Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham

by D.G. Hart

Millions of Americans identify themselves as evangelicals. But what does the word mean? D. G. Hart provocatively argues that evangelicalism is a concept that has obscured more of Christianity than it has revealed and should be abandoned as a separate religious identity. Instead, he suggests that American Christians rediscover their rich theological heritage. "Hart's reasoning cannot be easily dismissed. . . . Recommended."--Library Journal

Genres: Church History, History, Religion, Christianity, Nonfiction, Church, Theology

224 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2003

About the author

Darryl G. Hart (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University) directs the honors programs and faculty development at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and serves Westminster Seminary California as adjunct professor of church history. He has written or edited more than fifteen books, including Defending the Faith, a biography of J. Gresham Machen. He is coeditor of the American Reformed Biographies series.

Reviews

[Bart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perennial Two-Kingdoms curmudgeon D. G. Hart applies his withering intellect to argue that evangelicalism--heralded as the torchbearer for orthodox Protestantism--is a myth constructed by coalition builders and academics. Hart's critique of the parachurch, ego, juvenilization, and minimalist theology proves quite devastating. I give this work 3 stars since it is 1) more inside baseball than most readers generally seek out and 2) the heavy reliance on bibliography (Hart's strong suit as an academic librarian). Though this is a solid read, Hart's best work can find it in his The Lost Soul of American Protestantism.

[Alexandru Croitor · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book was a tad more bibliographical than expected - but the last three chapters - those that talk about ecclesiology, creeds and music -, were actually pretty good (historically-wise): it somehow follows Wells/Noll's conclusions regarding the "evangelical scandal", but his solution is mostly giving up this made-up term. The amorphousness of 'evangelicalism' really does feel like a good argument for "deconstructing". I mean, if “an evangelical is someone who likes Billy Graham" (per Marsden - jokingly, of course) then there's little to no use for such a term.

[Chris Hansen · Rating 5 out of 5]

If we were to wish to resign from evangelicalism, to whom would we address our letters of resignation?

Darryl Hart contends that there's no where to send such a letter because there really is no such thing as evangelicalism in the first place. Hart employs three parts history, one part sociology, one part theology in his work describing both the construction of what is today known as evangelicalism from its roots in the 1940's and it's subsequent practical destruction in the decades that follow up to the present.

His historical treatment follows two main threads. The first is the "inside" perspective. Hart describes the work of the founding neo-evangelicals themselves (Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry, Harold Ockenga, etc) to establish a broad, powerful conservative Christian identity that could compete with mainline Christianity in the academic, social, and missiological realms and how that work has held up and evolved over time. The second perspective, the "outside" perspective, is how "evangelicalism" was established and propagated as a means to analyze more broadly American religion by sociologists, political scientists, and historians inside the church and without.

Hart's main thesis is that so-called evangelicalism is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's an abstraction created artificially to accomplish certain goals. He, of course, doesn't deny that there are a large number of people in America who call themselves Christians and believe in things like biblical inerrancy (Hart himself being one of them), but he claims that the commonalities within it are too few and the diversity too great for it to be a meaningful identity. How do you even make sense of a movement that is (roughly) conservative theologically, conservative politically, but represents the most liberal and pragmatic segment of Christianity in piety and worship? The greatest commonalities in evangelicalism seems to be a similar approach to worship music and a culture of celebrity, not any sort of doctrine or creed, and yet because of the cultural and generational nature of those things, even the commonalities of worship and celebrity divide.

He cites numerous authors (such as Nathan Hatch) who too, recognize the problems facing "evangelicalism", but unlike them, he doesn't see evangelicalism as being able to be saved, or even worth being saved. Many have suggested that evangelicalism needs to ground itself more in church history and the creeds of the historical church and needs to develop a higher view of the church, Hart disregards those suggestions as he believes doing that would itself result in the destruction of evangelicalism. One of the few things evangelicalism is, is firmly grounded in American revivalism, with the emphasis on the subjective experience of God, individualism, a suspicion of any religious authority and a distorted, anti-creedal view of sola scriptura. To ground oneself in Geneva or Rome means to give up what binds one to evangelicalism in the first place.

Hart finally asks, if we were to remove the term "evangelical" completely from the vocabulary of the church, would it make a difference? If anything, it would force people to associate their identity more closely with their local church and denomination where they have fellowship and accountability. It would force people to take more seriously the Great Commission, where Christ tells his disciples to teach "them to observe all that I have commanded you", rather than attempt to establish an identity on a few lowest common denominator doctrines.

All in all a very provocative book, and, even if you disagree with Hart's conclusions, they will make you think. I'll finish with a paragraph directly from the book:

"Was it actually conceivable that the word evangelical could hold together disparate Protestant beliefs and practices and mold them into some kind of unified whole? Even more basic was whether such an evangelical identity was desirable. The idea to make evangelicalism the conservative version of Protestantism was an interesting attempt to create an alternative religious voice that would counter mainline Protestantism and Roman Catholicism and would beat fundamentalism at the public relations game. But this evangelical movement was simply duplicating work already being done, not to shape a nation but to shepherd God's flock. Before evangelicalism, Christians had churches to hear the Word preached, to receive the sacraments, and to hear sound counsel and correction. Without evangelicalism, Protestant Christianity may not be as unified (when has it ever been?), but it will go on. And without the burden of forming a nationally influential coalition, American Protestants in all their Heinz 57 varieties, from Presbyterian to Calvary Chapel, may even be healthier."

