As a result of the influence of Bebbington‘s quadrilateral, his approach has been subjected to considerable academic scrutiny. Rob Warner (2007) has reviewed and categorised some of the different types of responses to Bebbington‘s fourfold schema and included some of his own. These responses can be organised into four categories:
32 reordering and reprioritisation; the suggestion of additional features; the suggestion of pervading organising principles; and express criticisms of aspects of Bebbington‘s approach. In terms of the previous consideration in this chapter of group identity formation, these responses can also serve as a witness to the manner in which the content of identity narratives are always contested and can be the subject of advocacy for change and variation. Such contestation extends to the nature and proper
interpretation of historically received narratives of a religious collective and the form such narratives should take in light of the perceived demands and priorities of
particular circumstances.
(a) Reordering and Reprioritisation
The first category of responses has sought to reorder and thus reprioritise Bebbington‘s four features. Warner outlines that some more conservative evangelicals (for example, Oliver Barclay 1997) seeking to affirm the ‗three cardinal areas of doctrine
– revelation, redemption and regeneration‘ (Warner 2007: 17), have advocated a reordering of Bebbington‘s features thus – biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism and activism (Barclay 1997: 10-12). Warner also outlines that a ‗post-Barthian
evangelical30 would prefer to affirm the ultimacy of the personal revelation of the divine in Christ‘ (Warner 2007: 17) which would promote a reordering thus –
crucicentrism, biblicism, conversionism, activism (Clive Calver and Rob Warner 1996:
94).
To be fair, Bebbington does himself concede at the outset that different
evangelical individuals and groups have, over the years, emphasised and prioritised his
30For example, Clive Calver and Rob Warner (1996: 27).
33 four identified characteristics differently (Bebbington 1989: 3). For example,
Bebbington believes that in the early period of the eighteenth-century revivals, priority was placed upon conversionism and crucicentrism. Later, in the nineteenth century, and in response to theologians who sought to emphasise the authority of the Church and/or reason, he argues that evangelicals tended to prioritise and emphasise the primacy of scripture and biblicism. Further, Bebbington argues that for some British evangelicals in the first half of the twentieth century, activism was the priority with biblicism returning to prominence among some later twentieth-century conservative evangelicals (3). Thus Bebbington seems to be perfectly aware that there has been, and will continue to be, an ongoing reprioritising of the four key aspects he outlined in his quadrilateral.
(b) Additional Suggested Features
A second category of response to Bebbington‘s quadrilateral has sought to advocate for additional features to be included within it in order to provide what some maintain to be a more comprehensive representation of British evangelical theology (Warner 2007:
17ff). For example, a number of scholars, such as Barclay (1997: 11-12), McGrath (1995: 65), Calver and Warner (1996: 98-99) and Stackhouse (2000: 43-46) have suggested that ‗Christocentricty‘ is a distinctive (although not unique) feature of evangelicalism. In this regard, Warner maintains that:
Evangelical preaching, piety and hymnody are characteristically, albeit not exclusively, Jesus centred […]. [T]he doctrine of the Trinity has frequently been neglected by evangelicals in favour of Christocentricity. (Warner 2007:
17)
34 Explaining the rationale for the inclusion of a distinctive ‗Christ-centred‘ feature of
British evangelicalism, Oliver Barclay (1997) has also observed that:
The cross can become a cold doctrine, the Bible a mere collection of precepts, and the new birth a merely psychological experience, if they all do not depend totally on a personal relationship with the living Jesus Christ himself. This has been the mark of most evangelical renewals, often in subtle rather than
explicit ways. (11-12)
Other scholars, such as George Marsden (1984), have further advocated the addition of a feature of evangelicalism which stresses ‗the importance of a spiritually transformed life‘ (Marsden 1984: x). Yet others, including Calver and Warner (1996: 99-100) have emphasised the importance of ‗revival‘ which Warner argues ‗reflects evangelicalism‘s roots in the Great Awakening‘ (Warner 2007: 18).31
(c) Additional Organising Principles
Warner documents a third category of responses to Bebbington‘s quadrilateral in which he proposes what he describes as ‗[t]wo further emphases [which] function as
organising principles for evangelical thought‘ (18). The first of Warner‘s ‗organising principles‘ seeks to emphasise
the centrality of the Protestant principle of faith alone. No matter how drawn to works righteousness evangelicals have often been […] faith not works is the pivot of the voluntarist and convertive piety by which evangelicals have routinely distinguished themselves from nominalism and ritualism. This emphasis is a constant within the evangelical mind-set, implicitly informing evangelicals‘ core convictions. (18)
31 Warner notes that Alister McGrath (1995: 68ff and 78ff) has ‗proposed two further characteristic emphases, upon the Spirit and community […].‘ Warner argues that while ‗these are certainly current evangelical distinctives in some quarters, it is doubtful they can be credibly claimed as historically persistent evangelical priorities‘ (Warner 2007: 18).
