The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

by Carl R. Trueman

What is an evangelical . . . and has he lost his mind? Carl Trueman wrestles with those two provocative questions and concludes that modern evangelicals emphasize experience and activism at the expense of theology. Their minds go fuzzy as they downplay doctrine. The result is “a world in which everyone from Joel Osteen to Brian McLaren to John MacArthur may be called an evangelical. Fifteen years ago, in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, historian Mark Noll warned that evangelical Christians had abandoned the intellectual aspects of their faith. Christians were neither prepared nor inclined to enter into intellectual debates, and had become culturally marginalized. Trueman argues that today “religious beliefs are more scandalous than they have been for many years”—but for different reasons than Noll foresaw. In fact, the real problem now is exactly the opposite of what Noll observed; evangelicals don’t lack a mind, but rather an agreed upon evangel. Although known as gospel people, evangelicals no longer share any consensus on the gospel’s meaning. Provocative and persuasive, Trueman’s indictment of evangelicalism also suggests a better way forward for those theologically conservative Protestants famously known as evangelicals.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christian, Christianity, Cultural, Nonfiction, Philosophy

48 pages, Kindle Edition

First published December 17, 2010

About the author

Carl R. Trueman (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is the Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary and pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Ambler, Pennsylvania. He was editor of Themelios for nine years, has authored or edited more than a dozen books, and has contributed to multiple publications including the Dictionary of Historical Theology and The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology.

Reviews

[Alex Strasser · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this book, Trueman replies to Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by suggesting a different problem where the solution is evangelical organizations offering more precise doctrinal statements and greater willingness to exclude those with differing commitments. Ultimately, I think evangelicals already have the “excluding others” part very down pat, so I don’t find Trueman’s suggestions particularly helpful.

Noll originally suggested that the scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no mind (lack of intellectual and cultural engagement), while Trueman thinks the scandal of the evangelical mind is instead that there is no “evangelical,” i.e., there is no well-agreed upon thing that constitutes an evangelical, no common identity, no shared traits among what (currently) counts as evangelical.

Trueman first adds to Noll’s two evangelical identifiers that put evangelicals at the fringe of society. To Noll’s young earth creationism and dispensationalism, Trueman adds “inerrancy, opposition to women’s ordination and homosexuality and abortion, religious exclusivism, and rejection of the broad claims of evolutionary science” as common evangelical beliefs that puts one at the fringe of ‘thoughtful, educated culture.’

However, it is not these beliefs that considered the fundamental commitments of evangelicals. A definition (by David Bebbington) that Trueman critiques is that an evangelical holds to “(1) biblicism (a high regard for the Bible as the primary source of spiritual truth), (2) crucicentrism (a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross), (3) conversionism (a belief in the necessity of spiritual conversion), and (4) activism (the priority of publicly proclaiming and living out the gospel).” I would say this is a perfectly good definition of evangelical.

Trueman has three problems with it, which is “the lack of any institutional or ecclesiastical dimension, the primacy of experience, and the nearly complete absence of doctrinal criteria.” He thinks this leads to a kind of subjective mysticism, and instead thorough doctrinal criteria should be implemented. He gives doctrinal statement examples of evangelical organizations like Evangelical Theological Society or the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals on how they don’t contain much doctrinal content. He thinks is bad and surprising because you can end up with some evangelicals being more closely aligned with e.g., Catholics than e.g., open theists (which he apparently wants to exclude from evangelicalism since he criticizes organizations for “a collective unwillingness to take decisive, exclusionary action over clear digressions from historic orthodoxy [i.e., open theism]”).

I must confess that I don’t find that bad or surprising. It just is the case that evangelicals encompass a wide variety of people. As you expand the number of people you want to include the fundamental commitments of, you must zoom out and start taking away commitments that are important but not essential to the identity of that group. You don’t need to fill in broad evangelical doctrinal statements with a thoroughbred Calvinism like you would a Reformed church because, obviously, there are evangelical Arminians. That’s just how evangelicalism works.

Trueman spends a lot more time diagnosing the problem (incorrectly, I think) than proposing a worked out solution. His diagnosis is that evangelicals have been influenced by culture so they are uncomfortable with 1) absolute truth claims and 2) exclusion of other groups. He says, “the cultural distaste for boundaries is also connected to the cultural distaste for truth claims.” Neither of these appear to be remotely the case for the primary reasoning behind evangelicals not filling in doctrinal statements to be like that of a specific church. It is pretty easy to be fine with absolute truth and willingness to exclude other groups and yet say, “Actually, this group contains more than you [Trueman] think, but it is still a minority of people.”

