Who Is an Evangelical?: The History of a Movement in Crisis

by Thomas S. Kidd

A leading historian of evangelicalism offers a concise history of evangelicals and how they became who they are today

Evangelicalism is arguably America’s most controversial religious movement. Nonevangelical people who follow the news may have a variety of impressions about what “evangelical” means. But one certain association they make with evangelicals is white Republicans. Many may recall that 81 percent of self‑described white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump, and they may well wonder at the seeming hypocrisy of doing so.
 
In this illuminating book, Thomas Kidd draws on his expertise in American religious history to retrace the arc of this spiritual movement, illustrating just how historically peculiar that political and ethnic definition (white Republican) of evangelicals is. He examines distortions in the public understanding of evangelicals, and shows how a group of “Republican insider evangelicals” aided the politicization of the movement. This book will be a must‑read for those trying to better understand the shifting religious and political landscape of America today.

Genres: History, Religion, Cultural, Nonfiction, Church History, Christian, Politics

200 pages, Paperback

Published September 8, 2020

About the author

Thomas S. Kidd teaches history at Baylor University, and is Senior Fellow at Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion. Dr. Kidd has appeared on the Glenn Beck tv program, the Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager radio shows, and written columns for USA Today and the Washington Post. He is a columnist for Patheos.com. His latest book is Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots. Other books include God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution. His next book projects are a biography of George Whitefield, and a history of Baptists in America.

Reviews

[Lindsay Bowley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am so glad I read this book. It explains how the term “evangelicals” got so intertwined in politics and the media. It dives deep into what that term even means in light of things like the Scopes Monkey Trial, race relations, and elections of presidents such as Nixon and Trump. This gave a historical timeline of the movement and filled in so many gaps that I never knew. Context is SO important when it comes to looking at a movement that has been intertwined in so many cultural issues over the last 200 years. Great read!

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The subtitle of this book is "The History of a Movement in Crisis" and I’d imagine this is the main reason that most people will be interested in the book. As a history of evangelicalism per se the book stands on its own merits. But the history of a theological movement per se wouldn’t normally be of interest to those who aren’t themselves part of the camp or obscure theological dilettantes. However, the history of evangelicalism is a bit unique in that it has been wrapped up so closely with American politics. In fact, in a certain sense, the history of evangelicalism just is the history of an unfolding crisis with American politics. Or at least that’s one plausible reading. As Kidd writes, “Today’s crisis of evangelicalism is rooted in the movement’s history” (2).

So, what is the crisis? A combination of politicization and, flowing from that, perception.

Politicization is not simply the fact that evangelicals today are attempting to influence politics. Kidd is clear that evangelicals have always seen their faith as having some implications for political activity (53, 95). Thus, from its inception, evangelicalism has been involved in politics, especially when evangelicals felt that their ability to preach the gospel (that which “defined them”) was under threat (29).

Nor was it the case that evangelical political activity confined itself merely to protecting its own religious liberty (perhaps how Ahmari sees “Frenchism”?). Kidd speaks positively about evangelical involvement in “political engagement and moral reform, including advocacy for Native Americans and Slaves” (43), the “flowering of secondary and collegiate education in antebellum America” (45), and “crusades against poverty and alcohol abuse” (46). In fact, Kidd sees evangelical inaction (not to mention promotion) on injustices like segregation as “a central component of today’s evangelical crisis” (49; cf. also 101)!

It seems then that the evangelical crisis of politicization cannot be political engagement per se. Political disengagement has been “a central component” of its current crisis. Thus, there must be a certain type of political stance that is misguided and has led to the current crisis. If I understand him correctly, “establishmentarianism” politics is the sort of political activity that is problematic and has led to the current evangelical crisis... at least in part (more on that below):

“But as we have seen, evangelicals have been most faithful to their tradition when protesting against manifest injustices like slavery rather than trying to impose a de facto or de jure establishment. Attempts to ban Sunday mail delivery, the sale of alcohol, and the teaching of evolution all reflected that establishmentarian impulse” (53).

Evangelicals have conflated “political power and access to Republican leaders with the advancement of God’s kingdom” (93). This “clouded their judgment” and “distracted them from the historic mission of evangelicals” (ibid). This is a good caution and his historical survey, especially regarding slavery and segregation, helps put flesh on how evangelicals can go radically off-course with their politics.

Perception is the second crisis facing evangelicals. Initially, this is just a symptom of misguided evangelical politicization. For instance, because of the “lack of attention to civil rights,” African American Christians who were originally part of the National Association of Evangelicals split off into the National Black Evangelical Association in the 1960s (77). More recently, as Kidd notes, “The damage caused by evangelical white voters’ support for Trump was substantial, leading many women and people of color to question the fundamental integrity of the movement” (149).

But the problem of perception has become a crisis of its own given that evangelicals “no longer control the definition or perceived composition of their movement” (155). The term ‘evangelical’ has come to mean white, religious Republican. In polling, the term sometimes includes Catholics and Orthodox “even though historically ‘evangelical’ has always referred to a subset of Protestantism,” or “God-and-Country Believers” that claim to have similar theological views to evangelicals, but don’t attend church regularly and are more radical politically, or those who self-identify as evangelical and yet don’t hold to traditional evangelical beliefs (150). This creates all sort of problems in polling, which creates problems in political discourse and outreach.

Having summarized the crisis, let move on to some minor criticisms.

I found myself in the last chapter of the book, with just a few pages left, thinking "Wait, what exactly is the crisis? And who exactly is responsible for said crisis?" That’s partly why I’ve tried to frame my review around the “crisis” question. Although I think it’s possible to discern what the author’s broad answers are to these questions, they could have used more clarification and specificity.

I chose to use the term ‘politicization’ to describe one part (the main part) of the evangelical crisis. This is a term Kidd uses himself throughout the book: “the crisis of politicization that bedevils evangelical Christians today” (54). But as I indicated above, “politicization” doesn’t accurately capture a crisis in evangelicalism.

Since Kidd sees both political action and political inaction on certain issues as “a central component of today’s evangelical crisis,” I wish Kidd had chosen a word other than “politicization” to describe the evangelical crisis.

He never explicitly defines the term, but the standard definition is “the action of causing an activity or event to become political in character” (lexico.com). Thus, readers who aren’t careful are likely to come away from the book thinking that the evangelical crisis is due to the mere fact of them sticking their noses into politics. But as I’ve demonstrated above, that can’t be what Kidd means by the term—at least not if he is to be consistent with his praise of evangelical involvement in politics in some areas (43) and condemnation of evangelical silence on other political issues (49, 101).

At points, Kidd means something like an establishmentarian stance toward political activity. And Kidd does use that term frequently (53, 71, 73 etc). So am I being unfair to complain about the use of ‘politicization’ when there is another term at hand? No, because I don’t think “establishmentarianism” itself accurately captures the crisis (recall that Kidd sees evangelical inaction as another core part of the problem). Furthermore, the establishmentarian term has its own problems.

What counts as establishmentarianism or exactly when an evangelical has crossed the line into conflating “political power and access to Republican leaders” is blurry. Kidd gives several examples of what he takes to be establishmentarianism, but what principle is being used to sort these activities? How do we know whether evangelicals who want Trump to “build the wall” are attempting to fight the “manifest injustice” of illegal immigration and human trafficking or whether they are “trying to impose a de facto or de jure establishment”? This is another area where I wish the book would have been clearer. Granted, Kidd acknowledges that this is a difficult task:

“But the line between those two modes of advocacy [merely defend the weak & oppressed v. seek to impose evangelical practices] is often blurred. Proslavery Christians, for example, insisted that antislavery evangelicals should just let Americans act according to their conscience with regard to slave owning, rather than impose their antislavery values on everyone else” (34).

