Untitled Document

American Evangelicalism

Bill Long

Modern American Protestant Evangelicalism ("MAPE") did not spring fully armed like Athena from the head of Zeus. There were historical antecedents, defining institutions and cultural forces which helped delineate its basic character. One may profitably speak of three generations of MAPE.

1) The Founders. The first generation of modern evangelicalsm emerged out of a meeting in St. Louis in 1942. The movement took its energy from Protestant Fundamentalists who either had taken a drubbing in the popular press or been largely ignored ever since the Scopes trial in Dayton, TN in 1925. Modern evangelical leaders differed in two significant ways from their Fundamentalist forebears: (a) they wanted to get their Ph. D.s from secular universities and (b) they wanted to engage culture in a more positive way than traditional Fundamentalism. Both of these characteristics point to an openness to the world, though the first generation would never really be able to remove traces of Fundamentalism tucked deeply in their private closets.

2) The Sixties/Seventies. Two forces came together in this period to give decisive shape to MAPE. First was the proliferation of parachurch organizations (Youth for Christ, Navigators, InterVarsity, Campus Crusade for Christ, to name a few) on campuses. Their missions were diverse but they believed above all that Christian faith was "relevant" to every aspect of student life-- from academics to dating to athletics to career. Most of the current generation of evangelical leaders were shaped by one of these organizations. Though these groups were diverse, most of them focused on Bible Study, Fellowship, Evangelism and Prayer rather than Social Justice concerns of the traditional campus ministry departments.

Second was the introduction, through the Jesus Movement in California, the modern charismatic movement and the gradual "Californization" of American culture in general, of feeling and emotion into the "experience" of grace. Christ was to be felt and not simply studied or witnessed to. And, when Christ was felt, the one who felt Christ might speak in tongues, lift hands in worship or do other gushy emotional things that didn't easily fit into the worship patterns of the traditional church. Groups whose primary emphasis was on the "experience" of Christ often didn't get along well in the 1970s with groups interested in the "knowing" or "study" or "proclamation" of Christ.

3) Currently. Now, we are in what I call "mix and match" evangelicalism. Just as I can wear my blue blazer either with grey pants or brown pants, and I can mix different color shirts and ties, people now can pick and choose among theological doctrines, ministry styles and institutional arrangements loosely or tightly derived the two forces of the "Second generation." So, a church might be "mildly charismatic," permitting people to raise their hands but not speak in tongues.

Or, a church might be "word-centered," holding that expositional preaching of verse by verse in the Bible is the only way to go. But, they might also sprinkle in some ingredients from other traditions in the process as some experiential types of people/churches might be logocentric at times. This explains why 1980-2000 was a great time for Protestant religious entrepreneurs: mix and match until you find the right combination to appeal to a generation that had little interest in history and little denominational loyalty.

More can be said, and will be said, but this will get us started.