Further, evangelicals have frequently precluded others not only on their doctrinal commitments, but on what person X *thinks* person Y’s views imply though Y explicitly denies it (e.g., Geisler vs. Licona on Matthew 27:52-53). There are numerous examples of inerrancy vs infallibility vs other or other evangelical issues that have resulted in people being kicked out of their seminary as a result; evangelicals are not scared of exclusion, even when that person has an explicit commitment to the primacy of Scripture. There is no way evangelicals need to be further encouraged to draw lines between evangelicals on these issues.

Trueman’s solution is “more precisely defined doctrinal statements, particularly statements that are close to, or identical with, historic creeds and confessions.” If this is implemented such that to be evangelical is identical with historic Christianity, then congratulations, evangelicalism no longer exists in any distinguishable capacity whatsoever. There would be nothing that differentiates evangelical from any other subgroup of Christianity, so the confusion that Trueman described at a conference would be amplified greatly. Evangelical is obviously supposed to denote a specific subset of Christianity, probably along the lines of Bebbington’s definition, rather than just say that to be evangelical is to be a historic Christian, and to be a historic Christian is to be an evangelical.

Yet, it does not seem like he actually only wants the statements to be close to historic creeds and confessions. Trueman spends a noticeable amount of time on the topic of homosexuality, opposing even inviting speakers with differing views to speak at evangelical conferences. So, he apparently wants even the most controversial issues, that are nowhere close to essential or fundamental Christian doctrine, and evangelicals also widely disagree on this, in these doctrinal statements as well. Thus, Trueman does not even appear consistent in his proposal.

My final point is that his critique really only amounts to a very limited concern: which is the doctrinal statements of broad evangelical organizations, not even specific churches. Trueman points out that if something is not part a doctrinal statement, people are not likely to care. However, if it is only broad evangelical organizations in the sights here, and not churches, then this worry appears to dissolve itself away. People will look more to the doctrinal statements of their own churches, not the Evangelical Theological Society (which is essentially for professional theologians), for their doctrine. If theologians don’t care about doctrine, that’s a different problem all together that Trueman’s critique doesn’t even begin to touch.

All in all, I don’t think this is a helpful book, I don’t think it is well-argued, and I don’t think his solution is reasonable. Evangelicals do not need more encouragement to exclude people, and Trueman should recognize and accept the extant intra-evangelical disagreement about issues. Recognizing disagreeing evangelical brothers and sisters does not imply the demise of absolute truth or the importance of doctrine.

[Jeremy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting to read 10 years later (published in 2011). Finding a takeaway was difficult. We need more sharp sectarian differences? He seems to suggest that on p. 40. Yes, the cultural shifts have been swift and alarming, but there are encouraging forms of resistance too, and not only from Christians. Natural law tends to problematize radical behavior. Insanity can't last forever, although new forms are always popping up.

Beckwith's blurb mentions MacIntyre's Benedict Option (Dreher's book didn't come out until 2017).

Introduction
Noll's Scandal lists 6-day YEC as an example of poor thinking.
11: Trueman lists beliefs that marginalize Christians (e.g., dispensationalism; 6-day YEC; biblical inerrancy; opposing women's ordination, homosexuality, abortion; religious exlusivism; rejection of broad evolutionary science).
12: no clear evangelical identity

Chapter 1: Losing Our Religion
14: Bebbington's quadrilateral
Difficulty in defining evangelicalism (can't do it doctrinally)

Chapter 2: Exclusion and the Evangelical Mind
Tendency to punch hard right [Trump]
Issues of homosexuality, inerrancy, historical Adam
In the mid-1990s, Trueman thought that homosexuality was so unnatural that it would never become mainstream.

Chapter 3: The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
"It is not that there is no mind, but rather that there is no evangelical."
Christendom is over.
Minimalistic doctrinal statements (in institutions) leads to decline.
Christian scholars seems less educated on doctrine.

[Scott Meadows · Rating 5 out of 5]

Immensely prophetic for 2010. From an explanation of Trueman's dislike of ETS, the looseness of the term "Evangelical" and where he sees the future of Christianity leading, a reader familiar with Carl's newer writings can see seeds of what was to come.