If your argument of establishmentarianism can be turned around on you and utilized by proslavery Christians, that would seem to be a pretty big problem. Not that I want to give the impression that Kidd creates this problem for himself. He is correct to suggest that the task is inherently difficult or blurry. Still, if this is the point of crisis that the book seeks to expose it would be nice to have some principles we could apply to the situation at hand or some suggestions on how the proslavery Christian is actually abusing the proper heuristic.

This issue melds into my second criticism, which is that Kidd never actually makes the case that evangelicalism is currently in a crisis, in the sense that it is currently politically misaligned. Without the principles that we can apply to current issues, we are basically left saying that the evangelical crisis is that sometimes it has aligned itself with the wrong political causes. Fair enough. But that doesn’t help settle any of the disputes today between those who identify some evangelicals as being guilty of politicization or establishmentarianism. Really, it just begs the question. And to that degree, some evangelicals who read this book and don’t already assume that, say, voting for Trump is a crisis, will be left unconvinced.

Further, given that Kidd notes that “Latino Pentecostals” have also “blended evangelism and social ministry” and “sought influence and access” (128) and, given that Kidd notes that “Black Protestants reportedly supported Clinton as a more cohesive bloc (88 percent) than white evangelicals supported Trump” (145), one wonders why we aren’t seeing anything about a black Protestant crisis or Latino Pentecostal crisis.[1] Is it because those groups happen to have more correctly aligned themselves with the right political causes? Or is it because those groups happen to be in line with what’s considered acceptable by mainstream media? Or perhaps a more benign and less question begging explanation would be that those groups aren’t as influential and/or don’t have as long a history.

Finally, even though I think I might agree with what Kidd is taking for granted most of the time, I did occasionally find myself confused by the points Kidd was making and this seemed to be due to unargued for assumptions. For instance, on page 91 Kidd says “Politically engaged evangelicals embraced contradictory priorities… They called on the nation to return to a nostalgic past of Christian cultural establishment while exhorting individuals to reject mere cultural Christianity and to be born again.” On the surface, I don’t see how these two priorities are contradictory, unless we assume that the call to return to a nostalgic past of Christian cultural establishment is a call to mere cultural Christianity. But why assume that?

In short, one man’s fight against “manifest injustice” is another man’s unjust “establishmentarianism.” It would be nice if we knew more about how and why the author was adjudicating which was which. Maybe Kidd would say that this is beyond the scope of his book, which is primarily a historical sketch of evangelicalism by a professional historian. But then the book's subtitle and common thread is not just a report of the facts. It's also evaluative. It criticizes and praises different points within evangelicalism.

However, as I said, these are minor complaints. The book is an excellent, nuanced, and—perhaps apart from some assumptions mentioned immediately above—a fair treatment of evangelicalism and its turbulent history with politics. It stands head and shoulders above Ben Howe's Immoral Majority in terms of charity and accuracy.

[1] Kidd notes that Latino Pentecostals “have been less beholden to one party than white evangelicals.” However, being less beholden to a party isn’t a virtue per se. It depends on how consistently the party in question happens to be right or more closely right than the alternatives.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve wanted to get a hold of a number of Kidd’s book for some time now, and I am happy to finally have read this one. This book is an introduction to evangelicals in the United States and how they have shaped and impacted the political world since before the foundation of the U.S. in 1776. Kidd focuses the last chapter on the rising tide of evangelicals for Trump and why modern day polls regarding the evangelical vote may be incorrect. He concludes that culturally an evangelical is typically White and votes Republican. He concludes that historically an evangelical is a Bible believing follower of Jesus who has had experiences with the Holy Spirit. Evangelicals allow their experiences and the Bible to impact their political involvement and they have never been shy to impact politics. This has been incorrect at time and correct in other scenarios. As we enter into the 2020 election I found this book incredibly helpful and well worth the investment. Kidd’s scholarly work is some of my favorite and it’s no wonder Yale published this piece. My only qualm is that I wish it were longer.

