Disintegration not Transformation
A Critique of Jim Hinch’s article “Evangelicals Are Losing the Battle for the Bible. And They’re Just Fine with That.” (7 min)
There is a recurring problem we find in this article that takes us to an issue I have described before, that of terminology. What we see here is a case study for how false narratives and manipulation are enabled by both poor language and misleading self-identification. Here it’s the word “evangelical” that is key to a distorted and manipulative depiction of Christianity. The narrative being spun here has the purpose of legitimizing heresy, syncretism, and the general watering down of Christianity.
A huge incentive exists to adulterate terms like evangelical or Christian so that counterfeits and pretenders can claim the social clout and desired status of “Christian.” In this case, the self-identification that comes with “evangelical” is corrupted by compromise or syncretism. Throughout Hinch’s article he describes a supposed new wave of evangelicals who no longer believe in the same things as previous generations of evangelicals. The problem is that his usage of “evangelical” is both empty and outright manipulative.
The fact is that the term evangelical doesn’t mean a lot. Though there is a general idea of what it refers to now, it was never defined very well to begin with. The problem is even worse when you consider just how disingenuously it gets used in articles like this. Hinch starts his article with an anecdote about a supposed “evangelical Christian” named A.J. Zimmermann who attended Azusa Pacific University before directing a training program for soon-to-be pastors at the Pentecostal seminary Life Pacific University. According to the article “Since graduating from high school, Zimmermann has undergone a revolution in his thinking about evangelicals’ foundational text, the Bible, to the extent that he no longer regards the Bible as inerrant, dictated by God, historically accurate in all of its claims or even internally consistent with itself.”
The article continues to describe both Zimmerman and other supposed evangelicals who are “in the midst of a wholesale generational, cultural, and doctrinal transformation.” This “transformation” involves “revis[ing] their interpretation of key biblical passages (especially those addressing sexual or social justice themes), downgrad[ing] parts of Scripture as historical anachronisms, and reject[ing] the political call to arms still sounded by a dwindling generation of conservative elders.” Of course, what is being described isn’t a transformation of evangelicalism at all. In fact, describing it as such is disingenuous. What is happening is widespread apostasy through compromise and eventual syncretism. If this is evangelicalism, then it doesn’t mean anything at all. What exactly does the author think an evangelical actually is?
This is where we start to see just how manipulative it is to describe things this way. The article doesn’t bother to explain or define evangelical at all. We get a peek at the worthlessness of this designation by going a little deeper. Later in the article, the author talks about Pew Research data and pulls from the 2015 Religious Landscape Study. While describing demographic changes, he claims that “If current trends continue, evangelicals will be outnumbered by non-religious Americans in just a few years.” We already know this “non-religious” label is outright false (see here). However, this is even worse when you understand just how the Pew Research study categorizes evangelical. Notably, the only thing that evangelical means is that Pew either put them in a list of denominations (based on unclear and clearly circular reasoning if you look at Evangelical Beliefs and Practices) or mere self-identification (see Appendix B). None of which are truly reliable.
Let’s look at a couple of examples of how bad this is. Note in the list of denominations the fact that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is part of the “Mainline Protestant Tradition” as opposed to evangelical. The United Methodist Church (UMC) is part of the mainline tradition, yet they would generally consider themselves to be evangelical (see here for this). Both the ELCA and the UMC would self-identify as evangelical, and for some reason they aren’t included. So again, what exactly does evangelical mean here? If all it takes to be classified as “evangelical” is merely claiming to be “born again” or evangelical, then why isn’t this applied consistently? This is outright incoherent and contradictory.
