One More Time: Evangelicals and Presbyterians
In Ordained Servant, Darryl Hart has a review up of Reformed & Evangelical Across Four Centuries: The Presbyterian Story in America. I wrote about this book back in July, and both used and anticipated Hart’s assessments brought to bear in his review.
One of Hart’s criticisms is that the authors neglect the non-liberal, non-evangelical Presbyterian tradition, with the specific example of ignoring J. Gresham Machen but focusing on Harold Ockenga. I’m sympathetic to this criticism, and count myself as descending from the legacy of Machen. But I suspect that the confessionalist, non-evangelical wing of American Presbyterianism overestimates its importance. The OPC split from the PCUSA in 1936, but by the time the PCUSA merged with the UPCNA in 1958, the mainline denomination had 2.7 million members with the UPCNA having about 257,000. The OPC had about 10,000 in 1958; it’s 32,000 today. Hart cites two other denominations, the ARP and RPCNA, as lacking consideration. The RPCNA had a membership of 6,000 in 1958 and about 7,000 today. I can’t find the 20th century numbers for the ARP, but its current membership is about 22,000.
In other words, the non-liberal, non-evangelical denominations whose story that Hart wished was being acknowledged appear insignificant to the overall history of American Presbyterianism unless you happen to already belong to them, as Hart does. And it makes sense that Reformed & Evangelical would approach things this way: the four co-authors hail from the PCUSA (current membership: 1.2 million), the PCA (378,000), the EPC (125,000), and ECO (129,000). The PCA and the EPC to varying degrees appreciate the legacy of Machen, Westminster, and the OPC, but neither have any formal connection to it. From historical, sociological, and statistical perspectives, the angle that Hart wishes was addressed in the book is on the fringe of American Presbyterianism.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that the book has no other flaws, or that the authors could have done a better job (or were doing more hagiography than history) or included more outside the Neo-evangelical perspective, or that the confessionalist approach is wrong. The reality is that confessionalist, non-evangelical Presbyterianism is far from the center of the American Presbyterian story, at least its 20th-21st century chapters.
I hope that this comment provides some appropriateness even though it isn’t about the review of the book.
Why must us religiously conservative Christians insist on being the mathematical inverse of rabbits? As we all know, rabbits multiply. What in the 4 beliefs of Evangelicalism do many of us Reformed people reject so much that we call ourselves non-evangelicals?
I call myself a Christian Fundamentalist because of my holding to the 5 fundamentals of the faith. I also politically lean toward Marx and so my claim to be a Christian Fundamentalist deeply disturbs others who currently call themselves Christian Fundamentalists. It so bothers them that they often challenge my claims about myself. However, despite the differences, and there are some theological differences as well, I believe that we are in the same group. When liberals ask about my claim to be a Christian Fundamentalist, I simply say that we are not all the same.
So why can’t we also call ourselves Evangelical as well? The above article is explicit about calling us Reformed people non-evangelical.
Hey Curt,
I think it’s a matter of emphasis. I’m in the EPC, which has “evangelical” in its name. Embracing the label is both a matter of definition, but also emphasis. For instance, Bebbington and Larsen include some version of “activism” in their definition of evangelical. That fits well with something like David Platt’s “Radical.” But historical, confessional Protestantism has emphasized a contentedness with our life and place in the world, which fits better with something like Michael Horton’s “Ordinary.” In my life and ministry, I place greater emphasis on the values and practices of confessionalism (see here) than evangelicalism. That doesn’t mean I necessarily disagree with the label, but it’s probably not the best descriptor. On the other hand, if the commonalities (“evangelicalism”) are emphasized, that runs the risk of overpowering and overshadowing a tradition’s more historic values, which I think is Hart’s ongoing concern.
Cameron,
Thank you for your response.
If you’re saying that word ‘evangelical’ is not the adequate by itself because evangelicals are a diverse group and thus one needs to add additional labels to identify the kind of evangelical one is, then I have no problem. After all, like the term ‘Christian Fundamentalist,’ the term ‘Evangelical’ originally stood for a core set of beliefs about God and the Christian life. And adding labels could solve both what you said Hart’s concern was as well as my concerns.
However, if the label ‘evangelical’ is not just the best term but the wrong term, then what is one saying about that core set of beliefs and the unity of the Church?
Again, thank you, Curt