Evangelical vs Christianity

General Faith
1

What comes to mind when you hear the term “Evangelical Christian”?

Evangelical Christianity is usually based on a strong belief in the authority of Scripture, salvation through Jesus Christ alone, and the call to share the gospel with others. The movement grew in response to cultural and theological shifts in the early 20th century and continues to shape churches, worship, and public life today.

Some Christians value evangelicalism for its focus on the Bible, salvation through Jesus, and sharing the gospel…while others feel it has become too tied to politics or modern church movements.

A few questions to consider:

  • Do you consider yourself an evangelical Christian? Why or why not?

  • What biblical doctrines do you believe are essential to evangelical Christianity?

  • Do you think the meaning of “evangelical” has changed over the years?

Would love to hear your perspectives.

2

Interesting. I guess to answer this, we must first answer the second.

Both the Old and New Testaments are the inspired, infallible Word of God. It is the ultimate authority for Christian faith, living, and truth.

“All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

The belief in one eternal God who exists as three distinct, coequal persons: the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Evangelicalism holds that Jesus is fully God and fully man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, living a completely sinless life on earth.

This is the heart of evangelical theology. It is the belief that humanity is separated from God by sin and that Jesus Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. By taking the punishment for human sin upon Himself, He reconciled believers to God.

" For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:" 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

I, as well as Evangelicals, affirm that Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after His crucifixion, conquering death. He ascended into heaven and will personally, physically return one day to judge the living and the dead and establish His kingdom. Salvation cannot be earned through good works, rituals, or church membership. It is a gift of God’s grace, received solely through personal faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross. This involves repentance of sin and a spiritual rebirth (being “born again”).

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

Because of the urgency of the message of salvation, I, as well as Evangelicals, place a massive emphasis on evangelism (sharing the gospel) and missionary work, both locally and globally, as commanded by Jesus.

" And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:18-20

After answering this, I would have to say the answer to the first is a resounding “Yes.”
Peter

1 Like
3

Without a doubt. Historically, the word was defined by its theological and spiritual pillars, like a high regard for the Bible, the centrality of the cross, and a personal conversion experience. Today, however, the word functions just as much as a cultural and political category as it does a religious one.

The evolution of the word can be broken down into three distinct shifts. First, from Gospel-focused to Politically Aligned. The root of the word comes from the Greek euangelion, meaning “good news” or “gospel.” For centuries, calling yourself an evangelical simply meant you were a Protestant who emphasized sharing that good news.

Starting in the late 1970s and accelerating dramatically into the 21st century, the term became heavily intertwined with American political conservatism. In public media, polling data, and everyday conversation, “evangelical” is often used as shorthand for a specific voting bloc rather than a specific set of theological beliefs.

Sociologists have noticed a fascinating trend recently of people who are increasingly identifying as “evangelical” even if they rarely or never attend church. Church attendance and theological agreement were prerequisites for the label. Today. For some, the label has become a badge of cultural identity. It signifies a stance on social issues, a distrust of mainstream secular culture, or patriotism, independent of actual religious practice.

Even within the theological definition, the emphasis of certain words has drifted. Take activism from the Bebbington Quadrilateral. In the 18th and 19th centuries, evangelical activism drove major social reform movements, like the abolition of the slave trade, which was led by evangelicals like William Wilberforce, and the creation of early public health and labor laws. By the late 20th century, “activism” in many minds shifted almost exclusively to mean “soul-winning” (proselytizing) or campaigning for specific partisan legislation.

I do not think that the actual definition has changed, but rather how we view it. Today, there is an ongoing tug-of-war among younger evangelicals trying to pull the word back toward broader communal and global justice issues. This shift has caused a lot of internal tension. Many deeply religious people who hold strictly to evangelical theology have actually stopped using the label because they feel its public meaning has changed too much, choosing instead to call themselves “orthodox Protestants,” “historic Christians,” or simply “followers of Jesus.” Or I guess, as I say, child of God. Because of this linguistic drift, when you hear the word “evangelical” today, you always have to ask: Are we talking about what someone believes on Sunday morning, or how they vote on Tuesday afternoon?
Peter

2 Likes
4

A born again again Christian by any other name is still a Christian. Whether that makes me evangelical or not, I don’t know.