[Ian Woodall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kidd’s Thesis
Though confusion abounds in defining the term “evangelical,” Thomas Kidd attempts to cut through the misunderstandings by arguing that evangelicals are “born again Protestants who cherish the Bible as the Word of God and who emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit” (4). Though for many “evangelical” brings to mind the terms “Republican” and “White,” Kidd traces the history of the movement to reveal that the previous associations are the result of more recent republican insider evangelicals who do not reflect what historically has made an evangelical an evangelical.
A Summary of the Argument
The word “evangelical” has its roots in the Greek word euangelion, and in Germany their translation of the word was used to represent “the evangelical faith.” The nominal use of the word, however, was first put in print in 1807 by Robert Southey. It was used to categorize the subgroup of Protestantism, the transdenominational group of Christians “who believed in the message preached by George Whitefield and his successors” (9). Though the movement has always wrestled with the relationship between faith and politics, Kidd draws attention to its undeniably spiritual roots.
During the Civil War era and the antebellum period that followed, Evangelicals began to engage in politics and moral reform. This included advocacy for the Native Americans and slaves. It was the latter that caused the greatest division. It was evangelicals who used their religious liberty to for abolition. At the same time, Frederick Douglass voiced the common complaints against many white evangelical clergy, that they sanctioned racial injustice through their silence (49). It was during this time (1940’s) that denominations broke apart and separated into northern and southern camps. The Ku Klux Klan and other evidences of racism within evangelicalism caused many African Americans to distance themselves from the term “evangelical” though they held to the same doctrine.
Then arose the era of “fundamentalism.” The term became synonymous with “evangelical” as the group fought theological modernism. Their efforts, with the help of William Jennings Bryan were often focused on “attempts to ban Sunday mail delivery, the sale of alcohol, and the teaching of evolution” (53). Their efforts, especially when aimed at anti-evolution legislation, were misguided. Evangelicals were eager to use the media and any means available to fight the teaching of evolution while they were largely silent on the lynching of African Americans. The “fundamentalist” movement came to an end with the Scopes Trial and the public humiliation of Bryan. The era of fundamentalism reflects the fractions within the movement as well as the beginnings of spotlight chasing and misguided political efforts.
The neo-evangelical movement of Billy Graham brought about numerous missions’ agencies, Navigators, Young Life, and Christianity Today. It was through Graham that evangelicals received a “taste of political power” (91). But during this period the gospel was blended with anticommunism, and political influence seemed to take the place of personal conversion. Political power and engagement continued into the era that followed, the era of Jerry Falwell Sr.’s “Moral Majority.” During this time Evangelicals gained influence in the White House and pushed for prayer in schools and the addition of “in God we trust” to national currency. This was also the period of the civil rights movement, a movement evangelical whites did little to assist.
In his final chapter, Kidd walks through the crisis within the movement caused by the election of Donald Trump. While many white evangelical leaders expressed concerns about the morality of Donald Trump, the majority (at least of white evangelicals) voted for him. Many women and people of color were horrified by the evangelical vote because it reminded them of “evangelical passivity in the eras of lynching and civil rights in the past” (148). However, many questions arise for it appears some voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils.
He also highlights the drastic difference between the movement as represented by evangelical insiders (those who seem to represent the movement on Fox News and other public platforms) and the movement as represented by those who share its historic beliefs and practices. While many are uncertain as to whether the term can be “rescued from its political and racial connotations,” Kidd is optimistic (154). While he leaves the reader with the option of identifying or rejecting the label “evangelical,” he argues the term should be understood in terms of its historic, theological roots.
Do I Consider Myself an Evangelical?
In short, yes, I consider myself to be an evangelical. I consider myself to be the evangelical described by Kidd which falls within the historic definition. I have experienced conversion, am devoted to the infallible Bible, and believe in God’s discernible presence. I also fit the media’s profile of an evangelical. I am white, vote Republican, and am opposed to abortion. But while I fit that profile I would likely describe myself as being “an evangelical in the historic sense of the word.” Through that I would draw attention to the confessional and theological foundation of the term. However, there may perhaps be confusion in mentioning its historic sense for history has brought about the confusion.
Due to the stain of racism in the Evangelical story and movement’s outspoken political insiders, many born-again Christians avoid the label as demonstrated by Tim Keller who prefers the term “orthodox.” While this move is certainly understandable, my relationships with others are not currently impacted by bearing the name “evangelical” nor do I see the present state of the movement damaged to the point of jumping ship. By this, I mean two things. If bearing the title would cause undo strain on relationship then I would be willing to part with the title though my convictions and voting patterns would remain the same. Tim Keller falls into this situation as he pastors in New York City. Bearing the label might prove a barrier to reaching “democrats” with the gospel of Jesus Christ. His convictions, however, remain biblical regardless of whether or not he identifies himself by the term “evangelical.”
By the previous statement I also mean that I would be willing to distance myself from the movement (or at least the label) if the term “evangelicalism” became associated with wickedness. For example, my hope is that if I were alive during the era of the Klu Klux Klan and common lynchings I would have spoken out and distanced myself from the label “evangelical.” In the present and throughout the history of the movement evangelicals were distracted with anti-communism and opposition to alcohol and the teaching of evolution. While I would understand the previous pursuits to be a distraction to what traditionally characterized evangelicals as foolishness, it would not keep me from identifying with evangelicals. Support for racism, however, would. Misguided pursuits and racism should not fall into the same category. The former is embarrassing. The latter is shameful.
Because of my opposition to racism some might conclude that I will distance myself from the title because of the previous and present presence of the issue in the movement. That is not the case for two reasons. The racism in the past has largely been brought to the surface and condemned. The SBC, for example, acknowledged and condemned the racial reasons for their denomination’s origin. This book itself is a needed step in speaking honestly of the past. The history must not be glamorized or ignored but spoken of honestly. Acknowledged and condemned sins of the past do not prevent me from bearing the label “evangelical.” If the term itself was originally associated with racism there would be an increased reason for distancing oneself from it. But that is not the case. The second reason I will not distance myself from the term on the grounds of racism is because the sin is not as visibly prevalent as it was in the past. To be clear, the issue is still present. This can be seen in the excerpt from Thabiti Anyabwile’s letter where he claimed that evangelical Trump voters had “abandoned public solidarity with groups who considered Mr. Trump and existential threat to them” (149). While Thabiti’s letter raises some valid questions and concerns, the situation is more complicated than he admits. The “evangelical vote” apparently contains a large amount of people who would not claim to be “born-again believers.” On top of that, many voted for Trump because they felt he was the lesser of two evils. Many voted for him as a way of fighting against abortion. Others voted for him with their eyes set on the Supreme Court positions that were to be filled. In other words, it does not seem accurate to conclude that those who voted for President Trump were all born-again believers who endorsed his character and opposed racial reconciliation. My point is not that racism is abolished in the hearts and minds of evangelicals but that there is not enough overt racism in the present for me to distance myself from the label.
The Importance of History in Understanding
Understanding the history of the evangelical movement is important for four reasons: (1) it provides a definition that reflects the core of the movement, a definition not reflected by the media, (2) it makes sense of why many confessional Christians have distanced themselves from the movement, (3) it makes sense of the large amount of white Christians who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and (4) it is the key to avoiding the historic landmines moving forward.
Evangelicalism is about what someone believes, not about how they vote or the color of their skin. The media portrays evangelicals through “evangelical insiders” such as Jerry Fallwell Sr. and Franklin Graham, but individuals do not represent the majority of evangelicals or the historical definition of the term. The history of the movement brings clarity to what it means to be an evangelical and explains the confusion and political nature of the movement in the present.
The history also makes one charitable toward believers, especially African American believers, who distance themselves from the movement. The racial injustice and hypocrisy in evangelicalism’s past is real. White evangelicals must not deny this reality or justify it. Those reactions will truly, to use the words of Thabiti, “put a deep chill on efforts at reconciliation” (149). While many may disagree with Thabiti’s alarm at the results of the 2016 election, an understanding of evangelical history will help us understand his fear and work toward unity. And that leads to the next point.
The history of evangelicalism helps make sense of the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. The movement struggled with the relationship between faith and politics since its origin. It drifted toward non-gospel issues and sought to enforce its own moral and political agendas. It sought to gain political power and influence by befriending non-evangelical politicians. Through this, the ends began to justify the means. The “ends,” however, were not the “ends” of the early evangelicalism and the “means” would have surely been condemned. The drift explains why evangelicals would vocally support the man many considered to be racist, immoral, and a religious bigot. The movement lost its way, and its current state highlights the need for a return to its original focus.
Finally, the history of evangelicalism is necessary for understanding how it can move forward. As has been noted, the movement was constantly drawn to political power and non-gospel issues. The way forward requires moving backward. Evangelicals must be redefined as those who are “born-again” and meet the original description. Moving forward, Evangelicalism must be aware of the future “anti-communism”-like issues and avoid them. Those who represent the movement must reflect the origins of evangelicalism, not their own political, non-gospel related interests. Perhaps it is through this return to historic evangelicalism that the movement will once again be a multi-ethnic group, a group united by “conversion, devotion to the infallible Bible, and God’s discernible presence” (156). For these are the things that make an evangelical an evangelical (156).

[George P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The word evangelical comes down to us via Latin from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, meaning “good news.” In the Reformation Era, it described Lutherans and other Protestants who broke from the Roman Catholic Church, emphasizing the good news of justification by grace through faith. Beginning in the 18th century, however, it came to describe a particular movement within Anglophone, trans-Atlantic Protestantism, which Thomas S. Kidd calls “the religion of the born again.” He traces the history of that movement in his new book, Who Is an Evangelical?

Kidd is the James Vardaman Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University and a scholar of the era of the American founding. He is author of numerous books, including The Great Awakening; biographies of Patrick Henry, George Whitefield, and Benjamin Franklin; and the forthcoming America’s Religious History. In Who Is an Evangelical? he aims to “introduce readers to evangelicals’ experiences, practices, and beliefs, and to examine the reasons for our crisis today.” More on that crisis in a moment.

Evangelicals, as Kidd defines the term, are “born-again Protestants who cherish the Bible as the Word of God and who emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.” These three markers — “conversion, Bible, and divine presence” — make evangelicalism a loosely defined movement rather than a tightly defined denomination or theological school. Understood this way, evangelicalism has always been international, multiethnic, and transdenominational.

(Side note: I am an ordained Assemblies of God minister and executive editor of the denomination’s Influence magazine. The AG is a classical Pentecostal denomination whose distinctive doctrine is baptism in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues. Though this doctrine distinguishes the AG from other evangelicals, there is no doubt that the AG specifically, and Pentecostals generally, are evangelicals. Indeed, the Assemblies of God was a founding member of, and is the largest denomination within, the National Association of Evangelicals.)

Today, unfortunately, the term evangelical serves as “an ethnic, cultural, and political designation rather than a theological or devotional one,” according to Kidd. For example, you undoubtedly have heard that 81 percent of evangelical voters in the 2016 presidential election cast their ballots for Donald Trump. Pollsters identified “evangelicals” with “white religious Republicans.” This identification was problematic for at least two reasons:

1. Non-white voters were not classified as evangelicals even if their theology and spirituality matched traditional markers of evangelicalism — e.g., conversion, Bible, and divine presence.