"Abandoning the myth of the evangelical movement can only help us, as it will free us to be who we truly are and to speak the gospel in all of its richness as we understand it. This is what our day and generation needs.

The real scandal of the evangelical mind currently is not that it lacks a mind, but that it lacks any agreed-upon evangel."

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written in 2011, this booklet was a sort of rejoinder to a book from about 15 years earlier by Mark Noll that was called "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind."
To put it in really broad terms, Noll argued that evangelicals had lost their minds. No, Carl Trueman responds, evangelicals have lost their doctrine. The problem, Noll says, is that evangelicals inhabit the marketplace of ideas with an empty storefront. The problem, Trueman says, is that evangelicals have no idea what they believe. Or they do, but they've watered down their beliefs so much to accommodate the culture that these beliefs no longer have any meaning.
I wonder if they might both be overstating their cases a bit.
But I also wonder if the term "evangelical" does more harm than good. It's a term that has acquired a lot of baggage. Using it to describe yourself is a good way to stop a conversation before it starts. Say the same things without the label, and the other person might find he actually agrees with some of what you say, or at least is willing to give you a hearing.
Trueman, who teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania but was educated at Cambridge and Aberdeen, writes well for an academic. Being a tea snob myself, I love this snarky observation:
"... words do not always refer to something that exists. 'Santa Claus,' 'unicorns,' 'Batman' and 'drinkable American tea' are all words or phrases that, despite their seeming reality, have no true reference point."
An aside here, in praise of the interlibrary loan. The library I patronize is in Apex, North Carolina, and is part of the Wake County Public Library system. Said library system did not have this booklet. Never mind: Interlibrary loan came to the rescue. Within a couple of weeks it was in my hands, plucked from the shelves of the Mahoney Library, College of Saint Elizabeth, Morristown, NJ.
It's a beautiful thing.

[Lady Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Trueman addresses the fallacy and weakness of the "Evangelical" identifier for a movement whose core doctrines either don't exist or are intentionally vague. With unity based on a presumed, subjective experience, the rejection or underdevelopment of a doctrinal core has created a boundary-less amalgam of odd bedfellows that have no authority over theological and moral issues.

"If the church as a whole is losing its ability to be "salt and light" in this culture, it is not because its members have no opinion of the films of Bernardo Bertolucci, no appreciation for the poetry of Emily Dickenson, and no regular slot on The Charlie Rose Show. More likely, it is because they do not have a solid grasp of the basic elements of the faith, as taught in Scripture and affirmed by the confessions and catechisms of the church." (p. 35-36)

I found Dr. Trueman's provocative and clearly written essays to articulately capture the root cause of the current tension within evangelicalism over wildly popular, published teachings that reject core orthodoxy and moral values. This fundamentally anti-intellectual movement is now imploding due to its own structural weaknesses. Encouragement can be found in that many sincere Christians are beginning to understand that doctrine matters. I appreciated Dr. Trueman's sharp insight, well-constructed arguments and gifted writing.

[Alvin Fleurant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prophetic

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This booklet, for in its brevity it is nothing more, is well worth the read. Trueman provides a challenging, albeit brief, exposé on the the lack of definition in our current use of evangelical. It has become an umbrella for too wide a range of beliefs whose followers have little real knowledge or sense of their doctrinal foundation. Trueman critiques Noll's book challenging that understanding what we believe is more important then cultural engagement. Worth the read.

[Phil Cotnoir · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed this booklet. Well written and no surprise. Contra Noll, he posits the lack of an "Evangelical" rather than the lack of a mind. Having not read Noll's book (which Trueman does not seem to like very much), it's hard to say how well this one responds to it.

[Zak Schmoll · Rating 5 out of 5]

Trueman has written this series of three essays where he argues that the real scandal of the evangelical mind is not in the content of traditionally held evangelical beliefs but rather in the fact that the term evangelical is used so loosely. Because of its lack of definition, evangelicals will continue to accept more and more, bend more and more, and ultimately drift away from the historical Christian faith. One of the most interesting examples Trueman mentions is when he was in a discussion group with an open theist and a five point Calvinist. However, they were separated off from the Catholic and Orthodox academics who had their own groups. He thought it was funny because the evangelical group was just as diverse as the groups they were separated from. The term evangelical was so broad that it really failed to say anything about the content of their beliefs.

