BONUS: Cory Marsh & Vincent Bacote on Defining Evangelicalism의 전체 녹취록

conversation wanting other things as actions? 00:04:45.759 --> 00:04:51.759 I don't know, participating in communion or getting baptized or many other things. 00:04:52.000 --> 00:04:56.319 Why the two that you pick, the local congregation and the theological education? 00:04:56.800 --> 00:05:01.279 Well, I think what you just said, Dan, actually is is baked into the idea of church fellowship. 00:05:01.439 --> 00:05:06.560 So communion, for example, baptism, discipleship, church discipline. 00:05:06.720 --> 00:05:12.319 Oftentimes, especially in American evangelicalism, church discipline becomes like operation crowd reduction. 00:05:12.480 --> 00:05:17.759 And so pastors are afraid to practice it, even though Jesus instituted it in Matthew 16. 00:05:18.079 --> 00:05:24.800 All of those ideas are within that idea of what I say is uh what I call the crucial X factors. 00:05:24.959 --> 00:05:30.160 Not only is church fellowship not secondary, I couldn't, I call it a fundamental for evangelical identity. 00:05:30.319 --> 00:05:32.079 It's the crucial X factor. 00:05:32.319 --> 00:05:47.199 It is accountability among your elders and deacons and saints, where it's not only just evangelical beliefs are positioned in creed alone, but you're practicing it in day-to-day life and doing life together and being held accountable to those beliefs as well. 00:05:47.360 --> 00:05:51.519 And when it comes to what you just brought up, which is so important, the Lord's table, taking communion. 00:05:51.680 --> 00:05:58.160 I know some churches' evangelical traditions will practice footwashing based on John 13 and what Jesus gives as a pattern. 00:05:58.319 --> 00:06:00.480 Baptizing and baptism is another one. 00:06:00.639 --> 00:06:03.120 These things require physical participation. 00:06:03.279 --> 00:06:04.879 You need to be there presently. 00:06:05.120 --> 00:06:12.240 So I would even push back on the idea of online church and taking, you know, I know some people will take communion online. 00:06:12.639 --> 00:06:21.600 Um, and now obviously there are circumstances where you can't attend church personally or physically, but the model we have in the New Testament is it requires physical fellowship. 00:06:21.759 --> 00:06:37.120 And there's something holy and powerful when saints are gathered together under the exposition of the scriptures and taking the Lord's table together and doing baptisms and being a part of that as a church fellowship and holding one another accountable to these things. 00:06:37.279 --> 00:06:39.360 There's something powerful and holy about that. 00:06:39.600 --> 00:06:51.199 So I think, again, to raise the idea of church fellowship to a fundamental that might be a weakness in Bebington's model, as helpful as his model is, I see it as a crucial X factor. 00:06:51.439 --> 00:07:04.399 Participation in theological education is another one that should happen in the church at some level, but obviously not all churches have the resources available that a seminary or a Christian university or Bible college can provide. 00:07:04.560 --> 00:07:15.360 You know, for example, you know, church history classes and learning the languages and all the theological disciplines, biblical theology, systematic theology, practical theology, historical theology, all those things. 00:07:15.519 --> 00:07:20.480 You need resources and experts to be able to help, at least those who are qualified to be able to teach those things. 00:07:20.639 --> 00:07:27.360 And the average church just does not have the uh the uh time or the space or the resources to do that. 00:07:27.519 --> 00:07:30.480 And so formal education becomes a supplemental help. 00:07:30.560 --> 00:07:40.800 You know, it's a parachurch ministry ministry to come alongside the church, you can submit to the local church as the authoritative structure, which I believe is the proper role between the seminary and the church. 00:07:40.959 --> 00:07:43.600 But there has to be something to growing in knowledge. 00:07:43.839 --> 00:07:48.879 I think of to give a biblical theological perspective here, you've asked me to do that. 00:07:49.199 --> 00:08:01.600 The very last thing the apostle Peter leaves to the world before his death, 2 Peter 3:18, is a present active imperative to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. 00:08:01.839 --> 00:08:04.240 We're to grow in knowledge and grace together. 00:08:04.319 --> 00:08:16.160 And I think of Paul, his big prayer to the Philippians in Philippians chapter 1, verses 9 and 10 around there, that they are to grow in their love, should abound more and more with all knowledge and full discernment. 00:08:16.240 --> 00:08:18.720 So for Peter, grace and knowledge come together. 00:08:18.879 --> 00:08:21.199 For Paul, love and knowledge come together. 00:08:21.360 --> 00:08:22.720 We can't divorce the two. 00:08:22.879 --> 00:08:29.360 We grow on our theological knowledge, and as we do, we grow in our love for God and for the people that are made in his image. 00:08:29.600 --> 00:08:37.360 So I believe both church fellowship, participation in theological education, those are fundamentals for an authentic evangelical identity. 00:08:37.679 --> 00:08:38.320 Very helpful. 00:08:38.480 --> 00:08:43.759 Believe it or not, we've talked to Vince Bacot earlier today, asking him some of these same questions. 00:08:43.919 --> 00:08:56.000 And one of the things he brought up, and I just want your take on it, and I don't know if this was what you and him talked about before, but he wanted a fifth Bebington point on pneumatology, something around the Holy Spirit. 00:08:56.080 --> 00:09:01.200 And this is something that Tim Larson and some other commentators have have said as well. 00:09:01.440 --> 00:09:07.200 That there needs to be something about the active work of the Holy Spirit or a sort of conviction that the Holy Spirit is active in the world. 00:09:07.440 --> 00:09:08.159 What do you make of that?

