Why the Evangelical Upswing?

Somewhere along the road between Democratic presidential nominees William Jennings Bryan and James Earl Carter the thesis that evangelicalism is doomed should have been abandoned. But many scholars and journalists, a bulldog group, have clung tenaciously to this view. Until recently, that is. Now their jaws are slackening and we read and hear that evangelicalism is on the upswing. Why is conservative Protestantism (often disparaged as fundamentalism by those who do not identify with the evangelical movement) suddenly making news?

Some people would simply give a theological answer, that is, that for all its weaknesses, inconsistencies, and factions, God is behind it. But then, a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon would offer the same explanation for the continued growth of his movement. So, without discounting a divine role, I would suggest three other reasons for the resurgence of evangelicalism.

First, the more conservative brand of Protestantism is just recovering from the loss of much of its organizational apparatus—denominational headquarters, colleges, seminaries, publishing houses, and periodicals—to the control of liberal Protestants who had changed (if not discarded) most of the historic teachings of the church. It generally takes time, energy, and money, even if the Lord is with you, to build up organizations that win converts, produce disciples, foster scholarship, and prepare and distribute academic and popular writings.

With a few notable exceptions, evangelical Bible colleges, liberal arts colleges, youth organizations, foreign and domestic missionary agencies, theological seminaries, Sunday School curriculum producers, book publishers, and periodicals are just now reaching their third, fourth, or fifth decade of existence. Many prominent evangelical organizations are still led by their founders. Evangelicalism was there all along, but outsiders had to look for it. Its institutions were poor and small; the more substantial works of its publishers were reprints of nineteenth century books; its publicity apparatus was weak at best.

In many ways the condition of Protestant orthodoxy in the first half of this century had parallels with the century-long condition of the immigrant Roman Catholic communities. Most orthodox Protestants, especially if they were traditionally English-speaking, have had to make a fresh start institutionally. In some cases this meant forming new denominations. It also meant forming and supporting new, specialized institutions (schools, publishers, missions, camps), independent of denominational control, that served evangelicals who remained in the older denominations as well as those who left.

I do not think that having to begin again was on the whole an unfortunate circumstance. There may in fact be something in the sociology and psychology of long established institutions that is usually incompatible with fervent evangelicalism. Indeed in earlier centuries new evangelical organizations were formed not so much to protest departure from orthodoxy as to rebuke diminishing vitality.

Second, conservative evangelicals would not appear to have gained so much if liberal evangelicals, now generally known as ecumenical Protestants, had not declined. One needs to recall that liberal Protestantism was once quite fervent. A large number of liberals once went forth as foreign missionaries. Liberal church-related colleges once were clearly distinguishable from secular private colleges. Liberal theologians were academically respected on their university campuses and were, once upon a time, a frequent source for college presidents. The ordained ministry was an honorable profession for the sons of elite families and the graduates of the finest colleges. Today, there is no shortage of ministerial candidates in liberal Protestantism, but does anyone care to argue that leading families and colleges are supplying their share? (Probably a parallel phenomenon could be found for Catholic priests and nuns and for Jewish rabbis.)

I am far from predicting the demise of ecumenical Protestantism. I certainly don’t wish to fall into the same trap as those who saw no future for evangelicalism. But it is noteworthy that the nineteenth century founders of liberal Protestantism thought it necessary to make adjustments in the historic doctrines lest the world first ridicule and then ignore Christianity altogether. “Unless we change, the people will stop coming,” went the reasoning. So they changed, but the people stopped coming anyway. Well, not exactly.

Large numbers of people still attend liberal Protestant churches in the United States. But parallels in other movements do not augur well for the future. Decline in attendance among Catholics has been notable since the liberalizing winds began blowing through that church; and in Britain and most of continental Europe, church attendance is pitifully small. I don’t contend that if the European theological faculties had been reserved for orthodox Protestants church attendance would not have plummeted. But non-orthodox Protestantism must ask why, despite its best efforts to appeal to “modern man,” it has converted so few of them.

Liberal Protestantism will endure at least as a halfway house for those who can no longer embrace Protestant orthodoxy but who do not wish to repudiate religion altogether. Whether it will have a long-lasting vitality apart from that significant factor—much as Mormonism indisputably has—only time will tell.

