claimed that their brand of Christianity, the form once delivered to the saints, has possessed an essentially changeless content so long as it has remained loyal to its source.”[ii]  This source, of course, is the Bible.  John Stott put it simply:  “‘We evangelicals are Bible people.’”[iii]   The authority of the Bible has been the central foundation of Evangelicalism.  And yet, with this firm foundation, Evangelicalism has progressed through a number of modifications and divisions and manifestations.  Each modification, Bebbington suggests, was the result of the changing thinking of the times (from Enlightenment to Romanticism, up through Modernism).   

This study provided two important insights for me. The first concerns the nature of the Bible.  What this history demonstrates is that the Bible is amazingly adaptable to cultural and philosophical trends.  That instead of new thinking causing Christianity to lose its creditability, it weathers the challenges of each new age, bringing about new inspiration and forward movement for the church.  But, we must ask if these new adaptations lessen the message and authority of the Bible?  It is instructive to see from Bebbington’s study that the basic tenants of Evangelicalism (Bible authority, conversion, the cross and activism) never wavered with each new modification, however varied its manifestations in church, life and social practices were.  This illustrate the concept that the Bible is both “living and enduring” (1 Peter 1:23) rather than static and set for all time (as my church believed).  The second insight is to question how much of my own thinking and faith is really my culture speaking?  How embedded am I in my time and place?  (Or is this question itself a question that only my post-modern cultural situation would ask?)  Is it ever really possible to stand outside the mentality of one’s time and view the Bible with eyes of innocence? Most Christians I know believe strongly that they are being faithful only to the Bible. They have no awareness that their culture has any influence on their interpretation of Scripture or how they practice their faith.  Yet these same cultural influences are often the cause of divisions among churches.  So, how might we do Christianity better if we are aware that our faith will in some way reflect our culture?  Might it start by simply accepting the idea that God intended His Word to speak to each culture in a way that would resonate with people at that given time or place without losing any of its power or detracting from its central message?  Might this at least make us more empathetic of our brethren in other denominations?  This study has given me a greater appreciation for the unique and multifaceted nature of God’s Word.  

Bebbington concludes that Evangelism had “exerted an immense influence both on individuals and on the course of social and political development…”[iv] It was the movement’s ability to stay true to the Bible while adapting to the times that allowed it have a voice in each new era, while my church, having settled for the ultimate truths and the right Biblical practices solidified two hundred years ago has had little influence or social involvement over the years.  This study of the history of Evangelicalism in Britain would greatly help my church to see how easily we forget that we (the Church) are a product of the times we live in as well as the Bible, and that often times the Church is left behind because she have failed to let God speak anew to the present generation!

John F. Woodward

[i] D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (New York: Rutledge, 1989), 74.

[ii] Ibid., 270.

[iii] Ibid., 4.

           As I reached the later stages of D.W. Bebbington’s insightful look into Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s I felt as if I was glimpsing into the past to see and understand the present.  I related to the history and development of Evangelicalism through my experience growing up in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s here in the northwest corner of the United States. I read Bebbington with the eyes of my evangelical faith experience, noticing patterns and correlations, as well as questions.

            Bebbington begins by identifying four qualities one might easily refer to them as the hallmarks of an evangelical faith.  They form the cornerstones rather than a sequential or even hierarchal structure, although some might disagree with me on that last point.  Conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism comprise “the quadrilateral of priorites that is the basis of Evangelicalism.”[1]  For someone stumbling upon this blog post unfamiliar or even jaded by Evangelicalism a moments review is valuable.  Evangelicalism is connected, deeply so to the “belief that lives need to be changed.”[2]  The gospel message is to be demonstrated.  It may be that this element of Evangelicalism is a bit more difficult to figure out.  Activism is “the expression of the gospel in effort.”[3]  Each word has been reflected upon and demonstrated with different emphasis throughout the years. 

            The third cornerstone is “biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible.”[4]  My own understanding and adherence to this cornerstone has changed over the past ten years.  In some denominational circles it is a matter of debate or contention, closely aligned with the authority of the Bible in the life and practice of a Christian, and a denomination.  It is one I am now experiencing as I am in the ordination process with the Presbyterian Church – USA (PC-USA).  John Stott[5] and J.I. Packer, both long respected evangelical leaders place the Bible front and center.  Packer placing the supremacy of scripture ahead of the others while Stott affirmed that to be an evangelical affirms that we are “Bible people.”[6]  The fourth identifying characteristic is “crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.”[7]

            Each of these qualities is specific, but they are also broad.  They are open to definition and clarity depending upon ones relationship with each specific quality as well has the context in which Evangelicalism exists.  From childhood through grade 12 I attended Baptist Churches.  Bebbington helped me recognize the influence of the holiness tradition in my own expectation of conversion.  True to a definitive conversion experience, I was at a rally for teenagers when I clearly felt I needed to respond, repent from my sins and ask Christ into my life.  I had heard and would hear in the coming years an emphasis on the need to accept Christ so that I would not go to hell.  But I had also experienced and begun to understand, ever so slightly, that God truly did love me.  What I yearned for and hoped for was that I would not sin anymore, now I would be acceptable and perfect. Yet I did, sin.  If I was justified by faith,[8] I doubted I had been genuinely saved. 