00:09:08.240 --> 00:09:12.559 Is that anything that that you you'd see raised to the same level as what you've been talking about? 00:09:12.879 --> 00:09:13.120 Sure. 00:09:13.200 --> 00:09:16.000 Now I understand Baycote's point, and that's a good one. 00:09:16.159 --> 00:09:28.080 If I understand Bebington's model accurately, I do believe the role of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Holy Spirit and his presence is within the idea of things like conversionism as well as activism. 00:09:28.480 --> 00:09:36.000 You cannot be converted from an evangelical perspective without the Holy Spirit rebirthing, if I can use that word, your spirit, your own human spirit. 00:09:36.159 --> 00:09:41.679 So it takes the Holy Spirit to invade a person for them to see their need for Christ and to trust in him. 00:09:41.919 --> 00:09:50.559 So that's in the idea of conversionism as well as activism, the idea of doing missions work and evangelism and church planting. 00:09:50.720 --> 00:10:01.600 Now, perhaps I'm taking it more of an evangelical perspective there as a theologian than a historian, where Bebington's activism could be all these different ideas of humanitarian philanthropy and things like that, which have their place. 00:10:01.759 --> 00:10:06.720 But from a true evangelical missions perspective, you cannot do it without the Holy Spirit. 00:10:06.799 --> 00:10:08.480 We see that in Acts chapter 13. 00:10:08.639 --> 00:10:10.320 Paul and Barnabas are set apart. 00:10:10.399 --> 00:10:12.240 It's where the missions movement starts. 00:10:12.320 --> 00:10:18.320 And it's the Holy Spirit himself who says, set apart for me, Paul and Barnabas, for the work that I have for them to do. 00:10:18.399 --> 00:10:20.799 And that's what starts the Christian missions movement. 00:10:21.039 --> 00:10:27.039 So the Holy Spirit most certainly is required for any type of legitimate church planting and missions work. 00:10:27.279 --> 00:10:31.919 If that is what Vincent is uh is getting at, then I 100% agree. 00:10:32.080 --> 00:10:42.960 And I think perhaps that is a weakness in Bebington's model, but if I understand Bebington correctly, again, and it's been a while since I've read his work, I think those ideas are within conversionism and activism. 00:10:43.120 --> 00:10:46.399 Maybe they're not, but if they're not, then they certainly should be more explicit. 00:10:46.559 --> 00:10:50.399 And that is something that is particular in my view of evangelicalism. 00:10:50.480 --> 00:10:57.919 In fact, I call it a fundamental, uh, the idea of zealous evangelism because it requires the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit to do it. 00:10:58.240 --> 00:10:59.759 Okay, so we're three historians. 00:10:59.840 --> 00:11:01.919 We're talking about evangelicalism. 00:11:02.080 --> 00:11:08.720 As a theologian, what do you think is the biggest strength a group of historians can bring to discussing this identity question? 00:11:08.960 --> 00:11:13.600 And then conversely, what do you think is the shortfall of the historical method on this? 00:11:13.679 --> 00:11:18.639 And I'm thinking a bit of the intro to your book where you are engaging with some historians. 00:11:18.799 --> 00:11:27.919 Now, that that's not all historians, and they have particular views, but there are a number of historians that you are engaging with and finding some things to affirm and then other things to critique from them. 00:11:28.320 --> 00:11:30.240 Yeah, now obviously it goes without saying. 00:11:30.320 --> 00:11:36.399 I mean, uh historical analysis brings enormous value to the discussion for any movement. 00:11:36.559 --> 00:11:37.679 That should be obvious. 00:11:37.919 --> 00:11:45.840 In fact, even the Christian movement, Paul sources the Christian faith on a historical event in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection. 00:11:46.000 --> 00:11:49.919 I mean, he literally says if Jesus has not been raised, then we are most to be pitied. 00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:51.039 We're still dead in our sins. 00:11:51.200 --> 00:11:55.360 So it's even brought down to a testable, discoverable historical event. 00:11:55.440 --> 00:11:58.320 So we certainly need the work of historians. 00:11:58.480 --> 00:12:02.399 I mean, we have an entire discipline within theology, historical theology for this very reason. 00:12:02.639 --> 00:12:05.360 So seriously, massively important. 00:12:05.759 --> 00:12:08.639 Now, I'm I'm a little bit out of my lane with you guys. 00:12:08.799 --> 00:12:10.879 So I mean, my PhD is in biblical theology. 00:12:10.960 --> 00:12:11.759 I'm not a historian. 00:12:11.840 --> 00:12:21.759 I'm not I'm not trained at that level in history, so I want to be a little careful in how I talk about any blind spots to use your um language, if there's any weaknesses, whatever. 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:24.559 But I I mean, as a theologian, I would say a couple things. 00:12:24.720 --> 00:12:31.759 The theologian in me wants to remind historians that the evangel is a theological term. 00:12:32.240 --> 00:12:37.039 The evangel, Latin for the gospel, it's a theological concept, is it not? 00:12:37.200 --> 00:12:38.559 Like right off the bat. 00:12:38.879 --> 00:12:54.799 And I think that maybe that there are there is a tendency of some historians to evaluate a theological identity mainly through a cultural lens to the exclusion of theological convictions that define the identity, right? 00:12:55.120 --> 00:12:57.840 Uh and and not obviously not all historians do this. 00:12:57.919 --> 00:13:02.480 I mean, this is I mean, Dan, you and I are friends, and I have professors, colleagues, friends who are historians. 00:13:02.559 --> 00:13:09.360 And I and again, the Christian faith is based on historical events, so we can't divorce theology from history too far, but there are distinctions here to be made. 00:13:09.440 --> 00:13:26.159 And I think with modern historians, perhaps there might be a pressure with some to feel maybe they need to be contrarian in