Third, conservative Protestantism is not as “conservative” as it may appear at first. To be sure, certain crucial historic Christian doctrines are still sincerely affirmed, such as the deity of Christ, his sin-atoning death and bodily resurrection, and the certainty of his returning to earth in glory. And there are a few publishers that chiefly reprint works from the nineteenth century or earlier, issuing only such twentieth century writings that read as if they could have appeared earlier. But that is a minor section of the evangelical scene. Far more significant are the modifications of traditional styles and approaches.

Consider, for example, the very successful Living Bible, Paraphrased. Whatever one thinks of the scholarly and stylistic virtues of this rendering of the Bible, it is surely a major departure from the King James cadences that traditionally characterized evangelical proclamation.

In another area, the success of The Total Woman—the author made the cover of Time magazine—represents countless lesser-known books that take a positive rather than a shameful attitude toward sexuality. Many people wrongly classify the book as conservative because it limits sexual relations to those who are married, as the Bible clearly does, and because it emphasizes sexual role distinctions, as Christendom has traditionally done. (The biblical basis for such distinctions is now being shown to be not necessarily as sweeping as was long thought.) The Total Woman has drawn opposition from many evangelicals just because it is so positive about sex. At the same time a small but vocal group of evangelicals has opposed the book because it is “sexist.”

Another recent best seller is The Late Great Planet Earth. The author based his scenario for the future on a system of biblical interpretation called dispensationalism. As a system it is not quite 150 years old, less than one third as old as Protestantism. Of course relative antiquity is no basis for deciding the correctness of biblical interpretation. The very existence of dispensationalism, which is represented in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, shows that conservatives are willing to be innovative when they think that they have scriptural backing for a change. Even as Luther and Calvin were willing to break with the traditional ecclesiastical institutions, so dispensationalism was willing to break with more traditional Protestant understandings of the details of the return of Christ to earth.

Yet another example of evangelical innovation is the Pentecostal-charismatic movement, which is essentially a twentieth century phenomenon. Short-lived and geographically restricted precursors of this kind of religious expression have often occurred; our century is seeing the first sustained and widespread dissemination of it. Even as many evangelicals fault the freedom of the Living Bible, the attitudes toward sex of The Total Woman, and the detailed descriptions of the future in The Late Great Planet Earth, so many of them fault the exegetical under-pinnings and the experiential emphasis of the charismatic movement. But such willingness to be innovative has contributed greatly to the flourishing state of “conservative” Protestantism.

Apart from the Living Bible each of these examples has secular counterparts. But it would be wrong to assume that evangelicals are simply exploiting cultural trends to gain converts. The doctrines of The Late Great Planet Earth were taught and published long before the interest in ancient astronauts, astrology, or doomsday became popular. It would also be wrong to assume that the climate of the age does not have anything to do with renewed evangelical appreciation for sex within marriage, which is reflected by The Total Woman.

What to an outside critic is opportunism is seen by an insider as an appropriate channel through which the message of historic Christian doctrine can flow. Are the masses, for whatever reason, showing a renewed interest in demons? Then evangelist Billy Graham will write a bestseller on Angels, both to give a balanced view and also to present the Gospel. Does deemphasis on the literary classics mean that fewer common people groove with the King James? Then make available a Living Bible in every day language. Because of this widespread unwillingness to be tenaciously conservative in method and message, evangelicals are having the impact that they are on the nation.

Evangelicalism, therefore, has blossomed not because it is new but because it was ignored for so long by outsiders. It flourishes because the institutions that give it visibility have only lately reached maturity. It appears to prosper more than it otherwise would because other expressions of Protestantism have lost some of the preeminence that they enjoyed for two or three generations. And it flourishes because, though conserving the doctrines at the heart of Christianity, it is innovative in a variety of other ways.

What of the future of Protestant orthodoxy? It is unlikely that it will ever regain the prominent position it enjoyed before the Civil War. But it is also unlikely that it will face any sterner challenges, unless it be total political persecution, than have already been confronted over the past century. Completely new factors comparable to the emergence of urban, technological society or to academic-led scepticism about the supernatural are unlikely to emerge. Other people may not like evangelicalism but for now they will have to live with it.

D. Bruce Lockerbie is chairman of the Fine Arts department at The Stony Brook School, Stony Brook, New York. This article is taken from his 1976 lectures on Christian Life and Thought, delivered at Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.