Therefore, this short work is a call to embrace denominational distinctives. He is not arguing that membership in his denomination is the only way to heaven. Rather, he argues that having convictions about things like baptism are important for all Christians. We may disagree and still be saved, but we at least have to care about these important issues rather than pretending that we have some kind of amorphous one-size-fits-all evangelical label that doesn't really mean anything.

Evangelicals have to believe something if they are going to remain strong in the current cultural moment. The term evangelical, even though it has some historical significance because of people like Bebbington, has worn out its welcome for Trueman.

[Ian Major · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book this was written to answer saw Dispensationalism and Young Earth Creationism as characteristics of Evangelicalism's intellectual malaise.

But the real scandal of the Evangelical mind lies in the apostasy of that movement, it being stripped of any doctrinal fidelity to the Scriptures, so that 'Evangelical' has come to embrace all sorts of perverse teachings and practice. The author sets it out in clear intellectual argument.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

“During a time when you cannot have your cake of social credibility and eat it too, where do evangelical institutions and organizations place themselves on issues like homosexuality and the historical Adam?”

Truman argues for the importance of “doctrinal distinctiveness.” And rightly and succinctly points out that “evangelical” as a label has no doctrinal identity—and that’s problematic.

[Kris Lundgaard · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have no doubt that he's correct. And that's unsettling.

[K.C. Ellson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Trueman puts forth an interesting and fairly convincing thesis that the real scandal of the Evangelical mind is that Evangelism as a whole is a generally unhelpful and undefined concept. While I'm not sure I would go as far as him, I do agree now with his diagnosis. I do wish that when he referenced vaugly different people who proved his point that he would give specific examples. For example, who are the authors that deny inerrancy and which "Evangelical" publishing house are publishing them. I understand why he didn't name people and organizations, but it would have been helpful.

[John Martindale · Rating 1 out of 5]

For Noll, the scandal is that evangelicals have no mind
For Carl, the scandal is that there is no agreed-upon evangelical to have a mind.
For me, the real scandal is that some Evangelicals thought sola scriptura could create something as clearly defined and unified as Catholicism.
And the second scandal is that if we gained a clearly defined Evangelical (as Carl would have it), it definitely would require the closing of that mind.

I personally think the term Evangelical works well enough. Justice Potter Stewart stated concerning pornography, “I know it when I see it,” and so it is with evangelicalism. I grew up in the evangelical subculture and gradually learned the vast spectrum of doctrines, but it was all within the boundaries of biblicism.

Carl appears to be a hardline, fundamentalist, and doctrinaire Calvinist who is glad to deem a Christian a heretic who veers from the Westminster Confession of faith. I guess, within his mind, for the word “evangelical” to have any meaning, it would need to be staunchly reformed, and while those who verge from his dogma won’t be burned like in Calvin’s Geneva, they’ll get a “Farewell” from John Piper and will be banished, shunned, and othered by all “true” evangelicals.
In my evangelical days, I see I was an inerrantist who was working from a sola scriptura mindset. Interestingly, I was overwhelmed by the biblical case for Open Theism and Annihilationism, and eventually, I found Penal Substitution to have no biblical support at all. I was so bound by my understanding of the absolute authority of scripture that I felt obligated to affirm what I thought was “Biblical” no matter where it led! For Calvinist heresy hunters (like Carl), I should be deemed a heretic because I did not align with his own biased interpretation of a few passages of scripture. Fortunately, I learned the Evangelical tent was large enough to include people like me, as well as the fundamentalists who thought we were going to hell for doctrinal thought crimes.
I now consider myself a post-evangelical, and I think a fundamental reason that I can no longer consider myself an evangelical is how biblicism increasingly became impossible and absurd. Interestingly, I am no longer opinionated on Open Theism, because I am no longer bound to affirm what I think scripture seems to proclaim about God. I see now, that even if I wasn’t convinced that there is absolutely no strong biblical support at all for the view that Hell is eternal conscious torment, I would reject this doctrine as morally repugnant and unspeakably wicked and deplorable, and even if I thought Penal substitution was taught in scripture, I would condemn the notion as incoherent, unjust and patently absurd. As an evangelical, I had to be an apologist—as a post-evangelical, I am free to follow truth wherever it seems to lead. I am no longer a party man; I am no longer ideological. If something is untrue, immoral, and evil, and is proclaimed in the bible, I can simply condemn it. Previously, as an Evangelical, I had to defend it or spin it.

On Evangelicalism with unified doctrinal claims and defined boundaries.