2. White voters who self-identified as “evangelicals” retained the identification even if their theology and spirituality didn’t match those traditional markers.

This “politicization” of evangelicalism is a crisis for the health of the movement long term. It trades the traditional emphasis on conversion, Bible, and divine presence for an emphasis on partisan politics, leaving in its wake “the widespread perception that the movement is primarily about obtaining power within the Republican Party.” In the process, it overlooks the tremendous growth of evangelical forms of Christianity among the very racial and ethnic minorities — black, Hispanic, Asian — who represent a rising tide in America’s demographic sea. At the very moment when America’s Christians need to speak with a united voice across a wide range of social and ethical issues, politicization makes it harder for us to do so. United by faith, evangelicals are divided by politics.

Kidd’s brief survey of evangelical history shows that “the tension between the spiritual and political goals of evangelicals has existed since the 1740s,” the era of the Great Awakening, when George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley were leading Anglophone evangelicalism. Politics, in a sense, cannot be avoided, since our nation — any nation, for that matter — must decide what its public policies are. But politicization, the reduction of the gospel to policy and of Christianity to party, both can and should be avoided, lest the good news be tarnished by the lust for earthly power.

“Partisan commitments have come and gone,” Kidd concludes. “Sometimes evangelicals have made terrible political mistakes,” mistakes that he documents in his book, though the mistakes are leavened somewhat by evangelical successes. “But conversion, devotion to an infallible Bible, and God’s discernible presence are what make an evangelical an evangelical.”

Whether the term evangelical can be rehabilitated to shed its racial, ethnic, and partisan connotations is an open question. If that question is to be answered affirmatively, however, it will likely be along the lines Kidd sketches in this historical introduction to the religion of the born-again, which I fervently hope will be born again.

Book Reviewed
Thomas S. Kidd, Who is an Evangelical? The History of a Movement in Crisis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019).

P.S. If you liked my review, please click “Helpful” on my Amazon review page.

P.P.S. This review first appeared at InfluenceMagazine.com and is posted here with permission.

[Samuel Kassing · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars

This is Kidd’s defense for evangelicalism being a theological movement at its core that has sadly been co-opted for political ends in the recent decades.

This is an excellent sketch of evangelical history in the US. I ultimately don’t find his argument compelling because he moves the goal posts too often. When something is going wrong in evangelicalism it’s because they’ve forgotten their theological roots. When things are going right it’s because they are living in accord with them. This would be fine except for him to make this work he includes global and Pentecostal Christians as examples of the positive. His elastic definition of “evangelical” ultimately undermines his arguments.

Definitely worth a read in my opinion.

[Todd Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kidd has written an thoughtful history of evangelicalism in America, sorting through the movement's political difficulties. He rightly identifies evangelicals by their theological commitments and practices, rather than their political voting record and practices. Kidd is a no-nonsense writer, who, as best as he is able, avoids tendentious historiography and tells the history in workman-like fashion. I recommend this book. It will be referenced often in my church history and apologetics and contemporary issues classes.

[Shane Vander Hart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kidd goes deeper than polls.

As an evangelical, I appreciated this book from Thomas Kidd because he goes beyond how political pollsters and pundits define “evangelical” to provide a deeper look at the history of the movement that is centered on new life in Jesus Christ, not the Republican Party or Donald Trump.

[Nathan Webb · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good book to better understand the traditional background of the evangelical movement to what it had become now as largely seen as a political movement. This book is well-written, easy to follow, and very informative. It makes me sad to see the roller coaster of the evangelical movement, but after reading this book, it makes sense how we’ve gotten to where we are today.

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't say enough good about this book. Whether you're trying to study American church history or understand more recent evangelical events (especially socially and politically) this book is a must read.

[Ean Snell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good history of religion book. Brings up to modern day well. Certainly shows the scary implications of attaching a religion to a political party.

[Tim Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Kidd is the James Vardaman Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University and Distinguished Visiting Professor of Church History at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The scope of his book seeks to define the evangelical by surveying the movements from the 1800s to the modern day. The subtitle "The History of a Movement in Crisis" probably attracts the reader's attention. So the question is: what is the crisis? The answers directly correlate to politics, and an ancillary problem is a perception that comes from the politicization of the evangelical movement.

Kidd argues that our modern conception of "evangelicalism" has deviated from the origins of the historical definition of an "evangelical." For most, the term "evangelical" dictates an image of the white Republican voting bloc, and 81% have become synonymous with the word. But as Kidd argues, this is so far from the truth. Kidd notes, "Today's crisis of evangelicalism is rooted in the movement's history" (2). The next question to answer is: what is an evangelical? Kidd defines evangelicals as being "born-again Protestants who cherish the Bible as the Word of God and who emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit" (4). To put it more salient, an evangelical is someone identified by a conversion experience who prioritizes the Bible and has a relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Chapter 1 narrates "The Rise of Evangelicals" in the 18th century; the word "Evangelical" underwent a morphological change in the movement's early days. It went from being used as an adjective, as in "evangelical faith" (9), to being used as a noun to represent a "distinctive, transdemoninational movement" that became a noun used to describe "Evangelicals" as "Christians who believed the message preached by George Whitefield and his successors" (ibid). The exciting portion of the history of evangelicals is that it is a predominately white-lead movement. Still, the majority leaders gave "unprecedented latitude to the voices of African Americans and Native Americans" (10).
Kidd says evangelicals believed "in the new birth of salvation and the presence of the Holy Spirit, and they worked and prayed for revival" (ibid). Still, ultimately they were defined "by the message of conversion and eternal salvation, not patrician politics" (ibid). This is the complete reversal of how it is described today, where evangelicalism carries more political and cultural weight rather than religion.

In Chapter 2, Kidd deals with the "ascendency of evangelicals in the Civil War era." It is here that Kidd speaks positively about early evangelical involvements in "political engagement and moral reform, including the advocacy for Native Americans and slaves" (43), for the "flowering of secondary and collegiate education in antebellum America" (43). The American evangelicals were not just vocal in evangelism, missions, and education; they also "spearheaded moral reforms causes such as crusades against poverty and alcohol abuse" (46). Kidd goes so far as to say that evangelical inaction on actions of injustices such as segregation is "a central component of today's evangelical crisis" (49; cf. 101). This is a strong indictment, for sure. The passivity of the Evangelicals when it came to slavery is a stain that we still have yet to find a way to remove from our collective history. This strain became so nuclear that it caused a split between the "New School and Old School Presbyterians" (50).

Specifically, in the States, a large portion of the evangelical story in the latter half of the 19th and 20th centuries centers on the evangelical response to the rising expressions of 'liberal' Christianity. In Chapter 3, Kidd considers the "The 'Fundamentalists' and the Evangelical Controversy." It is in this context that Kidd writes that the evangelical "wars against theological liberalism," which did not just have theological and ecclesiastical undertones only but also included a battle with theological liberalism that "would change evangelicals' primary cultural stance" (52). Evangelicalism has always had political applications.

Kidd writes, "But as we have seen, evangelicals have been most faithful to their tradition when protesting against manifest injustices like slavery rather than trying to impose a de facto or de jure establishment. Attempts to ban Sunday mail delivery, the sale of alcohol, and the teaching of evolution all reflected that establishmentarian impulse" (53). This was also when divisions between white and black churches further fractured evangelicals. This led to a growing number of independent black churches and denominations, allowing them to create institutions free from white supremacy (52).