their quest for neutrality, perhaps, you know, like rejecting anything that's considered traditional, you know, and not and some historians tend to do that. 00:13:26.240 --> 00:13:30.960 And inevitably, I think they fall in line with everybody else, you know, even using the same terms. 00:13:31.120 --> 00:13:38.559 For example, in my book, I I critique some who cannot use the word evangelicalism without affixing the adjective white in front of it. 00:13:38.720 --> 00:13:41.519 So now evangelicalism becomes white evangelicalism. 00:13:41.600 --> 00:13:50.879 It's because that's what's trendy, or at least that's what scholars are expecting to do are historians, because now we're tracing a movement that seems to resonate with a certain ethnicity or something like that. 00:13:51.039 --> 00:14:05.360 And I don't know if there's any, you know, how much accuracy in these things that I'm saying right now, but uh I would go back to the idea that first of all, the evangel in evangelicalism is theological to the core, and that should be elevated when historians are doing their work. 00:14:05.519 --> 00:14:27.440 And also, as an evangelical, I'm gonna say for evangelical historians in particular, don't shy away from your faith, from your theological convictions and be careful in analyzing a movement only from a cultural perspective and not from the theological convictions that make it up, um, that that are that what the identity of evangelicalism is, and not to feel pressured. 00:14:27.519 --> 00:14:47.759 And this is even me as a biblical theologian, as a scholar, in fact, because I have the same type of pressures where you have to adopt terms from the academy or from colleagues that are publishing, not to fall in that line and having to feel like you, unless you're being contrarian to tradition, not that all tradition is good by any means, but feeling like if I'm contrary to tradition, then I'm doing real historical work. 00:14:47.919 --> 00:14:50.960 That's not always the best model to uh to adopt, I guess. 00:14:51.200 --> 00:14:53.200 So to be a little careful with those things. 00:14:53.679 --> 00:15:14.399 Maybe I'm just restating something you've already said, but one thing that maybe this is what you mean by a cultural perspective, but I think one thing I detected while reading your book is that historians tend to be focused on who sort of the is of evangelicalism, like what do we actually see in the world, and that dictates our term for us. 00:15:14.720 --> 00:15:18.639 Who are the people who basically have claimed to be evangelical and what do they do? 00:15:18.720 --> 00:15:22.000 And let's summarize that into a general definition. 00:15:22.399 --> 00:15:25.919 Whereas I I detect you wanted to do in your book a sort of ought. 00:15:26.159 --> 00:15:28.559 Like, yes, there are all these people that say they're evangelicals. 00:15:28.799 --> 00:15:41.039 Your job isn't to sort of document that, your job is to sort of speak it with your expertise into what you think an evangelical actually is, regardless of what the historical record, you know, what people in history who have said they're evangelical are. 00:15:41.200 --> 00:15:42.879 Is that another way of saying sort of the same distinction? 00:15:43.360 --> 00:15:43.440 Yeah. 00:15:43.759 --> 00:15:44.720 Absolutely spot on. 00:15:44.879 --> 00:15:57.840 I think when you adopt a cultural perspective to the exclusion of the theological convictions of what makes up evangelicalism, you will inevitably define evangelicalism by who identifies as an evangelical. 00:15:57.919 --> 00:15:58.879 And that is a problem. 00:15:59.120 --> 00:16:00.320 I use this cute little term. 00:16:00.480 --> 00:16:03.600 Modern evangelicalism is evangelicalism now, right? 00:16:03.840 --> 00:16:09.759 Because it's just mushy middle, it's it's jiggly, what are it's a it's elastic, it's hard to define. 00:16:09.840 --> 00:16:10.960 And there's reasons why. 00:16:11.120 --> 00:16:21.440 How do we get to the place where we're at now where we have self-identifying Muslim evangelicals, self-identifying Hindu evangelicals, self-identifying Catholic evangelicals? 00:16:21.679 --> 00:16:27.360 If evangelicalism is meant to incorporate all these different traditions, then the word evangelicalism means nothing. 00:16:27.519 --> 00:16:39.840 But that's what happens when journalists and pollsters send out surveys, you know, with questions that are, you know, expecting a certain response, you know, questions as vague as, have you ever had a religious experience? 00:16:40.159 --> 00:16:40.399 Yes. 00:16:40.559 --> 00:16:41.440 Okay, you're converted. 00:16:41.519 --> 00:16:45.440 Conversionism, according to Bebington's model, means you're an evangelical. 00:16:45.600 --> 00:16:46.399 It's that simple. 00:16:46.559 --> 00:16:48.399 Or do you vote Republican? 00:16:48.559 --> 00:16:49.759 Did you vote for Donald Trump? 00:16:49.840 --> 00:16:55.120 Okay, well, you're an evangelical, you know, that's part of the evangelical voting block, and now you're labeled as an evangelical. 00:16:55.279 --> 00:17:01.440 And then you have people that I just, their lifestyles are antithetical to what I believe the New Testament teaches. 00:17:01.600 --> 00:17:04.799 For example, Isaac Sharp's book, I interact with that in my work. 00:17:04.960 --> 00:17:06.720 Fascinating insights, what he has. 00:17:06.880 --> 00:17:18.160 But there are some that he believes that are what he calls other evangelicals who have a right to the label that are clearly antithetical to what historical, authentic, what I call vintage evangelicalism is. 00:17:18.400 --> 00:17:24.559 Going back to my point that evangelicalism cannot be defined merely by positions or beliefs, but also behavior. 00:17:24.799 --> 00:17:26.640 So it's a lifestyle as well. 00:17:26.880 --> 00:17:31.119 All of this stuff makes for the mushiness of evangelicalism. 00:17:31.279 --> 00:17:37.039 I am an active member of ETS, the largest

academic evangelical society in North America. 00:17:37.279 --> 00:17:42.960 In fact, I just uh served a three-year term and just stepped down from being president of one of the largest geographic regions. 00:17:43.119 --> 00:17:46.400 I think I think it is the largest geographical region in ETS. 00:17:46.559 --> 00:17:47.599 I love ETS. 00:17:47.680 --> 00:17:57.039 I mean, it's a wonderful place to be able to share our ideas, reverberate them, um, be critiqued, and advance the knowledge of Christ in an academic setting. 00:17:57.119 --> 00:17:58.559 It's a wonderful platform to do it. 00:17:58.640 --> 00:18:03.279 However, there are only two beliefs that you have to sign off on to be an ETS member. 00:18:03.440 --> 00:18:06.640 And I think they are evangelical beliefs, but are they really enough? 00:18:06.720 --> 00:18:12.079 And the two are you believe the original autographs are inerrant, and two, you believe in the Trinity. 00:18:12.400 --> 00:18:14.880 Now, those are evangelical beliefs. 