"Evangelical" a Cover for Doctrinal Laxity
I highly recommend Iain Murray's book, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Banner of Truth Trust). Written in 1972, Murray attempted to uncover aspects of Spurgeon's thinking that had been lost in the eighty years since his death. Thankfully, the scholarship of Spurgeon has achieved new heights--but more than that, this scholarship shows that Solomon was right: “there is nothing new under the sun.”
The term “evangelical” has taken on a definition that, in our day, has morphed from a Christ-centered, gospel-driven orientation to a political constituency. David Bebbington evangelical quadrilateral of Bible, cross, conversion, and activism helped tether the term to its original meaning, for sure.
In Spurgeon's day, Murray noted this situation in the late nineteenth century:
As we look back now on the last decades of the nineteenth century we cannot exonerate orthodox ministers who allowed the term “evangelical" to become debased: they had not the strength to declare that men were not ministers of Christ who, while professing the “Evangelical faith,” either never preached that Faith or practically repudiated it in the details of their teaching. This compromise was the start of a process which has since often made the word “evangelical" a cover for doctrinal laxity. The present century is full of examples of the evil which has resulted from this perversion of terminology.
What kind of perversion? As mentioned above, taking the term and now applying it to a political constituency that has more to do with a way of life from a certain era (which usually means older whites) than it does fidelity to the doctrinal truths expounded in Scripture. In an August 2024 article from the Barna Research Group, here is a damning look at where evangelicals are in the United States:
Although more conservative on moral issues, as a whole evangelicals reflect fewer lifestyle differences from the culture than often thought. Surprisingly, most evangelical do not possess a biblical worldview—only about one-third do. In fact, the data strongly suggests that evangelicals are more likely to be shaped by the culture around them than they are to influence or “evangelize” it.
In Spurgeon's interactions with his Baptist Union during the late 1880’s, known as the Downgrade Controversy, the concern for many was union above all things, where as for Spurgeon it was doctrinal fidelity above all things. Spurgeon's exposure of the teachings in the churches of the Baptist Union, and their resistance to call these teachings out, made him divisive in the minds of many in the Union. Spurgeon, whose conscience could not allow him to remind, withdrew. This was followed by a censure from the Union and, to the tune of 2000-7, voted in favor of his censure (and sadly, some of those votes came from his own students from the Pastors' College).
Unity at the cost of truth is not unity in the Scriptural sense. Unity based on truth is. So in Spurgeon's day as in ours, the lack of a possession of a biblical worldview on the part of “evangelicals" means that unity happens at the expense of biblical truth.
Churches should not discard the clear teachings of Scripture just for the sake of unity or having a seat at whatever table is desired. The only table we should desire is the one at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19, where our desire is to please and obey Christ in all we do. Christ's Word informs our conscience. Not culture. Not upbringing. Not days gone by.
Let's reclaim the word “evangelical” for what it truly means. “Good-newsers" who love the Scripture, go through the cross, hearts converted, lives living for Christ. Not just a decision but a devotion and dedication to all that Christ is and all that He's done.