[Steve Irby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished "Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the age of Billy Graham," by D.G. Hart.

Just some high spots: what is Evangelicalism? Well really, like many words today, especially political ones, the definition has been modified and expounded upon to fit people who like the word so much that it causes the word Evangelicalism to collapse in on itself. It means whatever you want it to mean. One definition given made me order a book on fundamentalism because it said Evangelicalism is anyone who likes Billy Graham, and I was raised to see him as a liberal (another word that means nothing because of the definitions modification). So my book on fundamentalism is on the way and I know I wasn't among the evangelastic crowd. So what role did the word "evangelical" play?--well a very market based one: a book for Methodists sells to Methodists. But it it's evangelical, well now, that's different. It's a coverall word which many fall under and none can give substance to. Also that Evangelicalism fell under many parachurch associations but never really understood any church proper gave Evangelicalism little stayability.

What role did CCM play?--its in there. Not just is it in there but CCM (ch 4) makes up a wonderful part of the book. The book was interesting and I've lately a desire to read more history but I wouldn't run out and buy it.

[Daniel Silliman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid history of the word "evangelical," showing how it emerged in the 1940s and got picked up by historians, journalists, and religious people, even though the identity, "evangelical," was always kind of incoherent.

I don't think Hart goes far enough, but this is good, regardless.

[Ryan Reed · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think that Hart is hitting a lot of the right notes in this work. He’s a little more of a contrarian than some other historians, but his criticisms are well taken.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

I still cannot get into Hart's writing style. In this book Hart shows that evangelicalism really has no meaning and should probably be dropped as a theological identification category altogether. Not only that, Christianity would be the better for it. Hart succeeds in showing that the term 'Evangelicalism' is a shoreless ocean, about an inch, at best, deep. At its worst, 'Evangelicalism' has been described, by no less a historian of American religion than George Marsden, as "someone who likes Billy Graham." All the attempts at creating a lowest-common denominator definition to fit in all those who didn't want to be identified as either fundamentalist or liberal have failed. Not only that, those like Hart (and I guess myself, and many others) have been included under the rubric 'evangelical' even if we didn't want to be. So have many others depending on how sociologists have phrased questions. But, Hart asks, what if he doesn't want to be identified as an evangelical? Who would he contact to get removed from the rolls? What is the address where he would send his resignation letter to? No one and no place. So Hart wonders what would be the bad fallout if we just dropped the term altogether. Not much of anything, besides some minor troubles for some parachurch organizations. Hart would rather have churches draft confessions of faith and have groups identified the old fashioned way. This may not make for as much "unity," but the unity evangelicalism gave us was a facade. Not only that, its lowest common denominator appeal turned what is most important about Christianity into some vague appeal about the authority or trustworthiness of the Bible. That caused problems in many other areas: enter CCM and mega churches (which helped spawn emergent churches). Indeed, evangelicalism brought about conservative politics and a church that mixed with the world's values. That is, as evangelicals became more socially conservative they became more liturgically liberal. Evangelicalism's penchant for old time revivalism couched in music the kids thought cool helped them gain numbers. Their focus on the subjective "personal relationship with Jesus" proved just what the doctor ordered in an age where psychiatrists focused on the self-help, life-coach, best life now antidotes for spiritual hum-drums. The idea was to come up with a set of objective propositions that unified a group that was neither liberal or fundamentalist. The end product was a loss of doctrine and an emphasis on the moral. On deeds not creeds. The proper taxonomy should not be liberal/conservative, it should be confessional/evangelical. This means, whether you have a set of propositions by which you can be marked out and identified or not. This means that you can tell about a group by whether you get into more hot water by denying some expression of the doctrine of the atonement, or by disagreeing with Rush Limbaugh, or even Obama.

Anyway, that's kinda the gist of his book.

[LJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hart describes himself in the afterword as a "victim in recovery" from evangelicalism, a label that I can't quite attach to myself (as a member of a mainline church who had become infatuated with neo-evangelicalism in college). But as I become more and more disillusioned with American evangelicalism without being card-carrying member, the term rings pretty true. This book, while being a great historical survey backed by thorough research, finally helped clarify for me what exactly about evangelicalism doesn't click: Its lack of creeds and confessions, a slapdash approach to worship, downplaying of historic Christian religion, its reliance on contemporary American cultural goods for so much of its identity, too much focus on culture warring, a lack of institutional structure and church polity. The list goes on and on. Oddly enough, I probably should've begun with this book before moving on to Hart's earlier works. Sometimes an overview of the problem helps make a potential solution more palatable or well-understood.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very depressing book for people who would consider themselves evangelical Christians. But what does it mean to be an evangelical and where did the movement originate from? More importantly, does the term really even exist outside of people's minds? These are the questions Dr. Hart masterfully answers contrasting the movement with confessional, liturgical denominations.

[Andrew Canavan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty insightful look at American evangelicalism and a needed call to move toward a fuller expression of Christian faith that can only be found in the church.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite good.