It may now seem surprising to many United Methodists, and even more Baptists, that for most of our histories in the United States, all Methodists and Baptists were regularly designated as evangelical denominations.
The most important reason is that both traditions had established themselves as evangelical movements, and marginal ones at that, in their earliest days. In addition, in the early 20th century, as scholar David R. Bains notes, “all Methodists and Baptists, most Presbyterians, and many Episcopalians and Congregationalists would have once been placed firmly within the bounds of evangelical Protestantism.”
The Evangelical-Mainline categories came later, following the waning of anti-Catholic prejudice among Protestants, the fundamentalist-modernist controversies and the remaking of what it meant to be an evangelical.
President John F. Kennedy (in rocking chair) meets with E.S.James, editor of the Baptist Standard, in the Oval Office, in February 1963.
Strident anti-Catholic bias permeated Protestantism in the United States until the middle of the 20th century, even among some of the otherwise progressive leaders of many denominations and institutions. The election of John F. Kennedy as president in 1960 probably did the most to temper these prejudices.
Therefore, for many years it was common for Protestant churches as a whole to be referred to as “evangelical churches” as a way to contrast with Roman Catholics without saying “non-Catholic churches.”
But it was the fundamentalist-modernist controversies and the remaking of what it meant to be an evangelical that most led to changes in the self-understandings of Methodists and Baptists in terms of their evangelical heritage and identity, as well as their public perception.
Redefining ‘evangelical’
The fundamentalist-modernist battle among many Protestants in the early 20th century made theological differences within denominations more visible and contentious. These struggles were the impetus for thinking more specifically about how denominations are designated theologically.
One result of the fundamentalist dispute was the need for evangelicals to separate themselves from the fundamentalist images still in the popular mind from the Scopes trial and other modernist-fundamentalist clashes a hundred years ago. At the same time, evangelicals needed to distinguish themselves from those who were more receptive to ideas many evangelicals found questionable — such as the critical study of the Bible that takes account of the historical and cultural context in which the writing occurred.
Thus the designation of “evangelical” came to mean something very different with a redefinition of the evangelical movement. In the 1940s, there was what ethicist David Gushee describes as a “rebranding effort” around a new evangelicalism in which “evangelical came to mean that type of Protestant Christian who is neither fundamentalist nor liberal/mainline.” By claiming “evangelical” for their group, they sought to establish themselves as the standard for a true Christian “as opposed to hard-bitten fundamentalist or liberal compromiser.”
The establishment of institutions such as the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, Fuller Seminary in 1947, and Christianity Today in 1956 gave stature and credibility to this new version of evangelicalism.
“It was essential to find dividing lines between those they considered to be on their right and left.”
For the new evangelicals to define themselves as a distinct category, it was essential to find dividing lines between those they considered to be on their right and left. To distinguish themselves from more progressive Protestants, they included theological dividing lines as well as formal and informal nontheological dividing lines. For most, although not all, the place of women in the church was a dividing line, especially the role of women as clergy.
Today the “line in the sand” for most evangelicals is the recognition of gay people. “Cross it,” as Gushee did, “and prepare to experience the ashy chill of evangelical nuclear winter.”
Today, ‘evangelical’ conveys politics, not theology
There is no reason for United Methodists and Baptists who do not adhere to the rigid litmus tests of evangelical dogma not to consider themselves evangelical. It is only the social construction of what was rebranded as evangelical that served to push aside not only Mainline denominations such as many Methodists and Baptists, but also Black, progressive, feminist and gay evangelicals, as Isaac B. Sharp so clearly documents in The Other Evangelicals.
The reality is that today’s evangelicals bear little resemblance to 19th and early-20th century evangelicals in their social attitudes and aspirations. It was the evangelical tradition that exemplified the progressive goals of abolition, women’s suffrage, prison reform, public education and concern for the poor. Even prohibition was understood among evangelicals as a progressive cause at the time as part of an overall concern for alcohol’s impact on families, poverty and crime.