1 Like
5

But isn’t this an accurate description of the early Church as revealed in the Book of Acts and in the collective witness of the letters?

2 Likes
6

Brother @PeterC makes some great points (as usual), including the etymology of the word in question, Gk: euaggélion, meaning “Good News”, and which NASB translates as “Gospel” almost 80 times. I won’t reiterate his work here.

I will remind us (as we probably already know) that the disciples of Jesus were first called “Christians” or “messiah adherents” in first-century Antioch (Acts 11:26). This originally pejorative moniker originated not from within the church, but from outside the Christian community as a way to attach a label to this unusual movement. Just as Jewish enemies called disciples of Jesus “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5), it was the heathen Romans of Antioch who first used the derogatory term “Christian”, literally “of Christ,” or "belonging to Messiah” to compartmentalize this emerging sect of Judaism.

I suspect this same story could be said of “Evangelicals”. “Gospel spreaders”, as a term, rose soon after the reformation, specifically labeling Lutheran theology adherents as “those who think they possess, and share good news”. This distinguished Lutherans from the Christian Catholic tradition as it relates to proselytizing. The term “reformed” was contemporaneously applied to followers of Calvin theology (as I understand the history). I am aware of little research done to determine who originated the term “evangelical” but just as the derogatory term “Christian” became acceptable in Antioch in the 1st century, I think the term “Evangelical” also became accepted among proselytizing Christians in the 16th. Today the term “evangelical” is applied to many streams of Christianity, but originally it meant “Lutheran, i.e. not Catholic.”

For-what-it’s-worth.
KP

2 Likes
7

One might see in the etymology an inclination towards evangelism. However, like some other words it has picked up meaning over time that makes it a little less clear. For example, the word is often used to differentiate from more mainline denomination with the implication of a higher level of activity and/or personal application of faith.

It is these implications that often make a word more difficult to nail down.

8

@timf I absolutely see your point; however, we must be careful never to change the meaning. Evangelism is the act of sharing the Christian gospel, communicating the good news of Jesus Christ to others, often to lead them to faith.

Evangelism involves preaching, announcing, or otherwise communicating the gospel, which is the message that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who gave His life as a sacrifice for humanity’s sins, offering eternal life to those who believe. The Great Commission is a key aspect, urging believers to share this message with the world. It’s about actively extending the invitation to faith, ensuring the good news reaches all.

If we allow "the word (to be) used to differentiate from more mainline denominations with the implication of a higher level of activity and/or personal application of faith." We then corrupt the word itself? Yes?

The difference between prescriptivism, how a word should be used based on its origin, and descriptivism, or how people actually use a word over time, may not be a deliberate act of corruption; often, it’s just the messy way history unfolds. Strictly speaking, anyone who believes in, lives by, or shares the “good news” of the gospel is doing the work of an evangelist. When a single faction or sub-group within the broader faith adopts that etymological title as a brand to distinguish itself from “mainline” peers, it alters the landscape.

If “evangelical” becomes a label for a specific socio-political or denominational group, it implies that those outside that specific group are not focused on the gospel or are less serious about their faith. This dilutes and obscures the true, universal meaning of the word, essentially turning a shared theological verb, aka, sharing the good news, into an exclusive cultural noun.
Peter

9

Fair enough. Good point.

10

I think the word “evangelical” is such a charged one in today’s culture. As you mentioned, in many circles it has become so intertwined with a certain conservative political view that it is hard to disassociate it from politics.

My family joined an Evangelical Free church when I was ten. It makes me laugh now, but at the time I thought the word “evangelical” was one of the weirdest words I’d ever heard and had no clue how to even pronounce it.