From 1865 onward, black and white churches and institutions went their separate ways, which is "one of the reasons why African Americans often do not identify as evangelicals even though when their doctrine and experiences seem characteristically evangelical" (ibid). This has also led to pollsters not lumping blacks under the umbrella of “evangelical” (ibid).

Though evangelicals can and should be thankful for the work that our forefathers did when it came to the challenge of liberal Christianity, it seems that the battle could have been more fruitful if we had had a more 'less white' voice when it came to this. This has been something that plagues evangelicalism, especially in the states; it has a less than ecumenical tone when it comes to controversies (the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy has been an excellent example of this in the most recent past. Three framers, J.I. Packer, John Wenham, and Roger Nicole, were outside the states, with no voices from Africa, Asia, or South America).

Even amid all this turmoil, we saw the flourishing of parachurch ministries and overseas missions. But there was a fomenting storyline of race, with silence towards "lynching, or at least remain equivocal" (66). It is a shame that "white fundamentalists were more likely to condemn booze or liberal theology than lynching" (ibid). Again this is a stinging indictment of evangelicalism. Evangelicals were more concerned about what was in someone's fridge and turned a blind eye to fellow image-bearers being murdered.

In chapter 4, Kidd touches on the rise of "Neo-evangelicalism" spanning the 1940s and 50s. This was the era of the founding of the NAE (1942) and the NBEA (1963), InterVaristy (1941), Young Life (1941), FCA (1954), CRU (1951), World Vision (1950) and Compassion International (1952). What is noticeably attractive about the NAE is that they "erected no former barriers for blacks to join, but neither did its leaders do much to address the problems of race, not wishing to alienate segregationists in their midst" (77). This is a false dichotomy: allowing blacks to join was okay, but the evangelicals never addressed the underlying problem.

This took place as Billy Graham (1918-2018) was ushered onto the national evangelical stage and the political and societal stage. Graham is described as "a lot like George Whitefield, except that Whitefield didn't have access to airplanes" (88). Kidd notes that "Graham's influence in Washington, D.C., gave white evangelicals a taste of political power…" to such a degree that "Sometimes it was not clear whether individual conversion or national political influence was their real priority" (91). Kidd rightly points out that the current evangelical "quest for influence" in national political affairs began not with the Moral Majority but with evangelical support for the candidacy and presidency (1953-1961) of Dwight Eisenhower (90, 92-93, 142).

Graham maintained access to the political elite, including presidents from Eisenhower to George W. Bush (90). But Graham's actions made it possible for the Moral Majority to ascend to powerful political, social, and cultural influence. It can be understood that this was the beginning of "evangelicalism" being hijacked by politicians for good. This sentiment is abundantly clear since evangelicals began to conflate "political power and access to Republican leaders with the advancement of God's kingdom" (93). This conflation "clouded their judgment" and "distracted them from the historic mission of evangelicals" (ibid). This is a much-needed caution in this survey, especially given slavery and segregation; this helps put flesh to how evangelicals can go off the rails with their politics.

Kidd deals with evangelicalism in the 1960s and 70s in chapter 5, "Two-Track Evangelicals and the New Christian Right." Kidd uses the language of "two-track" to bring awareness to the attention given by "many white evangelical leaders" to work among "two main tracks: politics and evangelism" (103). Here we see the genesis of the "Major Majority," which was founded and led by Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr., Kidd writes how, by the 1980s, "the people I call "Republican insider evangelicals" had become a fixture on the partisan landscape" (94). The exciting part about this chapter is what evangelicals chose to fight for and against. For example, Kidd writes, "White evangelicals responses to civil rights ranged from cautious support to staunch opposition." Others went so far as to express worry about the "radical influences in the civil rights movement." And even go so far as to "remain silent, or reminded fellow whites about the spiritual nature of the church and the necessity of sticking to the gospel" (101).

That basic approach was to preach the gospel, and everything else would smooth itself out; that's the church's job and evangelicalism. This approach resulted in our black brothers and sisters feeling that "many of their white compatriots did not care to do much about segregation, inequality, and racial violence" (ibid). This is much like how the Fundamentalists responded to alcohol and turned a blind eye to lynching. These moments like this in the history of evangelicalism led to the perception problem. Do white evangelicals care about the inequality that other image-bearers face? We want to say yes, but given what we have seen in the history of evangelicalism, our answer seems to be kind of at best. In the end, Falwell "insisted that pastors should address politics from the pulpit. Forming the Moral Majority freed him from tax regulations against direct political advocacy by churches." Falwell's mantra is that what we need is to get "people "saved, baptized, and registered" to vote" (120). This agenda gave birth the Republican evangelical movement.

In his final chapter titled "Evangelicalism from Reagan to Obama." In this chapter, Kidd writes, "The year 1980 inaugurated four decades of Republicans affirming white evangelicals' priorities." He continues to say that; "evangelical insiders often felt there was little follow-through by the GOP" (121). During this time, evangelicalism had a massive explosion of landmark events: there was the Conservative Resurgence of the 80s in the SBC, which was led by luminary figures like Page Patterson, and Judge Paul Pressler, and due to the election of Adrian Rogers as the SBC President (124-125), there was the rise of parachurch ministries like Ligonier Ministries, Desiring God, and The Gospel Coalition (127).

Prominent Pastors like Tony Evans and John Piper, as well as famous Bible Teacher Beth Moore, rose to fame. Tony Evans is the triumph of evangelicalism. Not only is he a mega church pastor, but he is also the first African American to receive a doctorate from DTS. He also served as a chaplain for Dallas's NFL and NBA teams (129-130). Beth Moore is considered by many as one of the most popular Bible teachers in America. More than "650, 000 women had attended Moore's conferences, and millions more had read her books." And "as of mid-2018, she had more than 870,00 followers on Twitter" (130). Unfortunately, in 2016 she got herself in some hot water for openly criticizing white evangelicals for supporting Donald Trump (ibid).

At this point, the evangelicals were still basking in the glow of Reagan's "golden age" (133). What most Republicans were looking for was another Eisenhower: "a Republican anticommunist who was respectful of Christianity, even if they weren't personally devout. The model had worked for Nixon and Reagan, through Nixon's criminal duplicity temporarily threw the white evangelical/ Republican union into turmoil" (ibid). The evangelicals found this in a strange bedfellow named Bush Sr. 1988-2000 was seen as a "wilderness time" for the Republican insider since Bush Srs.' administration was not as influenced by evangelicals as Reagan was (134).

Where Graham left off, his son Franklin took over. Franklin became no stranger to the controversy by calling Islam an "evil and wicked religion" after 9/11 (135), which distanced him from George W. Bush. The election of Obama signaled another "wilderness season" for the Republican insider (140). Obama, like Bush, had had a straightforward conversion story. The issue for Obama is that he leaned towards progressive Christianity (ibid). This was only made more contentious by the rumor spread by Donald trump that Obama was not native-born, nor was he a Christian (ibid).
Kidd ends with a 13-page "Coda": "Donald Trump and the Crisis of Evangelicalism." Kidd opens by stating that, in "2016, Donald Trump scooped up endorsements from Republican insiders such as Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, and Jerry Falwell Jr" (144). The love for Trump didn't stop there; he had a speaking engagement in 2016 at Liberty (ibid), where President Falwell Jr said that Trump was "one of the greatest visionaries of our time" and that "Mr. Trump lives a life of loving and helping others as Jesus taught in the New Testament" (ibid). Many evangelicals would disagree with Falwell's warm sentiment towards Trump.