Carl seems to have Catholic envy. After the Reformation, evangelicals (captured by a delusion) seemed to hope that something as doctrinally unified and defined would arise, though purely rooted in Scripture. They hoped that the Bible in the hands and the language of the people would lead multitudes to the conclusions of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin! But it took no time at all for those who were persecuted by the Catholics to persecute other Christians, since simply reading scripture obviously fails to lead to Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin's often repugnant and questionable conclusions. Most Christians, rather than facing persecution, turned off their brains and just agreed with the great reformers, and affirmed what they (the new protestant popes) declared was true. No questioning or reasoning allowed. Salvation required conformity with the magisterial reformation powerhouses, while pretending it was all sola scriptura.
The Catholics don’t pretend to base everything on the bible, but tradition and the authority of the pope are also mixed in, and they, due to the accidents of history, maintained hegemony for an extended period in the West. A lot of these factors are likely unreproducible today.
Due to the nature of the Bible (diverse, ancient, and ambiguous), it cannot and will not result in uniformity on its own. It can’t. So, if we decide to make the bible central and foundational, there will be a diversity of interpretations. Since a central element of evangelicalism is biblicism, Carl is asking for the impossible. Outside of someone like Carl, who holds the Westminster confession, becoming a dictator in America and strictly requiring confession or execution, and condemning all brands of Evangelicalism, he will never see what he wants. So yes, to the bunker with Carl—thankfully, he and his elk will only be able to form one little cult amongst the multitudes of others.
Again, all uniformity on doctrine is purely due to authority, laziness of thought, the exercise of power, cultural pressures, and the development of tradition and norms. So instead of a single Catholic tradition, we now have tens of thousands of denominations, all thinking they alone are interpreting the bible correctly.

Carl wants doctrinal purity according to the Calvinist model. I guess he would want evangelicalism to be strictly reformed, with strong gatekeepers, to condemn and silence and condemn heretics. He mentioned the word “cult,” and in our pluralistic world, that is what he needs. Christians had better not think, and they had better not do much reading. They should only read, listen, and see things that he approves. They must adopt an all-or-nothing, black-and-white mindset that sees anyone else who is not a hardline Calvinist as purely evil and of the devil. They'd better become increasingly isolated and insolated and have a firm and clear identity.

[Chris Talbot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrific, brief book, on the problem with the "evangelical" mind. In part, a response to Mark Noll's book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind". As Noll commented that the scandal was that there was no "mind" to the Evangelical community, Truman writes that the real problem is that there is no cohesive "evangelical" to the categories name. He addresses the problems in no clear doctrinal distinctives to the over-arching demographic. Great, short read!

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very short read, under fourty pages of text, yet a very interesting argument that Evangelicalism lost its relevance due to the lack of confessional standards. I heartly agree, even if I think if the book is incomplete: it surely should have been possible to the authors to find a more precise definition of Evangelicalism, necessarily excluding many so-called Evangelicals of today. I would exclude neopentecostal and open theists, for instance.

[K. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quick essay. Had to re-read it again, extremely prevalent and becoming even more so. Truman is seriously one of Christendom’s greatest scholars.

[Felipe Sabino · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interessante.

[Dakota · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hmm. Even thought this was written in 2011, Trueman makes a lot of good points and it’s pretty prophetic. I’m not sure that I’ve ever referred to myself as an “evangelical”. I’m not sure why, because I would definitely be considered one. But that’s really Trueman’s point - the definition of evangelical has become so inclusive and vague, Catholics and EOs could in good conscience sign a doctrinal statement defined as being an “evangelical”. Bible, Trinity, done! I know Trueman is very pro-creeds (got The Creedal Imperative on deck), and he makes a subtly good argument here.

Are you an evangelical? Well what is that?
Are you a Christian? Well what is that?

I found it comical how he describes the tug of war for the “brand”:

“Once various groups are no longer competing for ownership of the evangelical brand, they might be able to assess one another in a less defensive manner.”

Footnote: Hopefully, we will also have no further use for silly questions such as “Was Bonhoeffer an evangelical?” Frankly, who cares? The important question is surely not about which present-day party can lay claim to him but something more like: “What can Bonhoeffer’s life, teaching, and death tell me about how to believe and live—and die—as a Christian?”