00:18:14.960 --> 00:18:22.319 However, I can easily see a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox adherent signing off on, yes, they believe in the Trinity, of course. 00:18:22.559 --> 00:18:30.559 And inerrancy, interestingly enough, gets finagled by a lot of people that are trying to retain their professorships or whatever it may be. 00:18:30.640 --> 00:18:32.400 They have to sign off on the document. 00:18:32.559 --> 00:18:49.279 There's one author, a leading evangelical that I quote in the book, who calls these types of people functional inerrantists that they don't really believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but they're doing so they're able to finagle it enough to be able to justify them signing off in the document, and they can keep their tenure, you know, their jobs as professors, or whatever. 00:18:49.440 --> 00:18:56.000 And honestly, as I'm talking, I don't have a single human, one of them in my mind who I'm talking about, but this is a blanketed thing. 00:18:56.240 --> 00:19:04.240 There are people at the society whose evangelical bona fides are questionable when you get down at that level, because there's only two beliefs that you have to sign off on. 00:19:04.400 --> 00:19:15.440 Nothing about church fellowship, nothing about are you believing in personal, are you zealous in your evangelism and understanding personal depravity, therefore the person needs Christ personally. 00:19:15.599 --> 00:19:18.400 All these things that I include in my model aren't there. 00:19:18.559 --> 00:19:21.920 And so evangelicalism has, is there really a gatekeeper for it? 00:19:22.160 --> 00:19:27.680 No, it's it's not ETS, and it's not other groups who use the evangelical label. 00:19:27.920 --> 00:19:34.079 Unfortunately, when we look at evangelicalism from a cultural lens to bring this to circle back to this, that is the inevitable result. 00:19:34.319 --> 00:19:41.920 You're going to latch on to self-identifying evangelicals, who I would say, according to my model, are anything but. 00:19:42.160 --> 00:19:45.119 Even if there's some similarity in some of the some of the beliefs. 00:19:45.279 --> 00:19:47.359 I mean, all of mine, I have five. 00:19:47.440 --> 00:19:49.599 And I hate being reductionistic like that. 00:19:49.680 --> 00:19:53.119 I don't like using numbers and tie and titles of books and things like that. 00:19:53.359 --> 00:19:56.160 But I do think you can add more, perhaps. 00:19:56.240 --> 00:19:57.279 You mentioned Baycote. 00:19:57.359 --> 00:20:01.519 You can add more if you're going to say something on pneumatology, which I still think are is part of Bedmonton's model. 00:20:01.599 --> 00:20:02.880 But either way, let's just say it's not. 00:20:02.960 --> 00:20:04.559 You can add pneumatology for sure. 00:20:04.720 --> 00:20:05.680 Doctrine of the Spirit. 00:20:05.920 --> 00:20:10.559 You can add more to my model, but I don't think you can take away any of those five. 00:20:10.720 --> 00:20:16.640 Those are the irreducible minimum for vintage, authentic, historic evangelicalism. 00:20:16.960 --> 00:20:19.759 List the five really quick so we have that on record. 00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:20.240 Sure. 00:20:20.400 --> 00:20:23.759 I mean, and that's what maybe why I'm adding to the conversation. 00:20:23.920 --> 00:20:24.880 I'm not starting it. 00:20:24.960 --> 00:20:29.200 I'm entering into a conversation, so I'm not saying I'm the last word on the matter at all. 00:20:29.359 --> 00:20:46.559 But rather than being defined by sociological markers, you know, like race, politics, or self-identification, which I'm talking about right now, evangelicalism is a biblical theological identity rooted in the evangel gospel, and should be defined by core beliefs and the behaviors they produce. 00:20:46.720 --> 00:20:47.920 And that is my thesis. 00:20:48.319 --> 00:20:55.359 So in its what I call vintage expression, evangelicalism is characterized by five fundamental pillars, and here they are. 00:20:55.759 --> 00:20:57.680 The first one is the supremacy of scripture. 00:20:58.079 --> 00:21:10.400 Going back to Bebington's Biblicist model, uh, first marker, a commitment to the Bible is the absolute, inerrant, and final authority for faith and practice have defined evangelicals going back to John Wycliffe in the fourth 14th century. 00:21:10.880 --> 00:21:12.160 The exclusivity of Jesus. 00:21:12.319 --> 00:21:16.240 And I will say this everything starts with that first supremacy of scripture idea. 00:21:16.480 --> 00:21:30.640 All these other beliefs come from our understanding of Scripture, which leads number two, the exclusivity of Jesus, the conviction that salvation is found only through faith in the substitutionary of death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinners, which leads to zealous evangelism. 00:21:30.720 --> 00:21:33.680 If you have faith and you understand that, you want to tell others about it. 00:21:33.839 --> 00:21:49.680 So evangelicalism historically, zealous

evangelism, an active spirit-empowered mandate to proclaim the gospel and make disciples, driven by the belief that personal human depravity makes individual redemption the only true catalyst for cultural change. 00:21:49.920 --> 00:21:56.799 So instead of trying to change nations through legislation, some type of Christian laws or nationalism or something like that, no. 00:21:56.960 --> 00:21:59.119 Historic evangelicalism on the personal level. 00:22:00.079 --> 00:22:07.359 Theological education, a dedication of growing in the knowledge of God and His Word through both formal and informal study is my number four. 00:22:07.759 --> 00:22:24.240 And my fifth one is what I what I referred to earlier as the crucial X factor, local church fellowship, consistent physical assembly with other believers for worship, accountability, mutual encouragement, and centrally, I would say, being equipped under the faithful exposition of Scripture. 00:22:24.480 --> 00:22:38.079 So those five things, the supremacy of scripture, the exclusivity of Christ, zealous evangelism, theological education, and local church fellowship, and ultimately genuine evangelicalism, I would describe it as a centrifugal movement. 00:22:38.240 --> 00:22:45.359 It spirals outward where transformed lives serve as the primary engine for transforming society. 00:22:45.680 --> 00:22:46.240 That's great. 00:22:46.480 --> 00:22:48.079 Okay, we just have a couple minutes. 