Cultural Evangelicals.

EVANGELICALISM i.væn'ʤɛl.ə.kəl.ɪz.əm noun. Having to do with the evangel (i.e. the gospel) or Christianity.

2. [capitalized] One who holds to the Protestant tradition of individual conversion to Christianity (i.e. being born again) through faith. Plus Jesus’s atonement, the bible’s authority, and active evangelism.

3. noun. The mainstream Protestant subculture in the United States.

4. noun. A conservative political movement in the United States which coopts white Evangelicals.

[Evangelical i.væn'ʤɛl.ə.kəl adjective.]

Previously I wrote about the Evangelical movement, which is what I mean whenever I write about “Evangelicals.” Unfortunately my usage has confused a lot of people who think I’m instead talking about the Evangelical culture, or Evangelical politics. These are two other uses of the word “Evangelical,” and they’re far more common than the Evangelical movement. I figured it was way past time for me to write on the subject.

In the United States, “Evangelical” seldom means the Evangelical movement. It did in the beginning, when evangelists like John Wesley, George Whitfield, D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and Billy Graham were promoting that very movement, and trying to get American Christians to make their own personal decisions to follow Christ Jesus, instead of foolishly presuming, “My family’s Christian, my country’s Christian, so I’m Christian.”

The shift in definitions largely happened because of Graham. Wasn’t his intention; it’s just what happened. Graham was really good at evangelism, and he was just as good at promoting Evangelicalism—the movement which emphasizes conversion, atonement, bible, and evangelism. He was an Evangelical, and he worked with and was supported by fellow Evangelicals—people who likewise held to conversion, atonement, bible, and evangelism. And Evangelicals weren’t just found in only one church or denomination. They’re all over. Plenty of Christians are Evangelical.

Graham regularly emphasized it’s more important that we be Evangelical, than conform to any particular church tradition. Doesn’t matter whether you’re Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Foursquare, Nazarene, or what have you. What matters is you made a personal decision to follow Jesus, you recongize Jesus died for your sins, you read that bible, and you share Jesus with your neighbors. It’s about being Evangelical.

And Graham tried to network Evangelicals. Often through his evangelism campaigns; multiple churches would provide support in the cities he preached in, and in so doing they’d interact with one another, and notice they all had Evangelicalism in common. It’s what all Christians should have in common, right?

Hence Evangelical grew to become the term American Christians with conservative theology used to define themselves. (Even when they weren’t all that Evangelical.) And this also became the term others used to define conservative American Christians. It’s also caught on in other countries, as Americans began referring to their conservative churches which believe in individual salvation as “Evangelical,” and their natives started using the term just as Americans do.

Where it gradually started moving away from being the same thing as the Evangelical movement, is when certain Fundamentalists started to rebrand themselves as “Evangelical” in the 1900s. ’Cause I should point out not all Fundies are all that Evangelical. Some most definitely are; the Fundie church I grew up in was. Others are more about making people Christian by enforcing piety—by legalism—and by trying to overturn our secular culture and make it Christian, rather than through evangelism. Regardless of their beliefs, the Fundies wanted to be mainstream like they believed Evangelicals were, so they simply started calling themselves Evangelical.

And it worked. As a result there are a lot of Fundie beliefs mixed in with American Evangelism, and the beliefs are often considered mandatory by many Evangelicals. Like Darbyism, young-earth creationism, a rejection of science (yet not technology; man alive do they love A.I.), and far too often, sexism and white Christian nationalism. And there are a bothersome number of these self-described Evangelicals who aren’t Evangelical at all; they want to take over the country and mandate Christianity in precisely the way the first Evangelicals rejected.

But I’ll write about these political Evangelicals another time. There’s a lot of overlap between them and cultural Evangelicals, but they’re not always the same thing eiher.

In any event, what people in the United States typically mean by “Evangelical” is mainstream cultural Christianity. It’s not always about individual trust in Jesus and his scriptures, nor evangelism, nor piety, nor active Christian lifestyles—although your average cultural Evangelical does consider these things important, even if they won’t do ’em themselves.

Plenty of people don’t realize there‘s a difference between the Evangelical movement, and the Evangelical culture. Most articles about the history of Evangelicals will automatically mix the two together. They think cultural Evangelicals still uphold the movement’s principles… or even think of them as their principles. Even when they bluntly say they’re not.

To be fair there’s a whole lot of hypocrisy involved in cultural Evangelicalism. So much so, I’m often tempted to call the whole thing just another form of Christianism. Way too many churches are about the trappings of religion, and not the substance thereof. Way too often cultural Evangelicals only care to pass for Christian. Sometimes to appease judgmental fellow Christians… but weirdly, it’s often to appease Christ Jesus himself, so he’ll let them into his kingdom despite their obvious unbelief and irreligion. They wanna do just enough to not wind up outside the gates of New Jerusalem, weeping and gnashing their teeth. So they’ll do just enough, in their eyes… and call themselves Christian, and Evangelical, and figure they’re good. While the rest of the world figures they’re hypocrites.

Catholic Evangelicals.

One of the obvious signs we’re no longer talking about the Evangelical movement when we discuss cultural Evangelicals, is the fact people will often lump conservative Roman Catholics in with the Evangelicals.