35 Again, to be fair, Bebbington does not totally neglect the doctrine of justification by faith but refers to this principle in his discussion of conversionism (Bebbington 1989:
6).
A second organising principle for evangelical thought is advocated by John Stackhouse (2000) in what he terms ‗transdenominationalism‘ (42). Warner maintains that:
Extreme schismatics apart, evangelicals have certainly tended to relativise their own denominational identity at least to some degree in favour of pan-evangelical co-operation. (Warner, 2007: 19)32
Transdenominationalism is certainly an organising principle of evangelicalism which is emphasised by contemporary conservative Anglican evangelicals such as Peter Jensen (2006: 2) and his brother, Philip Jensen (2008: para 35-36). Further,
transdenominationalism clearly influences Roger Olson‘s (2005) conclusion that:
Evangelicalism is a loose affiliation, coalition, network, mosaic, patchwork, family of most Protestant Christians of many orthodox (Trinitarian)
denominations and independent churches and parachurch organizations. (6)
(d) Express Criticisms
A final category of responses to Bebbington‘s fourfold schema can be described as holistic criticisms of the schema itself. Warner for example regards Bebbington‘s approach as fundamentally ‗static‘ in nature (Warner 2007: 19-20). Warner asserts that notwithstanding ‗its cogency as a conceptual framework, Bebbington‘s approach represents less of a theological matrix than a static summation of the essence of the
32 The transdenominationalistic character of evangelicalism is also emphasised by George Marsden (1984: xiv).
36 evangelical tradition‘ (19).33 This criticism is intriguing because notwithstanding the fact Warner displays an extremely competent understanding of Bebbington‘s work with respect to his quadrilateral, Warner nonetheless fails to appreciate that
Bebbington himself has acknowledged that these four factors are not static. This is because throughout the history of British evangelicalism since the 1730s, different evangelical individuals and groups have contested and reprioritised the various factors.
Warner‘s concern regarding Bebbington‘s schema being unduly ‗static‘ however is also not shared by all scholars of British evangelicalism. For instance, Mathew Guest (2007) characterises as one of its virtues the very fact that:
Bebbington‘s scheme is also sufficiently loose to allow for changes in
emphasis over time and in different contexts, highlighting key axes rather than a fixed set of creedal statements. Conceiving evangelical priorities as axes – or, using [Anthony] Cohen‘s language, as a common body of symbols – from which social manifestations radiate – emerging, evolving and interacting with other elements and contexts – allows for a much richer appreciation of
evangelical identity and evangelical culture. (20)
Another potential line of express criticism is raised by Stephen Holmes (2007a). Firstly, Holmes challenges whether there has even ever been a distinctive British evangelical theology. He argues that British evangelicalism ‗has never been a movement that is driven by, or even possessed of, a distinctive theology‘ (241). He further maintains that:
Any attempt to define eighteenth-century British evangelicalism as a theological movement is destined to failure. Its leaders were preachers and hymn writers, not theologians; its distinctives were practical and
experimental, not doctrinal. (242)
33 Warner proposes that his response is significantly influenced by George Marsden‘s notion of
‗conflicting priorities within pan-evangelicalism‘ (Warner 2007: 19).