00:22:48.319 --> 00:22:55.839 This is the hot one that I was ending with, which is about evangelical celebritiism or Christian celebrityism, as you call it. 00:22:56.079 --> 00:22:59.279 And you have a lot to say against it in your book. 00:22:59.519 --> 00:23:01.680 This is the question I was trying to come up with. 00:23:01.920 --> 00:23:14.720 For a lot of people, the the major figures of the movement or the biggest churches or the people who have the most best-selling books or so forth really are at the top of who they think of when they think of an evangelical. 00:23:14.880 --> 00:23:16.000 What do you do with that? 00:23:16.160 --> 00:23:25.680 I understand you're sort of you don't want the cultural evangelicalism to dominate, but there is such a predisposition to think of those people as embodying this movement. 00:23:25.839 --> 00:23:37.839 I mean, I don't want to push this too far, but you could go back in time and think about the major so-called celebrities of that moment, Billy Graham, Dwight Moody, famous preachers in the 19th century, and so forth. 00:23:37.920 --> 00:23:57.359 And maybe you'd be down to a case by case on their bona fides, but how do you think about sort of the public image of evangelicalism that often you might even ask an evangelical in a pew and they would reference these books and these people's ministries and so forth, related to the way you want to define it and how you want to actually sort of, if anything, I think you say you want to kill that. 00:23:57.599 --> 00:23:59.519 You want to kill that expression of evangelicalism. 00:23:59.759 --> 00:24:00.720 Yeah, absolutely. 00:24:00.880 --> 00:24:02.319 And I don't use that word lightly. 00:24:02.480 --> 00:24:04.880 We need to kill Christian celebrityism. 00:24:05.119 --> 00:24:14.640 Now, this is where I, as a conservative evangelical, I even refer to myself as a biblical fundamentalist, but one who is just holding to the fundamentals of the faith. 00:24:14.799 --> 00:24:22.559 This is where I do agree with those progressive and critical authors who pinpoint the obsession that modern evangelicals have with celebrityism. 00:24:22.960 --> 00:24:24.960 It is embarrassing, and it is true. 00:24:25.039 --> 00:24:29.200 We have turned this holy bloody faith of our savior into an industry. 00:24:29.359 --> 00:24:44.160 And this is where Christian celebrityism and Christian politics, evangelical politics, kind of meld together because you know you have platforms now that are advocating for things that are outside the five fundamentals that I provide and say even others like Bedminton provide. 00:24:44.480 --> 00:24:46.799 It is a problem, um, no doubt. 00:24:47.039 --> 00:24:51.519 And I think that you mentioned celebrityism and you mentioned some names. 00:24:51.680 --> 00:24:59.599 I would make a distinction, as I do, I believe, in the book, but I make a distinction between a celebrity and merely being famous or well known. 00:24:59.759 --> 00:25:03.200 Okay, what I call there's a Christian celebrity and then there's a public minister. 00:25:03.359 --> 00:25:04.480 Those are two different things. 00:25:04.720 --> 00:25:08.000 A public minister has a white influence, he's well known, or she's well known. 00:25:08.079 --> 00:25:11.359 And that's not that necessarily just being well known doesn't make one a celebrity. 00:25:11.519 --> 00:25:18.079 What makes one a celebrity, and I borrow on Caitlin Beatty's definition in her book, Um Celebrities for Jesus, which I found very helpful. 00:25:18.240 --> 00:25:26.640 She defines Christian celebrity as an off the top of my head, I'm trying to remember, was social power without proximity, which was very helpful. 00:25:26.799 --> 00:25:31.519 Someone who has got power and they are not close to their people and people aren't close to them. 00:25:31.680 --> 00:25:36.720 There's a persona on stage that is considered to be the person, but there's no real accountability. 00:25:36.799 --> 00:25:38.000 There's no closeness. 00:25:38.160 --> 00:25:47.759 I define a public minister, someone who the Lord blesses their ministry and is fanning into flame and they're able to have an impact for the church and for the gospel, maybe even worldwide. 00:25:47.920 --> 00:25:52.799 That doesn't make them a celebrity, but a public minister would be so having social influence. 00:25:53.039 --> 00:25:55.359 So not power, you're not lording it over people. 00:25:55.519 --> 00:26:03.920 You have social influence within proximity, meaning that you are grounded in that

what I call the crucial X factor, the local church. 00:26:04.079 --> 00:26:05.519 You have an accountability structure. 00:26:05.599 --> 00:26:11.440 You have elders and deacons and saints who are keeping you accountable and know you, know your life and your, and you know their life. 00:26:11.519 --> 00:26:14.960 It's not just a persona or a public figure they know, they know the actual real person. 00:26:15.039 --> 00:26:16.640 It comes down to accountability, Dan. 00:26:16.880 --> 00:26:20.000 Really, when it comes to the Christian celebrity and the public minister. 00:26:20.240 --> 00:26:29.519 And unfortunately, we, even as evangelicals, it's sort of in our blood to celebritize our favorite Bible teachers, our favorite theologians, our favorite pastors. 00:26:29.759 --> 00:26:32.799 And we see this historically going all the way back in the New Testament. 00:26:32.960 --> 00:26:36.000 1 Corinthians chapter 1, 1 Corinthians chapter 3. 00:26:36.240 --> 00:26:49.839 Paul is calling out the Corinthian believers for celebritizing their favorite or performing cliques, schismata is the Greek word, schisms, factions around their favorite Bible teachers, Paul, Apollos, Cephas, who's Peter, and even Christ. 00:26:50.079 --> 00:26:54.559 These weren't the crazy charismatics or people that were just, you know, that they were latching onto. 00:26:54.640 --> 00:26:59.359 They were latching on to the highest, the greatest Bible expositors in history. 00:26:59.599 --> 00:27:14.559 And so that tells me, like we, uh me, I'm saying me right now, like my tribe, our tribe, whatever, our conservative evangelical tribe, we do have the proclivity to elevate our favorite Bible expositor, our favorite faithful theologian on a stage higher than they should be. 00:27:14.720 --> 00:27:31.359 And when that person starts becoming sort of the pharaoh on top of their own pyramid, so to speak, and employing a bunch of people under them, well, now you enter in the greatest justification in American evangelicalism for any anything's existence, and that is providing jobs, right? 