The root of the word evangelical simply means “good news” or “gospel,” so in that way, I think the answer is that of course all true Christ-followers are evangelical. Unfortunately, I think culture has shifted so much that I’m not sure it is very helpful for Christians to identify themselves with this word, at least to most nonbelievers. I think we need to be so careful not to conflate our faith with our politics. Our faith can and should influence our politics, but many prominent evangelical leaders, churches, and institutions have made it so that the world sees evangelicals and a certain political stance as almost synonymous.

This discussion also makes me curious about what you all think about the term
“ex-vangelical.” Many people who grew up in evangelical churches now describe themselves this way, and I’ve been curious for awhile whether what they mean by that is that they’ve rejected God and Christianity altogether or that they are deconstructing their faith and leaving evangelicalism and its negative associations. I’m sure it’s a mix of both. What do you think?

11

I have never heard this term before. :thinking::thinking: Time to Google…

12

This may be helpful:

1 Like
13

You’ve hit the nail on the head. It is absolutely a mix of both, but the spectrum of what “ex-vangelical” actually means is fascinatingly broad. The term itself, popularized as a hashtag (#Exvangelical) by writer Blake Chastain around 2016, was intentionally coined to describe the departure from a specific subculture, rather than a definitive arrival at a new theological destination.

To understand what people mean when they use this label, it helps to look at it not as a uniform group, but as a dynamic spectrum of deconstruction (the systematic dismantling of one’s inherited beliefs).

Here is how that spectrum generally breaks down:

For a large portion of ex-vangelicals, the rejection is entirely focused on the politicization, culture-war mentality, and perceived dogmatism of the modern evangelical church, rather than a rejection of Jesus or Christianity. They feel the institutional church has compromised its core spiritual values for political power, or that rigid doctrinal boundaries left no room for honest doubt, mental health struggles, or intellectual questions (like science and evolution).

They often migrate toward mainline Protestant denominations (like Episcopal, Presbyterian USA, or Lutheran churches), liturgical traditions, or progressive Christian spaces. They view themselves as rescuing their faith from evangelicalism.

Further along the spectrum are those who still identify as spiritual and find value in the teachings of Jesus, but have entirely abandoned traditional dogma. They reject exclusive truth claims, traditional views on hell and judgment, and strict hierarchical structures. They might embrace Christian mysticism, universalism, or a highly personalized, fluid spirituality. They might not attend a physical church at all, instead gathering in informal home groups or online communities to discuss faith without the pressure to conform. (Smile)

For another significant group, the process of deconstruction inevitably leads to disenchantment with the entire supernatural framework of Christianity. Often, as they unpack specific evangelical doctrines, such as biblical inerrancy or purity culture, they find that the foundation of their entire worldview crumbles. They may also look back on their upbringing and see it through the lens of religious trauma.

They identify as agnostic, atheist, secular humanist, or simply “nothing in particular.” For them, “ex-vangelical” is a cultural marker; it acknowledges the massive role that evangelicalism played in shaping their childhood, language, and trauma, even though they no longer believe in God. Whether someone lands back in a different kind of church or leaves faith entirely, almost all ex-vangelicals share a common experience: the painful social cost of leaving.

In evangelical subcultures, faith is often deeply intertwined with family, friendships, and community identity. Stepping outside of that circle frequently results in being ostracized, viewed as a “backslider,” or treated as a project to be saved. For many, adopting the label “ex-vangelical” isn’t a boast; it’s a way to find a new tribe of people who understand the unique grief of losing their original community.

Just my opinion.
Peter

14

Your whole response is so helpful—thank you! I have to admit, I resonate a lot with what you said above, although not so much the progressive aspect but the liturgical for sure. I always wonder if my shift is due more to my experience and involvement with a more traditional/liturgical church in my early years rather than to evangelicalism’s more current political ties.

I definitely think growing up in evangelicalism could make someone’s faith today more complicated. It’s interesting to consider how formative those early years of faith community/church experience are for someone’s faith as an adult. I’ve been thinking about that a lot now that I have my own little ones. How can Christians and the Church today steward the faith of the next generation in a way that they won’t need to deconstruct it as adults?