37 Thus, with respect to the various elements of Bebbington‘s quadrilateral, while Holmes concedes that you can identify particular British evangelicals who at different times in the history of British evangelicalism have advocated, perhaps forcefully, positions concerning conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentrism, these do not encompass distinctive theological aspects that have been used in the construction of British evangelical identity. He goes on to conclude that:
There is no British, still less any European, evangelical theology, if by that is meant an identifiable commonly held and distinctive position; instead, there is an ongoing conversation, returning often to central themes, but in different ways, open to other voices, borrowing gratefully sometimes, pausing to denounce stridently at others – or often, different voices within the conversation responding in each of these ways. (255-256)
Holmes also challenges the notion that scholars of evangelical history such as Bebbington himself, along with Mark Noll (1994 & 2004), actually hold to the view that there are distinctive elements of evangelical theology. Instead he suggests Bebbington and Noll more correctly define evangelicalism in terms of networks, contacts, relationships and activities as opposed to defining it in terms of particular aspects of theological doctrine (Holmes 2007a: 241). In the interview conducted with Holmes, he was asked to clarify his position on this issue and again he affirmed the view that ‗I am very happy with his [Bebbington‘s] kind of definition there. I just do not think it is doctrinal, do not think it is theological.‘ Rather, Holmes maintained that
‗evangelicalism‘ is ‗fundamentally a sociological term that describes a particular cultural location within the Christian movement [...] [so] no, there is not a distinctively evangelical theology.‘
With respect to Bebbington, Holmes‘ assertion does not though accord with the interpretation of Bebbington‘s analysis as discussed in this chapter. It also fails to
38 accord with the interpretation of his fourfold schema by the other scholars discussed here who have been identified as having received and responded to Bebbington‘s quadrilateral. In his interview, for example, David Hilborn, the former Evangelical Alliance Head of Theology, referred to Bebbington (1989) as ‗the seminal text for these sort of historical doctrinal developments singles out crucicentrism as one of these distinctive of evangelical identity – British evangelical identity‘ (emphasis added).
When asked in his interview to clarify what he was trying to convey about British evangelicalism in his quadrilateral and whether this included theological doctrines which can be regarded as having contributed to the construction of British evangelical identity, Bebbington replied that his quadrilateral
is simply specifying what the most salient features of evangelicalism have appeared to be phenomenologically. That is to say, it [British evangelicalism]
is a religious movement set in great store by doctrine by and large, so it is not surprising that theological convictions loom large. [...] It is saying what evangelical identity has been over time.
With respect to Mark Noll, while Holmes‘ assertion is correct to the extent that Noll does focus upon what he describes as evangelical kin-networks with genealogical connections (Noll 2004: 16-17), Noll nonetheless concludes that
evangelicalism was always also constituted by the convictions that emerged [...] evangelicalism designates a consistent pattern of convictions and attitudes that have been maintained over the centuries since the 1730s. Many efforts have been made to summarize those convictions and attitudes. One of the most effective is offered by David Bebbington, who has identified four key ingredients of evangelicalism [...].(16)34
34 Noll made a similar point in his previous study on the subject (Noll 1994: 8).
39 Another line of express criticism challenges the contemporary relevance of
Bebbington‘s outlining of modern evangelical identity. Brian Harris (2008) for example, while acknowledging the schema‘s traditional influence upon evangelical scholarship, has nonetheless questioned whether in a postmodern context
is contemporary evangelicalism (or are contemporary evangelicalisms)
characterised by the priority placed on conversionism, activism, Biblicism and crucicentrism […] [and if] not, would other descriptors prove more accurate, desirable or both? (202)
Harris proceeds to consider each of the four aspects of Bebbington‘s schema in the light of responses he obtained from a small sample of theological students in Western Australia. They identified themselves as attending evangelical churches and as students of relevant contemporary evangelical scholarship. Harris concludes that:
Each priority has been shown to be the source of at least some ferment and revisioning […]. While Bebbington‘s priorities remain relevant, contemporary evangelicalism might be better characterised as being a community of
passionate piety. While at a popular level, the doctrinal focus of the past has receded, the experience of a transforming encounter with Christ remains.
(212-3)
Two observations can be made with respect to this criticism. Firstly, that it, like Holmes‘s before, is clearly at odds with the balance of evangelical scholarship on this issue. Secondly, the controversy among British evangelicals in the mid-2000s which is the focus of this thesis, namely the doctrine of the atonement and atonement models such as penal substitution which are theological concepts which accompany
crucicentrism, suggests that at least with respect to this aspect of the quadrilateral, it retains an ongoing significance that cannot be so easily dismissed.
40 One of the important things a consideration of the range of responses to
Bebbington‘s work also reveals is the manner in which the narratives associated with important markers used by a religious collective in the construction of their identity are indeed contested and can therefore become the object of advocacy for change and variation. As MacIntyre (1989: 146) suggested, such contestation can relate not only to the nature and proper interpretation of historically received narratives, but also the form such narratives should take in contemporary and future contexts and in the light of the perceived demands and priorities of particular circumstances (Carroll and Roof 1993: 17). As shall be demonstrated in subsequent chapters, this trend continues with respect to the particular evangelical identity marker of crucicentrism, the theological concepts associated with this factor including the doctrine of the atonement and the various atonement models which have been developed, including penal substitution.