00:27:31.519 --> 00:27:32.640 Now there are jobs. 00:27:32.720 --> 00:27:44.160 So the people that are employed by the celebrity don't want to hold them accountable if they're teaching aberrant doctrine or their lifestyle is showing that they're something other than what they're portraying because their jobs are at stake. 00:27:44.400 --> 00:27:51.839 And then it's not by coincidence when you see some conservative evangelical celebrities have a scandal or a moral failure, something like that. 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:54.720 And then you go down to the root level, they're not even a member of a church. 00:27:54.799 --> 00:27:57.759 They're not held accountable at the local church level, something like that. 00:27:57.920 --> 00:27:59.920 These things are all intertwined. 00:28:00.079 --> 00:28:03.839 All that is to say, and yeah, I do say it in the book, we need to kill it. 00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:05.440 We are not meant to be celebrities. 00:28:05.599 --> 00:28:11.839 Jesus Christ is the one that we should be elevating above all things, all people, all matters, and everything should be revolving around him. 00:28:12.240 --> 00:28:25.680 And if we have some type of ministry or some type of business hijacking biblical names or something like that, whatever, we've now industrialized it and trivialized this holy and bloody faith based on our savior, on our Lord and Savior. 00:28:25.920 --> 00:28:29.039 That leads to the powder keg of what is today Christian celebrityism. 00:28:29.279 --> 00:28:30.480 Stimulating stuff, Corey. 00:28:30.559 --> 00:28:30.880 Thank you. 00:28:30.960 --> 00:28:34.559 Um, this will be helpful for us for this episode and as we go forward as well. 00:28:34.720 --> 00:28:36.160 So thanks for your time. 00:28:36.319 --> 00:28:37.039 I appreciate it. 00:28:37.119 --> 00:28:38.480 Thank you for having me on. 00:28:44.160 --> 00:28:46.000 Vince, welcome to the podcast. 00:28:46.319 --> 00:28:46.720 Thank you. 00:28:46.880 --> 00:28:47.839 Great to participate. 00:28:48.079 --> 00:28:57.200 So we've been having this discussion about the Bebington quadrilateral as the basis for our historical conversation of evangelicalism so far. 00:28:57.359 --> 00:29:00.720 We've we're now we now have three episodes under our belt. 00:29:00.960 --> 00:29:12.000 What is your take on the quadrilateral as a definition for evangelicalism, both today and maybe historically, and some of the historical work you've done? 00:29:12.319 --> 00:29:15.920 Do you find anything maybe insufficient with the quadrilateral? 00:29:16.319 --> 00:29:35.519 Well, it's helpful, I think, for talking about how all these people that would have an alley fight about eschatology, church order, and many other things, how uh they are still family, or as Tim Larson puts it, how they all say, but I st I believe that you really are an authentic Christian and you share those common commitments. 00:29:36.000 --> 00:29:48.640 And I think to the extent that if we're talking about most evangelicals that still kind of like go to these non-denominational churches, Baptist churches, Presbyterian churches, it does define who they are. 00:29:49.200 --> 00:30:09.359 But of course, we're in a moment where the politicization of the term means that there are a lot of people who use the term because um whether they're particularly moral or not, or read the Bible very much or not, you then have people c using the label uh because of how they're choosing to vote and because they kind of want to be a Republican with little Jesus sprinkled on it. 00:30:09.759 --> 00:30:30.160 So for me, the Baby Quadrilateral still obtains because yes, there's a lot to talk about about evangelicals and their connections to certain political commitments, but still if you go into most of these churches, your quote-unquote average evangelical church, the people if you have people who are regular attenders, whatever

their political affiliations, they're still not mostly hearing politics from the pulpit. 00:30:30.559 --> 00:30:41.119 And what they are participating in is something associated with this commitment to the Bible, this importance of conversion, the need to share your faith, and obviously the centrality of Christ's work on the cross. 00:30:41.680 --> 00:31:04.559 If there is one thing that would be needed to be added to that, I do think to the extent that you know the fastest growing Christianity worldwide is Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity, I think you do have to contend with the fact that uh a kind of uh mainstreaming of charismatics and Pentecostals using the label or s or th or regarding themselves as part of the family. 00:31:04.880 --> 00:31:19.839 And so while they may have been those kind of peripheral cousins in a way, even into the eighties and early nineties, arguably the fact that you have more of these other people that were in the game, but you know, say like someone like Sam Storms, right? 00:31:19.920 --> 00:31:30.799 I mean, people who are definitely not cessationists, definitely more inclined to be talking about that we need to include this kind of continuationism as part of it in terms of spiritual gifts. 00:31:31.039 --> 00:31:40.640 I think you then have to add that fifth piece that you know my colleague Larson likes to add about the importance of a work of the Holy Spirit being part of this. 00:31:40.960 --> 00:31:55.759 And I would argue, having written a book about the Holy Spirit for my dissertation, that if you're going to take pneumatology seriously, then something about pneumatology being in there would be nice because sometimes what happens obviously is the Christology swallows up the pneumatology. 00:31:56.079 --> 00:32:08.799 I think not only has Tim Larson, your colleague at Wheaton, sort of suggested that the Holy Spirit should be I think historically too, I think Thomas Kidd has kind of uh added the Holy Spirit in some way. 00:32:08.960 --> 00:32:14.000 Uh I I can't remember exactly where he does that, maybe in his book on what is an evangelical, right? 00:32:14.079 --> 00:32:16.160 He adds the Holy Spirit to the mix. 00:32:16.400 --> 00:32:16.720 Yeah. 00:32:16.960 --> 00:32:22.160 So again, we're three historians here discussing evangelicalism. 00:32:22.400 --> 00:32:32.160 So I'm assuming that you're still using the Bebington quadrilateral, maybe throwing in the Holy Spirit as the kind of operative definition of what or how you would define an evangelical. 00:32:32.319 --> 00:32:34.240 Is that fair to say before I move forward? 