Although evangelical clearly means nothing at all in this article, and even in sources cited like Pew Research, why exactly are we supposed to believe the thesis? If the only basis for evangelical is the fact that people self-identify as such, then it doesn’t mean anything. Yet we are supposed to think it does and that “evangelicalism” (or Christianity at large) is changing because supposed “evangelicals” no longer trust the Bible. We don’t have any reason to trust this label at all. It’s so bad that it would be more accurate to describe the article as deceitful propaganda. If the author actually believes what they are saying, they are too incompetent to be taken seriously. I would argue that it’s more likely this article is in fact deliberate manipulation. A purposeful attempt to legitimize syncretism with Distrephism (basically the “social justice” religion; described further here).
Let’s take a very basic definition of evangelicalism that you can find on Wikipedia as described by Bebbington. He explains that evangelicalism contains four traits: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. In short, conversionism is the emphasis on being “born again” or some kind of conversion experience. Biblicism is the belief in Scripture as authoritative, inspired, and infallible. Crucicentrism is the belief in the centrality of Christ and his substitutionary atonement. Activism refers to an emphasis on evangelism and the active expression of faith in the social sphere. There are nuances to this, and I definitely have my issues with this definition (what valid form of Christianity does not contain these traits?) but it at least has a degree of substance to it. It’s way too broad, but at least it gives us general guidance on the rough meaning of evangelicalism.
However, even if we use this basic definition (coming from Wikipedia, no less) we can see just how disingenuous Hinch’s usage of the term is. He constantly repeats this claim that “the days when evangelicals defined themselves by their uncompromising style of biblical intrepretation are over” in the most credulous way. He talks about Ken Wilson’s book A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor’s Path to Embracing People Who are Gay, Lesbian and Transgender into the Company of Jesus and describes it as such: “In 216 densely argued pages, Wilson tells how what began as a ‘fleeting unease’ grew into a wholesale reevaluation not only of what the Bible says about sexuality, but of basic assumptions about biblical truth long considered sacrosanct within evangelicalism.” How exactly is Wilson an evangelical? This isn’t a change in evangelicalism, even using poor and insufficient definitions; it’s an outright abandonment of evangelicalism (and Christianity) for social acceptance and syncretism.
There isn’t a good reason to call these people evangelicals except to spin a misleading narrative. Hinch’s article represents a trend within media to water down and corrupt terminology to make room for compromise or full-blown abandonment of the Christian faith. All while pretending these people are still Christian in any meaningful sense! This is only being done so that they can encourage others to apostatize and throw away what Scripture clearly teaches. They are useful idiots that enable further compromise within churches. Watering down the very meaning of evangelical (and Christian!) until it means nothing at all. If somebody like mega-church pastor Adam Hamilton who was “named a Distinguished Evangelist by the United Methodist Church” can be called an evangelical despite “dismiss[ing]...the six-day creation of the world, subordination of women, opposition to homosexuality” and even outright rejecting the belief in “biblical inerrancy or scientific accuracy [of Scripture]” then evangelical means absolutely nothing. It is a shield for a neo-pagan and humanist religion that has supplanted Christianity. This makes him a heretic at best and a false teacher at worst. His position as a pastor makes it much more likely to be the latter.
Articles like Hinch’s need to be seen as a warning of the dangers of compromise and the deceptive usage of terminology. The labels that are used are important to examine skeptically. We need to expose the dishonesty and manipulative framing behind such claims. Accepting people’s self-identification at face value is not the correct approach. We cannot trust the reasoning behind their stated religious affiliation without verification.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1 CSB)
We especially cannot afford to be lax in guarding against compromise and false teachings. The title of the article contains an unfortunate truth: evangelicals are losing the battle for the Bible. Not because they are fine with it, though. But because they have grown complacent and tolerant of compromise. Far too willing to appease the world rather than to stand on Scripture. We have allowed unbelievers and frauds to speak for us and claim titles they do not deserve. The people described in this article aren’t “evangelicals.” They are unbelievers who simply cling to a hollowed-out and superficial pseudo-Christianity. They are not the future of the Church, but those who have abandoned it. We cannot do the same, and we dare not follow in their footsteps.
Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it. (Matthew 7:13 CSB)