The Diversity and Complexity of Evangelical Theology

To say that evangelical theology is diverse is an understatement. Furthermore, what constitutes a theological perspective as “evangelical” is also controversial. In view of this diversity, how then, can we describe the basic features of evangelical theology? Before this is considered, it is first important to suggest what is meant by “evangelical” or evangelicalism in general. Some wave the banner of evangelical, or “evangelicalism”, especially in the United States, as a way to promote or defend a brand of Christian nationalism. Collin Hansen submits, lamentably, that evangelicals are often known for “advocating the gospel of free markets, strong defense, and traditional morals” (Hansen 2011, p. 6). Hansen and others would rather cling to the notion of an evangelical as simply referring to those who express a personal, vibrant faith commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Hansen 2011, p. 6).1 As the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE 2018) puts it: “What all evangelicals share in common does not require organizational connection, denominational affiliations or shared leadership. Our common bond is personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord” (NAE n.d.). David Bebbington provided a widely known summary of the meaning of evangelical into four basic points (known as the Bebbington Quadrilateral): (1) Conversionism; (2) Activism; (3) Biblicism; and (4) Crucicentrism (Treier and Shin 2022). However, some, such as Kyle Beshears, suggest that this quadrilateral has its limitations by overemphasizing doctrine over practice, by its neglect in mentioning the ancient creeds, its failure to include the resurrection of Christ, and its oversight in referring to evangelicalism’s explicit Trinitarianism (Beshears 2024).

Evangelical theologian, John S. Feinberg, defines evangelical theology as a “set of doctrines held historically and traditionally by the Church throughout its history. It is rooted in Scripture and cannot contradict anything Scripture teaches” (Feinberg n.d.). Of course, this raises the question as to what exactly Scripture “teaches”, as this will vary significantly among its interpreters. The Evangelical Theological Society is the largest academic society focused on theological scholarship from an evangelical perspective. To join this society, one must subscribe to the society’s brief doctrinal statement: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory”.2

Yet, with the Evangelical Theological Society’s efforts to unite those who consider themselves “evangelical” under its doctrinal statement, controversies have nonetheless remained among those who bear the evangelical moniker (Hansen 2011, pp. 16–17).3 With such fragmentation and diversity, Michael Bird notes that the “self-identifying” adjective of “evangelical” now requires its own qualifying adjective. Bird submits examples that include conservative evangelical, progressive evangelical, white evangelical, liturgical evangelical, and charismatic evangelical (Bird 2025). David Naselli and Collin Hansen observe four additional types of evangelicals in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, which include fundamentalism, confessional evangelicalism, generic evangelicalism, and postconservative evangelicalism (Hansen 2011, p. 17). Undoubtedly, evangelical theology need not be reduced to its more conservative angles, as postconservative evangelical theology is also on the rise. Four noteworthy examples include the publication of the following: Revisioning Evangelical Theology (Grenz 1993); The Character of Theology: A Postconservative Evangelical Approach (Franke 2005); Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology (Olson 2007); and How to be Evangelical Without Being Conservative (Olson 2008).

Considering issues of diversity and disparity among evangelicals, the question arises: Is the term “evangelical” too broad to be of any descriptive use? Are the various and (at times) divergent perspectives that apply the term “evangelical” so vast as to render the term meaningless? As a result of these questions, among others, some scholars question whether or not evangelicalism has come to its end. This is evident, for example, in After Evangelicalism (Gushee 2019); and The End of Evangelicalism (Fitch 2011). Others consider its deconstruction, developments, and decolonization, observed in Deconstructing Evangelicalism (Hübner 2020); The Other Evangelicals (Sharp 2023); and Decolonizing Evangelicalism (Woodley and Sanders 2020). Regardless, these perspectives, among others, demonstrate how the term “evangelical” has become detached from its restricted association with fundamentalist Christianity.

With the breadth of meaning applied to the word “evangelical”, the notion of evangelical theology also becomes a difficult concept to identify. What sense can one make of the term “evangelical” as a description of a distinct theological method today? Michael Bird wants to maintain use of the adjective “evangelical” in theology because it situates him within a broad historical context that cherishes and champions the gospel as the “center, boundary, and integrating point for the Christian faith” (Bird 2025). Other recent works also show prospects for maintaining the use of the term, “evangelical theology”. For example, a book edited by Porter and Studebaker (2018), Evangelical Theological Method: Five Views proposes five evangelical methods in view of the current “global, pluralistic, and postmodern landscape of contemporary evangelical theology” (p. 23). These include conservative theology, missional theology, interdisciplinary theology, contextual theology, and Trinitarian dogmatic theology (pp. 24–27).