The rebranding has led today’s self-anointed evangelicals, however, to avoid the hard questions about economic fairness championed by evangelicals of old.
“Today’s evangelicals bear little resemblance to 19th and early-20th century evangelicals in their social attitudes and aspirations.”
The “Mainline” designation used for some other established denominations served the needs of evangelicals not only in communicating that they were not fundamentalists but also that they had self-defined themselves well enough to leave out the more progressive evangelical traditions. The Mainline designation also worked for those excluded from the evangelical definition because “Mainline” named the privileged status and influence these denominations occupied in the United States for a long time.
The reality, however, was that the Mainline always included an evangelical tradition with vast numbers of members and clergy who easily identified with most, and in many cases all, the theological affirmations of evangelicals.
So Methodists came to be identified as Mainline and Baptists as evangelical.
But these designations failed to capture the far more complicated and diverse theological and social heritage on which many Methodist and Baptist movements were based. Notice that the Southern Baptist Convention did not join the National Association of Evangelicals when it was founded in the 1940s and never has been a member.
Foy Valentine
In 1976, Southern Baptist leader Foy Valentine put it this way: We “are not evangelicals. That’s a Yankee word.” He maintained Southern Baptists’ identity was first and foremost “Baptist.” Being Baptist meant sharing evangelical beliefs, but it involved much more having to do with relations within their tradition and within the nation.
Their set of beliefs was part of a much more intricate set of values and principles that another name did not capture sufficiently. It was the more informal ethos of the SBC of that time that permitted more tolerance for differences while everyone united around evangelism and missions. Sadly, such is no longer the case after the “conservative resurgence” (as the winners named it) beginning in 1979 replaced this historic Baptist ethos with one more rigidly doctrinaire and exclusionary.
The evangelical label no longer works
While United Methodism and many manifestations of more progressive Baptist life represent legitimate expressions of the historic evangelical Christian witness, there is no reason to define ourselves as “evangelicals” in the current era. Both traditions at their best have represented an evangelical witness more about an evangelical spirit than a theological litmus test.
The evangelical label today in the United States is especially problematic as many white evangelicals uphold an unquestioning narrow political agenda bearing little resemblance to the priorities of Jesus toward the poor and strangers and often are insensitive or adversarial on matters of race.
The “rebranding” of the neo-evangelicals in the last century linked itself with a conservative political agenda from the beginning. The general public did not make the connection between white evangelicals and such a narrow political agenda for many years, since activism was not encouraged except on a few selected issues such as liquor and pornography. All that changed in the 1970s with the emergence of the Religious Right as a political force.
As the respected historian Randall Balmer documented, the rise of this movement had its roots in race (not abortion) and politics. Indeed, it was Republican political activist Paul Weyrich who coined the term “Moral Majority,” used by the group Jerry Falwell led.
Today’s evangelicals have taken a word rich in meaning and history and turned it into associations that appear to lead fewer and fewer people to want to associate with evangelicals. The tragic downside of such presumptuousness is that the political evangelicals of today may discredit the entire Christian enterprise as the general public is less informed about or engaged with the true differences among expressions of Christianity in the nation.
United Methodists as well as many Baptists do not fit today’s understanding of either “evangelical” or “Mainline.” We are uncomfortable with the legalism, dogmatism and narrow political captivity of those claiming the evangelical label. Likewise, while feeling kinship with other denominations, our theology and practice does not easily fit external designations, especially if they carry unhelpful connotations. United Methodists and Baptists, of all people, should know to avoid any sense of political captivity by an ideology and anything that connotes rank or status, given our family histories.
Lovett H. Weems Jr.
Lovett H. Weems Jr. is distinguished professor of church leadership emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., and author, most recently, of An Aura of Hope: United Methodism’s Next Chapter in the United States. His Substack newsletter is United Methodist Focus.