I haven’t read Bonhoeffer yet (on deck) but was he a evangelical?
A. As Trueman points out, who cares?
B. Yes, because again, as Trueman points out, everyone is. C. Would Bonhoeffer consider himself one? We evangelicals would love to say yes! We want the anti-Nazi, Hitler-fighter in our camp. He’s ours! Not yours! Evangelicalism has turned into this.

Who cares if someone has terrible theology, literally flubs foundational doctrine beliefs? They are evangelicals! Now I know there’s more nuance there and Trueman played some of it out in anecdotes. But, how can you meaningfully argue that they aren’t? We don’t even know what that is!

I think this book will have me thinking more in the future!

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent little book, and an important reminder for the Evangelical. Is there such a thing as an Evangelical, or does the term define so little about a person as to be worthless except in providing a false sense of security by the identification? What onslaught of the modern godless culture around us could be resisted by an appeal to "Evangelicalism"? Trueman observes that the Evangelical coalition is so diffuse at this point that it provides no basis for an ethic opposed to homosexuality, nor any vision of theology that gives us a reason to not be Catholic (in fact, for many of us, we have much more in common with Catholics on fundamental doctrines than we do with many who are known as Evangelicals).

Perhaps this is more my take-away than his. But it seems that it would be good to make the word "evangelical" an adjective rather than a noun--if we want to be a real and concrete thing. There is almost no helpful meaning in being an Evangelical (noun). Perhaps the only way the word is useful is if we can couple it to a word that contains more substance, and be instead evangelical Baptists and evangelical Lutherans and evangelical Presbyterians, etc.

Challenging little book, and I must say as one who falls under at least one of the criticisms Mark Noll presented in his book, I think Trueman is spot on. If we allow ourselves to be motivated by preserving our intellectual reputation in the public square, we will eventually deny much more than just our 6-day creationism or our Eschatology. We will deny our very faith. The world will not give us an option. Right now, it is just baiting us along.

Thank you, Carl Trueman, for calling it out.

[Zachary · Rating 2 out of 5]

Trueman's book is an interesting take on the problem of the evangelical mind that Mark Noll made so prominent in the mid-90s. His assertion here is that the problem with the evangelical mind is that there's not a coherent evangelical movement to support one. Pushing that there need to be more doctrinal distinctives to define and support a thriving evangelicalism, Trueman's argument encompasses certain moral hardlines that he believes need to be maintained to supply a coherent identity to the evangelical movement. I appreciated the approach that Trueman had, which went at the core of difficult definitional work regarding evangelicalism rather than necessarily railing against specific intellectual or historical arguments that Noll made. I still can't help but feel, though, that he missed the mark in some ways, oversimplified the situation down to these core moral conceits, and ultimately did not provide enough evidence for how his recommendations will amount to creating a more stable platform from which the evangelical mind can flourish.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

“The real scandal of the evangelical mind currently is not that it lacks a mind, but that it lacks any agreed-upon evangel.” (41)

Taking his title from Mark Noll’s famous book, Carl Trueman argues a very different point, insisting that the existence of “evangelicalism” as a clearly defined and identifiable entity is in serious doubt.

Trueman argues our lost Christian witness as evangelicals is not because we don’t understand and interact with contemporary cultural trends, but because we have lost understanding of and adherence to orthodox Christian doctrine.

Furthermore, emphasizing minimal doctrinal standards for the sake of the unity of evangelicalism leads to low expectations for doctrinal understanding. People naturally associate doctrinal matters that are not listed in a statement of faith as not all that important.

There are a few now outdated points in 2023, but much of Trueman’s analysis and predictions when he wrote this book in 2011 are still relevant and helpful today.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Trueman's work offers a compelling analysis of what we mean by the word "evangelical." He asks what unites people who identify as evangelical, such as open theists and Presbyterians, and suggests that the term is so broad as to be unhelpful. Most doctrinal statements of evangelical organizations such as ETS only demand belief that God is Trinity and the Scriptures in their original autographs are inerrant. Catholics and Orthodox, both of whom would balk at being described as evangelical, could sign such a statement in good conscience. At the same time, anyone can identify as evangelical and there is no clear definition of what that means. Trueman discusses Bebbington's quadrilateral and its insufficiency for providing a uniting theological principle for evangelicalism.

This is an interesting and thought-provoking analysis of evangelicalism--if such a thing even exists--and the importance of shared ideological commitments for building a common community of faith.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

"When asked if I am an evangelical, I generally respond with a question: What exactly do you mean by that term? In a world in which everyone from Joel Osteen to Brian McLaren to John MacArthur may be called an evangelical, I want to know into what pigeonhole my answer will place me."