The movement is a Protestant movement; it’s not entirely compatible with Catholic teachings! Yes, Catholics can believe in individual salvation, and evangelism; yes they do believe in Jesus’s atonement and a pious lifestyle; yes they believe the bible is authoritative, but they believe their traditions are equally authoritative. The differences in doctrine are enough to make various Evangelical denominations, like the Presbyterians, insist Catholics can’t realistically be part of the Evangelical movement.

It’s why some Evangelicals will insist, “No; Catholics can’t be Evangelicals; it’s a Protestant thing!” It’s because—like members of the National Association of Evangelicals—they assume by “Evangelical” you mean the movement, and of course Catholics have never been part of that movement. They have their own evangelists and revivals; they do their own thing.

But if all you mean is mainstream American Christianity, can Catholics be part of that? Sure. Easily.

Have been ever since Catholics and Evangelicals started putting aside their differences to support the anti-abortion movement together. In interacting with one another, we discovered we have way, way more in common than not. Same Jesus, after all!

Have been ever since being Catholic stopped being a political liability. We’ve since had two Catholic presidents, dozens of Catholic governors, hundreds of representatives; six of the nine current Supreme Court justices are Catholic. Most Evangelicals not only don’t see Catholics as the antichrists the early Protestants did; they think the early Protestants were nuts for saying so. (To be fair, Catholic emperors, kings, and governments back then were trying to get ’em killed for being Protestant. Separation of church and state has gone a long way towards making our disagreements less murdery and excommunicationy.)

Hence the only people who are gonna screech, “Catholics can’t be Evangelicals!” are those who still think we’re talking about the movement. Largely people aren’t. If they’re part of the American Christian mainstream, they’re lumped together with all the other Evangelicals.

Same with the Mormons. Which brings up a whole new disagreement, ’cause Evangelicals will definitely insist Mormons can’t be Evangelical, ’cause they’re heretic. But politically, they do tend to vote the same… but like I said, not talking about political Evangelicals today.

Popular cultural Christianity.

If this kind of Evangelicalism isn’t about the movement, what’s it about? Primarily it’s about popular cultural Christianity. The kind of Christianity which leaps over denominational divisions; the shared Christian experience which has nothing to do with which church you grew up in, or now go to.

The kind which includes all the stuff peddled in Christian bookstores: Popular Christian music, played on Christian radio. Well-known authors whose books you read, which were promoted in all sorts of different churches. Well-known speakers whose conferences you attended, even though they aren’t necessarily pastors in your denomination. James Dobson’s devoutly-followed bad advice about child-rearing and politics. Corny paintings of White Jesus hugging a sinner, or walking on water, or getting crucified, or approving of the U.S. Constitution. “Faith-based” movies, poorly written and acted, but your youth pastors sure loved to show ’em on movie nights, ’cause they naïvely thought the message might get through to one of the pagan kids. Amish romance novels—the only kind of romance novels allowed, ’cause they’re so very chaste. Precious Moments figurines, eagle statues, and Thomas Kinkade paintings of houses full of 200-watt bulbs.

Cultural Evangelicals are Christians who grew up hearing all the popular interpretations of who Jesus is, what he meant, and how he’s to be followed. Some of them aren’t at all accurate, but they’re everywhere, because the mainstream did such a thorough job of disseminating them. Some of them are far more compatible with your politics than with Jesus himself… although I have been saying I’m not getting into the political stuff today, right? Even so, can’t fathom Jesus thinks any other way than they were taught, and that includes in political matters. Whenever I mention the Christian Left to them, they dismiss them immediately: “Oh those people aren’t Christian. Because they’re liberal.” Apparently we’re not saved by grace, but politics.

Cultural Evangelicals frequently don’t value individual choices the same way the Evangelical movement does, which is why you’ll find they often push enforced cultural piety: “We need to pass laws making this a Christian nation.” They dive into the culture-war stuff and wanna turn biblical commands into law (well, the convenient commands; good luck getting them to ban loans which charge interest Ex 22.24, Lv 25.37, Dt 23.20). They wanna officially discourage paganism and other religions, and “return us to our Christian roots” and “the faith of our founding fathers.”

Well not exactly the faith of our founding fathers. Not John Adams’s Unitarianism, nor Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson’s deism, nor the Quaker fathers’ religious freedom. Nor the slavery. Depending on your conservatives, sometimes not the racism and sexism. Most of those founder-invoking conservatives really just mean their values, which they assume the founders shared. They don’t actually know history. Nor care all that much to learn it.

Anyway, if you ever visit a different church in the United States, you’ll find a lot of compatibility and overlap because we’re reading about the same Jesus from the same bible. But there’s also gonna be a fair amount of compatibility and overlap because these churches and their leaders are likewise following mainstream American Christianity. They’re all American Evangelicals. They’ll have read the same books, heard the same interpretations, and support the same politicians. They’ll be very hesitant to wander outside that mainstream, because they all firmly believe the national narrative is right, and anything else will lead ’em astray.

Is the national narrative right? Obviously that’s a question every Christian needs to rightly ask, because it should be able to hold up to scrutiny, same as Jesus. And sometimes Evangelicals do that… and some of ’em remain Evangelical, and some of ’em don’t.

I did… which is why I uphold the Evangelical movement, but regularly reject mainstream cultural Christianity and call it Christianism. Confusing, I know; especially since we’re all using that word “Evangelical.” I believe it’s devilishly meant to be confusing. But yeah, there are Evangelicals and there are Evangelicals. I’m one, not the other.