Evangelicals such as Beth Moore, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, John Piper, and Marvin Olasky, and members of The Gospel Coalition (145) would be among those that had their doubts about Presidential candidate Trump's sincerity. And yet Trump could pull 81 % of self-identified white evangelicals (ibid). Kidd writes, "something had apparently broken down in the while evangelical movement" (145). He notes that "From Eisenhower to Romney," he observes, "white evangelical voters had supported Republican candidates who seemed to model personal dignity and respect for religion, even if they did not have evangelical bona fides. . . . But 2016 found white evangelicals in a different mode" (146).

In the end, Kidd ends on a semi-positive note. He writes, "the major gap between what much of evangelicalism entails in everyday practice and what evangelicalism appears to be in media coverage" (154). Kidd reminds his readers that "evangelicals remain active in charitable ministry, giving, and service, even though this work rarely gets covered in the news" (153). And that "evangelicalism in practice remains an ethnically and politically diverse movement focused on the new birth in Christ" (154).

This book introduces who evangelicals are and, more importantly, should be. It has offered an excellent overview of the movement and its progress over the past 200-plus years. This book is an easily accessible primer that could be placed in any one hand, and they would come away with an informed understanding of the movement. Kidd's writing is clear, concise, and thought-provoking. Kidd doesn't seem to offer any way forward; though he diagnoses the problem, he ultimately doesn't give us any solution. Now that may not be the goal of his book, but as a historian, he focuses on the movement and how we got to where we are today. But it leaves the book flat, and it seems we are in limbo, which we can hopefully remove ourselves from.

The fascinating and practical aspect of this read is how Kidd could string together the diversity of evangelicalism. He has clarified that evangelicals and evangelicalism are not a monolith. We are a diverse body of believers that identify by a conversion experience, which prioritizes the Bible, and has a relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit. Seeing the ecumenical spirit behind evangelicalism gives the church a better and brighter future. It is inspiring to know that we can share such a heritage with brothers and sisters of all different walks of life and to learn from their experiences to help make us a more globally aware body of believers.

[Jacquelyn's Dunton · Rating 1 out of 5]

One would hope that a trained historian would be able to give an objective and accurate depiction of history without corrupting it with personal opinions. However, throughout Kidd's book, it is riddled with subjectivity and opinions on the history of evangelicalism. It is clearly seen that Kidd's political homelessness influences his writing on the topic. Kidd sets forth with the intention "to introduce readers to evangelicals’ experiences, practices, and beliefs, and to examine the reasons for our crisis today". However, concealed just under Kidd's stated thesis lies a sub-thesis. He states "the narrative of white evangelicals’ corrupt quest for Republican power is not false. But it is incomplete". Thus, his goal is to complete the history of a corrupt quest for republican power led by white evangelicals.

Though after reading Kidd's book, it seems as though he spent most of his writing proving his sub-thesis. The way that Kidd examines the crisis of evangelicalism is not so much a historical intellectual examination as it is presuppositional. Kidd presupposes that race, power, and politics are the main contributing factors to the evangelical movement. It is clear that these are his presuppositions because the book takes that shape from early on. Kidd paints with broad strokes when talking about ethnicity and riddles it into every facet of Evangelical history. In addition, he seems to think that when evangelicals have been politically active, they are vying for power.

Presupposing the root of an issue when doing historical analysis causes the presentation of historical fact to be skewed at best and at worst inaccurate. If Kidd were to present a factual historical account of the movement he so cares about, it may have been easier for him to conclude how it is that it got where it is today. However, it appears he began writing the book to address what he presumes are the root issues contributing to American Evangelicalism: race, politics, and power. In other words, Kidd presents an overtly subjective history of American Evangelicalism.

From the outset of reading the book I was surprised how often skin color and "race" was being brought up. I began to record each instance of it but quickly realized that it wasn't worth it. That is because I thought that I was reading a book on the history of evangelicalism, not the history of evangelicalism as it pertains to race.

Unfortunately, Kidd doesn't present an unbiased objective analysis of the history of American Evangelicalism. Instead, he gives the reader his own subjective view on the role what race, power, and politics have played in the movement’s history. I would not recommend this book one to anyone. I found it to be emotionally driven and extremely divisive. If you're looking for a history of Evangelicalism, look elsewhere.

[Conrade Yap · Rating 4 out of 5]

A few decades ago, evangelicals were understood as people who were Bible-believing church goers of the conservative stream. As more of them engage in politics, they have become associated with Bible-thumping activists pushing the Republican agenda in the name of Christianity. Due to the sizeable influence of such lobbying to tilt the results in their favour, many see with disdain the mixing of politics and religion. In contrast to the born-again believer affirming the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, the evangelical label is going through a unpleasant public perception, especially in North America, thanks to the Trump. However, according to author Thomas Kidd, historically, evangelicalism was never defined by partisan politics, unlike today's climate.


Rather than to let modern understanding hijack the meaning of "evangelical," Kidd gives us a historical tour of the origins of the name. He argues that the rise of the evangelicals occurred as early as AD33, for the name arose from the Greek word "euangelion," which means "gospel." He argues that the word evangelical comes way before the 16th Century rise of "Protestantism." He demonstrates that evangelicalism exists in various forms through the periods of English Anglicanism, German Pietism, Reformed movements, the spiritual awakenings in North America, etc. Yet, the original evangelical movement remains a minority faction. The rise actually began during the American War of Independence. With rising dissent from the established churches, the movement rose out of a reaction against the excesses of religious practices and political alliances. With dissent, many denominations also grow more independent from their predecessors. Fundamentalism became a new label for the evangelicals who emphasize biblical doctrines.Other factors for dissent includes slavery, antinomianism, modernism, and liberalism. The issue of evolution was a big thing in the 1920s. This spawns the "Neo-Evangelical Movement" which tries to set themselves apart from the "fundamentalists," with the former focusing more on "evangelism, missions, and higher-life piety more than theological combat." Some famous names associated with this movement are Harold John Ockenga, Jim Elliot, William Townsend, Carl F Henry, and Billy Graham. Organizations include Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary, Young Life, Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ, IVCF, Christianity Today, etc. By the 80s, the movement splits again. There the "Christian Right" that calls themselves the moral majority, and the moderates and the evangelical left. Thanks to people like Jerry Falwell, the Republican party becomes associated with this "Moral Majority" right wing, which is largely white. Then came the Reagan presidency which briefly united the broader evangelical public. After journeying through some major characters from the 80s to the Millenium, we arrive at the state of evangelicalism today, as associated with Trump. The author calls this period a "crisis of evangelicalism." It is a crisis because the division extends deep and wide. Voting patterns are distinctively different in terms of race, gender, social issues, and political allegiances. Arguments over biblical doctrine have become secondary. Lobbying for political advantage has taken center stage. Just like how many confuse nationalism with patriotism, many who call themselves evangelicals confuse their faith with political alliances. Ultimately, we must all do our homework to discern the main tenets of our faith. This calls for an honest examination of ourselves and a humility to let truth speak to power.

My Thoughts
One of the best descriptions of an evangelical still belongs to historian David Bebbington. He lists four marks of an evangelical; namely; conversionism (born again), biblicism (Bible affirming), activism (diligence and passion), and crucicentrism (centrality of the Cross). This classic definition should continue to be the guide for understanding who is an evangelical. I agree with the author that we need more people who care about the main tenets of our faith rather than the external labels of whether we support the Republican party or not. Truth be told, there are many who hold on to core biblical beliefs who are members of different political parties. Which organization they belong to do not dictate the faith. Our faith is determined by Jesus and revealed to us in the Bible. We need to make this distinction clearly for the sake of those who faith are new or young.