00:32:34.640 --> 00:32:40.000 Yes, although I think about what I would call the elevator speech version of what evangelical is. 00:32:40.079 --> 00:32:44.960 And so to me, it's a kind of Bible-centric ecumenism. 00:32:45.119 --> 00:33:01.759 Uh people who say they're committed to the Bible, coming from different denominational backgrounds, that this biblicism is central to who they are, and that commitment to me and my Bible, so to speak, which which entails the things about conversion, Christian centrism, and sharing faith. 00:33:02.160 --> 00:33:03.759 That's what makes them what they are, right? 00:33:03.839 --> 00:33:14.240 Or I was trying to say a conservative Protestant ecumenism is what I'd like to say in terms of like that's like a thr that's my sort of three-word definition of it that implies the Bebington quadrilateral. 00:33:14.400 --> 00:33:17.039 I definitely think it's useful, but obviously we can add more. 00:33:17.359 --> 00:33:37.279 I'm also hearing by embracing the Bebington quadrilateral, I'm also hearing a kind of theological definition of what an evangelical is, as opposed to say a political definition or some kind of other socio-cultural definition of what makes it evangelical that sometimes you hear historians and others making. 00:33:37.759 --> 00:33:39.119 Am I hearing you right on that? 00:33:39.440 --> 00:33:42.640 Well, yes, as a theologian and ethicist, I really can't help it. 00:33:42.799 --> 00:33:43.359 That's correct. 00:33:43.519 --> 00:33:54.240 And the other thing is that if the root word is evangelic, I mean it would not be the first word co-opted in world history where people used it for other ends and meant other things more than they meant the evangel itself. 00:33:54.319 --> 00:33:57.519 But if that's the root word of it, the gospel does mean something. 00:33:57.680 --> 00:34:03.359 And so to me, you cannot that's one of the reasons for me why people talk about I think it's useless, etc. 00:34:03.519 --> 00:34:05.759 It's like, well, last time I checked, the gospel's pretty powerful. 00:34:05.920 --> 00:34:13.199 I don't want to be giving that up to people that are uh doing their best to show that they actually are committed to other things than that gospel. 00:34:13.440 --> 00:34:15.679 Yeah, I remember John Perkins saying that when he was on campus once. 00:34:15.760 --> 00:34:17.920 He's like, why am I going to give this up to crazy people? 00:34:18.239 --> 00:34:19.840 One final question, Vince. 00:34:20.000 --> 00:34:24.719 You're a theologian, but you've also done some historical work on black evangelicalism. 00:34:24.880 --> 00:34:36.000 You have uh produced a documentary and association with Christianity today on, I guess it's fair to say post-World War II, kind of black evangelicalism, right? 00:34:37.039 --> 00:34:51.440 Um if you from your knowledge of black evangelicalism, and if you bring this kind of racial component into it, does that at all change how we should think about the Bebington quadrilateral in a way to define the movement? 00:34:51.679 --> 00:34:59.760 In other words, are your theological definition, does that kind of transcend not just race, but all kinds of other kind of categories? 00:34:59.920 --> 00:35:00.400 Yeah, right. 00:35:00.480 --> 00:35:03.199 What do we do about black evangelicals? 00:35:03.360 --> 00:35:10.239 I mean, are they are these

people who embrace the Bebington quadrilateral plus something else, or help us sort that out? 00:35:10.559 --> 00:35:12.159 You know what I would say, honestly? 00:35:12.400 --> 00:35:20.960 It's people who embrace the Bedmington quadrilateral but lived more into the aspirations to where that quadrilateral ought to take you in terms of its entailments. 00:35:21.119 --> 00:35:33.679 Because if you have this biblicism, this crucicentrism, uh, this conversionism, which means that a life that has changed, this is a life that has changed that ought to mean something about commitment to all of your neighbors because you are this changed person. 00:35:33.840 --> 00:35:47.039 If you will, it entails a broader ethic than a lot of mainstream, if you will, white evangelicals have maybe thought of when they're thinking about the movement because they've thought they're thinking, I believe, more about content and information. 00:35:47.199 --> 00:35:49.760 Hey, it's the Bible, it's what it says is true. 00:35:49.920 --> 00:36:02.480 We do want to talk about obeying it, but the bifurcation between theology and ethics, I think there's more, if you will, the luxury for that bifurcation when you kind of already belong to society. 00:36:02.559 --> 00:36:05.760 You've got all these things that make your life already kind of comfortable. 00:36:05.920 --> 00:36:10.960 Even to the extent that people are talking about the evangelicals thinking about themselves as a kind of remnant or whatever. 00:36:11.119 --> 00:36:22.079 It's like, well, people think about themselves as a remnant because there's a lot about being American that they assume and take for granted, and there's other things that they would like to assume or take for granted that they cannot anymore. 00:36:22.320 --> 00:36:28.480 It's a very different thing when, if you're an African American, survival requires you. 00:36:28.880 --> 00:36:34.880 Or a kind of mental gymnastics enables you to step away from it. 00:36:35.119 --> 00:36:42.400 But those people aside, survival requires you to say this cannot just be about talking about this faith. 00:36:42.639 --> 00:36:46.079 It has to very much be about the lived reality of that faith. 00:36:46.239 --> 00:37:05.920 If there's the lived reality of that faith, that's a faith that if you say you believe everything that this Bible says, then you believe in Revelation 5.9 when Jesus died for people from every tribe and tongue and nation to purchase a people from every tribe and tongue and nation, it probably means something about those people living together and figuring out how to do that living together. 00:37:06.159 --> 00:37:27.360 But also recognizing that that in the truthfulness of that Bible that if everyone's also working out their salvation with fear and trembling, you know, if they're being transformed by the renewing of their minds, if those things are happening, you know that you are in a process of moving towards being those people rather than saying, hey, you know, it's it's political to say that we're living towards being those people together. 00:37:27.599 --> 00:37:30.719 But let's be content with like being in our own domains. 