1 Like
15

I believe it is a good Idea to do this. Lay a foundation. Give them the Truth to take with them. Show them how to use the shield and the whole armor of God. Equip them with the difference between right and wrong, righteousness and sin. Teach them what genuine compassion really is. What true love really is. If you do not teach them what they need to know, the world will teach them what it wants them to be.

A Biblical framework for preventing a faith crash isn’t about constructing a tighter cage of rules to keep young people in; it is about building a foundation so deep and honest that the storms of adulthood won’t shake it. You want to plant the seeds and try to teach them resilient faith

The Old Testament gives us a stark warning about what happens when faith is merely handed down as a tradition rather than a living reality.

“After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel.” Judges 2:10

Many young adults deconstruct because they were handed a “secondhand faith.” They knew the rules of the church, but they didn’t know the Lord of the church. Deuteronomy 6:6-7 commands parents to weave faith into the fabric of everyday life. Talk about it when you sit at home, when you walk along the road, when you lie down, and when you get up.

“And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Deuteronomy 6:6-7

Faith shouldn’t feel like a Sunday outfit they outgrow; it must be an everyday reality they watch their elders live out in real-time. Welcome, tough questions. A primary driver of deconstruction is the feeling that the Church is afraid of hard questions. When a young person asks about suffering, science, or church history and is met with “Just have more faith,” they learn that doubt is a sin and the church is unsafe. This can be called “The Thomas Principle.” Jesus handled doubt with incredible tenderness. Consider His interaction with Thomas:

“Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” John 20:27

Jesus didn’t shame Thomas for wanting evidence. He offered His wounds. A church that stewards the next generation well must be a safe greenhouse for honest questions. If young people cannot voice their doubts inside the church, they will find an audience that welcomes them outside of it.

Jesus’ harshest criticisms were never directed at messy, struggling seekers; they were aimed at religious insiders who prioritized outward perfection over inward reality. He called them “whitewashed tombs,” beautiful on the outside, but lacking life within. Matthew 23:27.

Young generations have a highly fine-tuned radar for hypocrisy. If they see leaders and parents acting flawlessly on Sunday but living out bitterness, greed, or gossip during the week, they conclude the faith is a performance. The Biblical antidote is confession and humility. When adults are honest about their own struggles and quick to apologize when they mess up, they model a resilient faith, not a perfect one. They show that the Gospel is for broken people, not performative saints.

Often, what adults deconstruct isn’t actually Jesus; it is the cultural baggage, political alignment, or extra-biblical traditions that were packaged with Jesus. The Apostle Paul was ruthless about keeping the main thing the main thing. To the Galatians, who were trying to add extra cultural rules to the Gospel, he wrote:

" For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10

We must do the hard work of distinguishing the unchangeable truths of Scripture from our preferred cultural comforts. If we teach the next generation that cultural preferences, like music styles, political platforms, or specific dress codes, are equal to the Gospel, their faith will fracture when those cultural structures fail them.

As I learned in Ascent Church in Stuart, Florida, young people need more than just a great youth group; they need a place in the whole body of Christ.

"One generation shall commend your works to another,
and shall declare your mighty acts." Psalm 145:4

When a young person’s only connection to a church is their peer group, their faith is fragile. When they graduate from high school, they graduate from their spiritual ecosystem. But when they are embedded in the wider church, knowing the elderly saint who prays for them, the young parents they help babysit for, and the mature mentors who walk alongside them, they are anchored. They see that the Church is a multi-generational family, not a weekly event.
Peter

16

Yes, I think so much of what is difficult with trying to pass our faith on to the next generation, whether as a parent or as part of the Church, is to plant the seed and then truly allow the Holy Spirit to let it grow. That stepping back and trusting is hard, but I think we must if we are not going to end up with another generation of young people who have to deconstruct their beliefs and often reject them. We have to allow them space to make their faith their own while they are still growing up, not when they have already entered into adulthood.

1 Like