We need to bring back the definition of who evangelicals are. Instead of letting the press and atheist publications teach us, books like this will correct the excesses of such news outlets which are driven by agendas of their own. Let the truth teach and guide us instead of sensational news that entertain or mislead. We live in increasingly confusing times. For non-believers, they may be put off by the blatant agendas put forth by Christians who unashamedly politicize their version of evangelicalism. We cannot let them have the last say. If something is true, it is worth fighting for. I remember JI Packer's book entitled "The True Humanism" where Packer's conviction that humanism cannot be surrendered to the nominal humanists of today. For the true humanist is not someone who is atheistic or people setting themselves up as masters of this world. It is the Christian faith that has the final say as to what a true humanist is. In the same way, someone who calls themselves an evangelical may support a political party, members of that political party are not necessarily an evangelical. The faster we de-link the label from any political alliances, the better it is for proper and effective Christian witness of the gospel.

The danger now is two-fold. The ignorant would continue to be trapped by the politicizing of the word. The outside world would jettison the baby of truth out with the bathwater of negative perceptions of evangelicalism. Thanks to Kidd's, we have strong reasons not to let that happen.

Rating: 4.25 stars of 5.

conrade

This book has been provided courtesy of Yale University Press and NetGalley without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent primer on the history of American evangelicalism from an outstanding scholar. The focus is political and (not surprisingly) Southern Baptist. Kidd also provides an even-handed treatment of the historical racial failures and triumphs of the movement.

The book is meant to be an introduction, but nevertheless omits some important 20th century evangelical figures. It gives very little attention to James Dobson, R.C. Sproul, and Bill Hybels. There is no mention of John MacArthur, Jim Wallis, Bill Bright, Charles Swindoll, Promise Keepers, or the National Prayer Breakfast. And there is nothing on some notable evangelical interest groups like Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women for America, International Justice Mission, and Bread for the World.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating and historically informed look at what an evangelical really is (hint: it’s about core religious beliefs, not politics!), how the word came to be associated in the American mind exclusively with white Republicans (though there are more evangelicals of colour than white, more who are politically nonpartisan than Republican, and in fact more living outside the US), and how that connection to a particular political identity has damaged and splintered the movement itself.

[Austin]

Provides a thorough history of evangelicalism beginning with its origins in the 18th century. Many well-researched details. For instance, was interested to read more and get more details about the tie between increasing Western individualism and the beginnings of evangelicalism. What I see as the error at the heart of this book, though, is that it attempts to be proscriptive of evangelicalism instead of descriptive. In other words, Kidd is trying to alter perceptions of evangelicalism rather than make visible the realities of it.

Throughout the book, Kidd makes efforts to sanitize evangelical history. For instance, when ending the first chapter about evangelicalism's beginnings in the colonial US/England, he writes "But their individual, eternal emphasis also led some white evangelicals to turn a blind eye to manifest injustices around them, most notably the enslavement of African Americans." What an image! White evangelicals being "led" to "turn a blind eye" -- note the passive construction, the obfuscating verb choice. Kidd does acknowledge evangelicals owned slaves, but over and over throughout the book he sanitizes this fact and others, as above.

This isn't surprising given that Kidd is himself probably identifies as evangelical, teaches at a theological seminary, and regularly attends church. Another point i want to hit on that irked me: Kidd tries to fabricate a split between the "spiritual" and "political." All the time he's writing about how politics is not inherent to evangelicalism, politics is something they're almost dragged into, or something that the media ascribes to evangelicals. This culminates in the end of the book, where he attempts to carve the Trump-supporting evangelicals out of the very definition of evangelical--the key players in Trump's evangelical base are "Republican evangelical insiders" (i.e. Fox News types), not the "real" evangelical, who is defined by "certain beliefs, practices, and spiritual experiences." The book ends:

"Sometimes evangelicals have made terrible political mistakes. But conversion, devotion to an infallible Bible, and God's discernible presence are what make an evangelical an evangelical."

It's so goofy! To think that the spiritual and the political, or, that life and the political can be split like this. Also, disconnecting the theology of evangelicals (like inerrancy) from its (political!!) manifestations...Kidd's hand is shown, and the trick is spoiled. It feels, in the end, like only a book for white evangelicals to assuage their guilt after 2016, to regain the "purity" so key in evangelicalism by constructing a wall between themselves and the Trump supporters among them.

P.S.--get the vibe based on a couple odd mentions that Kidd, similarly to a lot of the "political" evangelicals he wants to distance himself from, thinks that being gay is living in sin. heheee. i might write more about this on substack we'll see~

edit: read Kidd's bio on here and saw he was on Prager radio show it all makes sensee o nooo

[Jason Eaken · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a lament, by a self-described evangelical, about where the movement is today. It traces the origins of evangelicalism, showing the irony that evangelicals were instrumental in the separation of church and state (to avoid a National American Church), juxtaposed with the ways that today's evangelical movement (meaning white Republican evangelicals) is obsessed with political power and attempting to bring a sort of Christian Nation back (which may never have existed as it's imagined to have been).

It also shows how The American Church has often been either silent about or on the wrong side of important cultural moments, most especially slavery and racism, while also highlighting the evangelicals who did speak out and fight for equality.

Part of the lament is the way "evangelical" is perceived today - white+Republican+religious - vs the historical (and current) ethnic diversity of those who believe similar things about Christ and the Bible. Mostly, it is a tragedy, as he traces how the movement slowly but surely became more interested in obtaining political influence and power (which also comes with media attention and perceived cultural importance), at the expense of spiritual growth and revival.

NEGATIVES:
He talks about dozens and dozens of historical figures, with little to no context or distinguishing characteristics for them. I never felt like I KNEW them. While Kidd's writing is clear, it is rarely good STORY-TELLING. Which means their stories and the impact of their actions gets downgraded to mere information: dates, places, events of which there are a LOT.

Similarly, he offers occasional analysis and insight. I wanted about 100x as much. Information does not adequately convey the "movement in crisis" from the subtitle, and it doesn't dig deep enough into the book's titular question: WHO is an Evangelical? What does it even MEAN to be one? This book answers "Who were a bunch of evangelicals?"

The book is only 156 pages. It probably needed to be about 400.

It's billed very much as a primer for deeper, more detailed books, and that's fine. It is packed with interesting potential, but it spreads itself WAY too thin, so that the potential remains untapped.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

About halfway through this book I turned to my wife and said, "If you are ever in a position where you have to name my favorite historian, it's Thomas Kidd." A normal wife may have thought this an incredibly odd thing to say, but my wife is by now used to it.

This is the third Kidd book I've read, previously reading the history of "Baptists in America" he co-wrote with Barry Hankins and his outstanding biography of Patrick Henry (whom my wife knows is my favorite Founding Father--another thing most other spouses may think is odd).

"Who Is an Evangelical" reminds me of Kidd's book on American Baptist history. Both books cover centuries of events and figures in a torrid pace. Easily accessible, "Who Is an Evangelical" begins by creating a baseline of what Evangelicals believe: Jesus is the son of God who came to save sinners, new birth, and more. Kidd then takes the reader from the teachings of early American preachers like George Whitefield all the way to the famed "81 percent" of Evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump in 2016. In between are hard conversations about Evangelical failures on race issues and a desire for political power, and celebrations of missionary work and theological victories.

Kidd is open about his conservative Baptist faith, but also his Trump skepticism. He does an outstanding job of critiquing the Evangelical political movement and marriage to Trump while recognizing many Evangelicals are less about promoting Trump than about preventing America from shifting hard to the left. The statistics available simply do not allow for a true understanding of that 81 percent statistic. To be clear, this book is not about Donald Trump, though he is the current focal point for the media's attention to Evangelicalism.