00:37:30.800 --> 00:37:55.440 I don't think you can take the trajectory of scripture seriously if you're not going to talk about us living well together, which then it requires you to engage the kind of things that you have to engage if you're flourishing requires it, because you can't take for granted certain kinds of flourishing in a society that for most of its history in the United States, by law antagonized you if you're not white. 00:37:55.760 --> 00:38:15.599 And so I think black evangelicals would be calling the evangelical movement, this movement that moves out of fundamentalism but still predominantly these white institutions, is calling it to say, if you're really this, or even if we go back to Henry's uneasy conscience, I mean, because he mentions a great Carl F. 00:38:15.679 --> 00:38:15.760 H. 00:38:15.840 --> 00:38:16.079 Henry. 00:38:16.320 --> 00:38:16.639 Carl F. 00:38:16.719 --> 00:38:16.800 H. 00:38:16.880 --> 00:38:17.199 Henry. 00:38:17.280 --> 00:38:17.360 Yeah. 00:38:17.599 --> 00:38:29.760 If it was going to be persuasive, the witness is going to include actually putting into practice something that humans are, it's very hard for humans to do, which is to live with people who aren't like whoever us is. 00:38:30.000 --> 00:38:39.440 And but it requires you to have to pursue that if you're a minority and you're up against it and you're in a country that says, hey, we're this country where we should all be able to live together. 00:38:39.519 --> 00:38:46.880 And then you can't because the enculturation around the laws and the segregation, all those things, you know, that that hardwires things in society. 00:38:47.039 --> 00:38:57.760 To rewire all of that takes a lot of ethical practice that ought to move out of the entailments flowing from the confession about what's in this biblicism. 00:38:58.000 --> 00:39:03.519 It also, for the most part, at least a little bit helps you to think about this important question. 00:39:03.679 --> 00:39:06.320 It's one thing to say, I have the biblicism. 00:39:06.400 --> 00:39:17.440 It's another thing to say that while never asking what other commitments actually rival my commitment to the Bible, like perhaps a commitment to being a good American, a commitment to my culture. 00:39:17.599 --> 00:39:32.239 And if I'm never asking those questions amid my commitment to biblicism, then you know these things that people call control beliefs, they are also functioning as a kind of another king, if you will, that's saying, don't forget your loyalty to me. 00:39:32.400 --> 00:39:50.320 And if you're never asking that question, then what happens is you can say you're you're committed to the Bible all you want, and maybe you mean it, but you are not attending to the fact that there are other things that are kind of

unchecked running your life, and you're really asking the Bible to sponsor those things, if you're never asking it to do anything about those things. 00:39:50.480 --> 00:40:02.559 And so to me, I think that's one of the questions that when people are talking about the problems with the evangelical movement, in my view, if people say, We're the Bible people, people assume you really mean you want to live out the whole thing. 00:40:03.039 --> 00:40:09.119 When you don't do it, that's why the scandals get more attention, that's why the devastations are greater. 00:40:09.280 --> 00:40:12.239 And then that's why people also say, you know what it was really about? 00:40:12.400 --> 00:40:13.599 It was about power. 00:40:13.840 --> 00:40:16.559 It was about money, it was about not wanting to change. 00:40:16.800 --> 00:40:18.159 But why would those things happen? 00:40:18.320 --> 00:40:20.719 Because there are these controlled beliefs that are unchecked. 00:40:20.880 --> 00:40:25.599 Or people, you know, behind the scenes, they admit it, but they're but they still want to say they're the Bible people. 00:40:26.239 --> 00:40:38.800 And I think that's that's just an important thing with that that I've had to really think about a lot, probably in the last decade, I think, because I'm the kind of person who used to say the one thing you can do with an evangelical is put a Bible in front of their face all the time. 00:40:38.960 --> 00:40:41.519 Because it's like you said you believe all of this. 00:40:41.760 --> 00:40:43.119 So do you really believe all this? 00:40:43.199 --> 00:40:49.840 And I think you can still do that, but it's a c it's occurred to me that I have to add the question, what else do you really believe? 00:40:50.480 --> 00:40:52.480 What else are your ultimate commitments? 00:40:52.639 --> 00:41:09.599 And if you're willing to ask that question, then I think that it can enable evangelicals to move further into what are, I think, the aspirations or the trajectory to which I think the evangelical movement can go, where evangelicals really are good news people. 00:41:09.920 --> 00:41:10.800 Thanks, Vince. 00:41:10.880 --> 00:41:12.480 This has been incredibly helpful. 00:41:12.559 --> 00:41:18.800 Um, and I think it's gonna make for some good conversation for us as we move forward with future episodes of this podcast. 00:41:18.960 --> 00:41:20.000 Thanks for taking some time. 00:41:20.079 --> 00:41:20.960 Thanks for coming on. 00:41:21.119 --> 00:41:22.000 I'm glad to do it. 00:41:22.079 --> 00:41:23.199 Thank you very much. 00:41:24.800 --> 00:41:30.480 Thanks for listening to this special bonus episode of American Evangelicals, a history podcast. 00:41:30.719 --> 00:41:35.360 We hope you enjoyed hearing these complete conversations with Corey Marsh and Vincent Bakote. 00:41:35.679 --> 00:41:40.960 One of the goals of this podcast has always been to introduce listeners to a variety of thoughtful voices. 00:41:41.039 --> 00:41:43.440 And these interviews were a great example of that. 00:41:43.599 --> 00:41:53.199 While the two guests approach evangelicalism from different perspectives, both challenged us to think more clearly about the relationship between theology, history, and identity. 00:41:53.440 --> 00:42:02.239 If you haven't already, be sure to listen to episode four, where excerpts from these interviews are woven into our broader conversation about defining evangelicalism. 00:42:02.480 --> 00:42:09.519 Hearing the interviews alongside the episode offers a fuller picture of the questions we were wrestling with as we put the series together. 00:42:09.760 --> 00:42:21.119 As always, thank you for listening, for sharing the podcast with others, and for joining us as we explore the rich, complex, and often contested history of American evangelicalism.