            I loved history, particularly the history of the 1700s and the 1800s.  John Wesley, Hannah Pearsall Smith, Hudson Taylor, Charles Finney and George Müller were people I read.  When I attended college at George Fox I heard about the baptism of the Spirit, a second blessing, there for the asking, if I asked in faith believing.  My understanding of how to live a Christian life was influenced by the holiness movement some one hundred years later. “The holiness movement offered what many late nineteenth-century Evangelicals wanted: a means of coping with the challenges of their era.”[9]  Bebbington provides the link between the influences of that particular time upon Evangelicalism.  In this particular era is was Romanticism, “the sensibility of the age lay behind the new spiritual language.”[10]  It also demonstrates how one era’s influence carries forward and provides the basis from which succeeding generations engage with their present day challenges. 

            I have heard, and perhaps you have as well that we just need to return to the Bible.  There is a sense of yearning for the impressions we have of a world in order.  What Bebbington points out is that Evangelicals have always been fashioning what it is to understand and practically express the tenets of conversionism, activism, biblicalism and crucicentricism.  It would seem that in each generation one or another is under stress.  New insights, new ways of thinking, responding and reacting to the prevailing cultural thought all impact the way we understand and practice our faith.  One of the most helpful take away from the reading was simply to acknowledge that culture does influence the Church.  I wonder if we have not learned how to discuss that without polarizing or denying. 

            The challenge I feel is that each of the qualities of Evangelicalism is under stress now in the post-modern, post-Christendom world.  Tides seem to be turning every so slowly.  My evangelicalism is more liturgical, less focused on a specific moment of conversion.  My activism is now oriented toward the kingdom of God and focused on being conformed to the image of Christ for the sake of others, rather than getting people into Church, my understanding of why Christ died on the cross is not so bound to a substitutionary death.  My conviction that scripture is the word of God has deepened, while no longer affirming it as the inerrant and infallible word of God.  I have been influenced by my culture, present and past.

                        [1] D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (New York, NY: Routledge, 2002), 3.

            [2] Ibid.

            [3] Ibid.

            [4] Ibid.

            [5] John Stott passed away July 27, 2011.  Accessed 2/3/2014. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/topics/s/john-stott/.  Stott’s Basic Christianity and J.I. Packer’s, Knowing God have long been on my bookshelf (and yes, they were read!).

            [6] Ibid., 4. 

            [7] Ibid., 3.  

            [8] Ibid., 6.  

            [9] Ibid., 152.

Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s

By: D. W. Bebbington

“We’ve always done it this way… why do you have to challenge it?” This has been the most popular question in my life. For the longest time I didn’t know how to answer, so I would smile and walk away. Reading though Evangelicalism in Modern Britain by D. W. Bebbington was refreshing. Seeing how the evangelical church has changed and transformed over the years is incredibly encouraging and gives me courage to answer the “We’ve always done it this way… why do you have to challenge it?” question with a bold “No! We haven’t always done it this way.”

I am someone who doesn’t really like change… I drink the same white chocolate mocha from Starbucks that I’ve drank for the past 15 years … I’m on my 10th pair of TOMS shoes… I replace my old clothes with the exact same new ones… I don’t like change! However, when it comes to the things of God, change has to happen, otherwise we die… the church dies. I don’t know where people have gotten the idea that the church needs to stay the same. Yes! There are some things, some core principles that need to stay the same, but everything ales needs to change. The only one that doesn’t change is Jesus. He promises to be the only constant… the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Humanity on the other hand is invited to not only change but be transformed by a relationship with Jesus.

Edward Gibbon is quoted saying, “Religion has never existed in the pure form in which it descended from heaven. It has always been affected by its surroundings at the same time as influencing those surroundings.” (ix) Isn’t that beautiful? I agree that there are extremes, and lately the church has been more influenced by its surroundings than it has influenced them, but the point is that both are changed. If our faith is living, it must be changing.

The church is afraid of acknowledging its ever changing past because we’re afraid of losing credibility and influence. But it’s not change and transformation that causes us to lose credibility; it’s silence and denial. We need to live in the tension that comes with a human/God relationship. In this relationship humanity doesn’t always get it right… but it always has the opportunity to do it over.  God is not “less God” if we acknowledge the fact that we, in our humanity, don’t know everything and sometime we need a do over.