The only drawback to this book is that it could have easily been another 100 pages and still may not have been as filling as I wanted it to be. I finished the book wanting more, which I would argue makes for a better book than one that simply compiles as many dates and facts as possible to reach 500 pages. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It is relevant, fascinating, well-researched, and very readable.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Who is an evangelical? Ask ten self-identified evangelicals and you may get eleven answers. Many of those answers will include or exclude others based on one's own perception of who is an evangelical. Thomas Kidd is a professor at Baylor University and writes to clarify the question of who is an evangelical. He traces the rise and history of evangelicalism, especially in the United States from its foundations through recent questions that have arisen with the "evangelical" identification with Donald Trump.

One of the strengths of this work is how Kidd demonstrates the uneasy relationship between evangelicalism as it was understood throughout most of American history and the ventures of those who were so identified into social/political issues. The evangelical debacle of the Scopes Monkey Trial is a primary example. Another strength is that Kidd carefully distinguishes the histories of white evangelicals and blacks who have similar beliefs but somewhat different political affiliations.

One's evaluation of this book will almost certainly reflect one's previous understanding of who is an evangelical. Those who see evangelicalism primarily as a theological designation of a certain subset of Protestantism will appreciate Kidd's historical perspective and balanced presentation. Those who see evangelicalism embracing a certain political stance will not be convinced by this work.

Although Kidd does not develop this question, his work once again raises the question of whether or not the term "evangelical" can be maintained by those who wish to express by it a certain set of beliefs that have been historically affirmed. The nature of this work forces the question to be asked but does not propose a response.

[Ben Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to give this book one star, but Kidd's extensive research earned him a second star. However, this is one of the worst written historical works I've ever read. It's as if Kidd did an enormous amount of research, found hundreds of interesting facts, and then did whatever he could to force as many of them as possible into his narrative. Thus, he consistently wanders away from the scope of his project in order to incorporate information that is fascinating, but irrelevant.

In addition, his terminology and definitions shift throughout the book, adding to the difficulty in tracking with his thought processes. For example, from the outset of the book he decides to incorporate Pentecostals into "Evangelicalism," and yet in a later chapter he deals with Evangelicals and Pentecostals as if they are two separate entities. Things like this happen over and over again, and inconsistencies like that made this book a frustrating read.

To be fair, the main point Kidd makes is solid, and important. His research was clearly extensive as well. However, the whole project would have been much better received if he had limited his scope of work and simply made the argument he was shooting for without having to name drop every other paragraph.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Kidd is a topnotch academic historian. Some readers will be surprised to discover that Who Is an Evangelical? is not an academic history. Kidd's stated purpose is: "I hope that scholars will find the book valuable, but it is mainly written for other people--journalists, pastors, people who work in politics, and more--who are interested in what makes evangelicals tick" (3). I'm unsure of how to answer whether Kidd achieved this goal. On the one hand, he does a fantastic job tracing the political history of the evangelical movement, and does so on a level that is easy to understand--especially for those outside of the evangelical tradition. However, because of the intended audience, there isn't much exploration into the theological reasons behind evangelicalism. He does discuss evangelical theology, but it's questionable if the surface-level treatment of it does much to help a non-evangelical understand the tradition. Of course, an in-depth dive of the theological undergirding of evangelicalism may be beyond the scope for his intended audience, even though it would provide a fuller picture for evangelicals' political and social decisions. That said, Kidd answers the question, "Who is an evangelical," and provides the history in a succinct and easy-to-follow manner. For this, the book should be commended.

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

This informative piece is a book that I think everyone should at least consider reading, no matter your political alignment. Dr. Thomas Kidd explains the roots of Protestantism in the United States, from its beginning days, to the present time, and how it has changed and evolved through the centuries.

I thought it was an eye-opener and definitely made me think twice about certain aspects that I was told growing up with regards to religion and its relationship to the state. I spoke to Dr. Kidd himself during a recent writer's conference, and exchanged thoughts and concerns that we both saw in recent years as far as how these mindsets impact communities and their view of Christians.

Dr. Kidd writes first and foremost as an academic, but as a fellow believer, he shows that this is something that he is concerned about on a personal level.

I rated it 4 stars because for all the information given, I would have liked some personal comments on how the readers can apply the information found in the book. I know he wrote it primarily as an academic piece, however, which I appreciate.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful look at the roots of evangelicalism and the road to the present day. It was refreshing to read an account that could acknowledge the many shortcomings but also not simplistically limp evangelicals into one pot based upon support of Trump. Still, the problem of "what an evangelical is" looms large, both in terms of defining anything coherent and in terms of whether anyone can even agree upon what they are referring to. Is it a theological term, racial identity term, political term, or something else entirely? Probably depends on who is using it.

This quote sums up the issue well: "White evangelicals' uncritical fealty to the GOP is real, and that fealty has done so much damage to the movement that it is uncertain whether the term evangelical can be rescued from its political and racial connotations. But as I tried to convey in this book, there is a major gap between what much of evangelicalism entails in everyday practice and what evangelicalism appears to be in media coverage" (pg 154).

[Zak Schmoll · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book provides a nice little primer on the history of the term evangelical and places emphasis on evangelical as a term of religious identification rather than political identification. I think this is a faithful way to consider this term, and the way that many of us use it on the inside as opposed to how the media or polling organizations tend to use the term. While the author explicitly states that this is written for the layperson rather than the academic scholar, I do wish there was a little bit more citation throughout. It is an easy read; it took me a few hours. It is a rather straightforward historical account with relatively little author commentary until the conclusion, and I think it is a useful resource.

[Mauberley]

This is a timely and useful book that shares a great deal of learning in clear and very readable prose. In answering the question of its title, Kidd is particularly strong in detailing the origins and history of evangelicalism in America. As to the issues raised by the sub-title, the author is less compelling as Kidd tends to focus on the meaning of ‘evangelical’ as a term employed by those in media and, more precisely, pollsters. Among the many interesting insights shared by Kidd was the attempt in May 1954 to enact an amendment to the constitution “affirming the national authority of Jesus Christ” (pg. 96). My goodness.

[Logan Thune · Rating 3 out of 5]

The short answer: it’s complicated.

However, a real experience of conversion (being born again), commitment to the Bible as the infallible Word of God (primacy of Scripture), and God’s discernible presence (personal relationship with the divine) are historical characteristics that have helped distinguish evangelical Christians from non-evangelicals. Aside from any partisan/controversial polling habits, the three characteristics noted above are helpful in defining the term. Thomas Kidd does a good job surveying the highs and lows of the evangelical movement from Whitefield to today.

[Tyler Hurst · Rating 5 out of 5]

Super interesting read and really helps me situate an understanding of evangelicalism. I think Kidd and David Wells (Courage to Be Protestant) are a little at odds but both are really helpful.

Another note, Kidd’s comments on race are interesting as they are honest and helpful. I think the tone and lack of presumption makes Kidd a far more helpful read than, say Tisby, whose preoccupation with race makes it a difficult read that appears to lack generosity.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

nice summary of historiography of evangelicalism as of 2018. Kidd’s definition of who is an evangelical is fairly broad, but simple, based on belief and a “new birth” experience more than anything else. Does a pretty good job pulling out rotten political threads in the 20th century that led to Trump. One of his goals is to rescue evangelicalism as a category from Trumpism. Analytically, his project is fairly successful, but in reality he’s mostly shouting into the wind.

[Lance Crandall · Rating 3 out of 5]

While detailing the history of Evangelicalism, Kidd shows how the term “evangelical” has basically morphed into a political term meaning = white religious Republican.

Kidd wants to maintain and emphasize the spiritual and theological history of the word.
I appreciate this desire, but am not really sure it can be reclaimed.

The book could have been both more detailed and more clear at points.