That in a nutshell is the issue with the term "Evangelicalism." This was written over ten years ago, but it seems to help define the issue with the current "crisis of Evangelicalism," as well as the arguments about how we even define one. Trueman argues persuasively that Evangelicalism as a coherent identity is an illusion, thus defining anyone as an evangelical inherently says little to nothing about a person. He also pegged the issues that Evangelicalism, with its amorphous theological convictions, would come to have; we are watching some of them play out right now.

A short, easy read. Highly recommended.

[BJ Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was more of an extended paper, or perhaps a booklet that a book. You should be able to read it in 30 minutes give or take. His main premises is that evangelicalism doesn't really exist. It is a vague umbrella term with such loosely defined borders and such vaguely defined doctrines as to be meaningless. What it means to be evangelical varies based on who you ask. And in its desire to remain relevant in an ever more unchristian culture, the situation is only growing worse. While I mostly agree with his diagnosis, I am not sure about his idea of a cure: abandon the term altogether, give up on cultural relevance, and go back to tightly defined denominational distinctives. This might work in academic circles, but in a post Christian world where the church is losing its influence, a level of unity and cooperation among denominations is essential. If evangelicalism is not the term used for that cooperation, another must be found.

[Douglas C. Butterworth · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read, but a bit hard to follow.

What the author says is spot on, however, a "for dummies" version would be nice. I freely admit to not being a masters or doctorate level graduate, nor being in the ecclesiastical and theological culture in which the author dwells. It was a technically difficult read, I had to read much of it twice to understand it. That being said, the points the author are important enough they need broader dissemination, thus I propose a rewrite for the celebrated "average Joe". If you can take some time with it, you'll learn something. As an older registered nurse living in the Ozarks, I can say the issues he raises are important, but likely easier to present. We're not known for intellectual largesse here, so please, sir, louder and slower.

[Haddon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating read.
It's over a decade since it was published and some of the key topics in the book have fully bloomed exponentially.
Trueman builds on Noll's book by addressing the state of the so-called 'Evangelical Church'. Noll said it was a lack of cultural engagement and academic drive, however, a decade later Trueman acknowledges that there is no real unanimity amongst evangelicals today. What does it even mean to be evangelical? What's the requirement to be classed as evangelical? Trueman navigates through how a lack of unity in views in the evangelical church has resulted in varied theological stances. He identifies that 'true' evangelicalism has lost its identity and 'modern' evangelicalism is just a name without substance.
He is correct. The evangelical church is a mess.
Do we really think that everyone who calls them evangelical is actually evangelical?
I think not!

[Terence Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are not familiar with evangelicalism, this 48 page booklet by Carl Trueman is a good primer. And as I hope to show you through my reflections [in the full review, link below], even if you are not so invested in evangelicalism (I’m not!), you can’t escape from the phenomenon. It comes out through the books we read and the politics and wider societal issues we see around us. The trick is having seen evangelicalism in the world around us and understanding how it came to be, we now navigate through this foggy landscape because we know that our hope in life and death is that we are not our own but belong to God.

Full 3,197 word review: https://readingandreaders.com/podcast...

[Claire C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just a little review for a quick read…

This is rated a 4.3 - it was interesting food for thought to see the basis of denominations attempt to define their doctrine in relation to US culture and societal challenges. This thesis-like book talks about the lack of significant/credible differences and definitions between evangelical denominations, which I found to make a very intriguing read.

Read at your own risk. It might bring you down a rabbit hole. “Doctrines seem to imply propositional truth claims, after all, and such claims have become passé in many quarters. Boundaries are meant to exclude, and if contemporary Western culture hate one thing above all else, it’s the notion of exclusion.”

[Deeps George · Rating 4 out of 5]

What is the true evangelical mind? Or who is the true evangel? , these are questions that are being asked in a world where homosexuality, creation theories and sexual fantasies are accepted as part of society . The evangelical mind tries to balance doctrines and actions so that the teachings are based on the foundations of biblicism, crucicentrism,coversionism and activism (David Bennington) at the same time the evangelicals are trying to accommodate the ways of the world to be relevant.
This short book explores these ideas allowing the reader to build one’s own approach in establishing the evangelical mind. It will need s Spirit lead thinking to be able to maintain the truth of God’s world in a twisted world.