Although various works, including those mentioned above, consider different evangelical theological methods and overall tendencies, possibilities, or disagreements with or among evangelical theologians, this Special Edition will highlight a few specific (although still diverse) issues from international scholars with immediate relevance for today’s concerns. In the following paragraphs, I will underscore how each of the authors make a meaningful and particular contribution in this regard.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to devastate people in that region, evangelical theologian and church leader, Roman Soloviy provides a historic and trenchant analysis of the Ukrainian church’s revised mission in view of this crisis in his article, “The Church Amidst the War of Attrition: Ukrainian Evangelical Community in Search of a New Mission Paradigm”. Soloviy argues that a missional theology of crisis is also relevant for (evangelical) church communities that are facing existential crises of a similar sort. Factors including constant threats and devastation, combined with the ability to communicate via modern technologies, have prevented traditional evangelical isolationist mentalities. This has resulted in increased humanitarian concern and has also opened the doors for fresh theological reflection.

In “The 1977 Chicago Call: Debating Evangelical Identity”, Melanie C. Ross returns to the Chicago Call, a document that intended to provide several unifying historic commitments of evangelicals, first under the guidance of theologian, Robert Webber. The Chicago Call was a response to concerns of, according to Ross, “rootlessness, individualism, and superficiality” (p. 2) observed in evangelical churches. It urged evangelicals to engage more thoroughly with the historical grounding of their Christian faith. However, Ross points out the tenuous nature of and varying perspectives on what should be emphasized and how among evangelicals, including issues such as the place of the Reformation, the Church, and Scripture. Her article demonstrates how achieving evangelical theological agreement, or at least agreement on specific issues of doctrinal concern, will continue to present challenges and opportunities for dialog and negotiation. Evangelicals have often been known to highly emphasize the importance of Scripture over tradition, but as Ross’s article submits, nuances and emphases on the place of Scripture and tradition have been greatly debated.

In view of such ongoing debates, Dǎnuț Mǎnǎstireanu and Dǎnuț Jemna provide a constructive proposal in “There is Hope in the Incarnation—Challenging the Bibliological Docetism of Today’s Evangelicalism”. Mǎnǎstireanu and Jemna observe that evangelicals often overemphasize the divine character of Scripture at the expense of emphasizing its human nature, hence, obtaining a “docetic” view of Scripture. If instead, evangelicals intentionally stress both the human and divine in Scripture, it will help bring humility to the work of interpretation. This will open the doors for interpretation to transition from a more individualistically focused endeavor to one highlighting its ecclesial, community aims.

Isaac B. Sharp’s article, “The Barthian Revolt or the New Modernism: Karl Barth and the Limits of American Evangelical Theology”, considers the debates over the definition of a distinctive evangelical theology that came about as a response to theological liberalism. Karl Barth was explicitly anti-liberal and had evangelical defenders such as Donald Bloesch and Bernard Ramm. But Sharp’s article shows that most of those advocating for a distinctive evangelical theology have been unwilling to welcome Barth into the fold. Instead, mainstream evangelicals have used Barth’s theological perspectives (such as his view of Scripture and tendencies toward universalism) as a litmus test to reveal that which does not fully align with authentic evangelicalism—a perspective many continue to maintain to this day.

As we continue to consider evangelical theology’s emphasis on Scripture, we finally come to Walter Creighton Marlowe’s provocative article, “Evangelicalism and Old Testament Messianic Prophecy”. Marlowe makes the ironic observation that progressive evangelical theologians tend to strongly emphasize a grammatical–historical–cultural exegesis more than conservative evangelical theologians. Specifically, Marlowe shows examples of Messianic prophecies and the historical evangelical emphasis on their direct prophetic fulfillment for purposes of apologetics. Recent views among evangelical theologians tend to emphasize “contextual exegesis” over views immersed in fundamentalism. Marlowe points the way forward by navigating between the strong commitment to Scripture that has characterized evangelical theology through the years and the traditionalism of evangelicalism that may actually obscure Scripture rather than support it.

It is my hope that each of these provocative articles will give insight into various theological perspectives and sensibilities that have shaped, and continue to shape, today’s evangelical theological landscape, while also pointing us forward to the ongoing relevance of evangelical theology for society, the church, and the academy. There are indeed several additional areas that may be explored in view of evangelical theology today. For instance, deeper reflection is deserved as to the relevance and meaning of the term “evangelical” for global Christianity and specifically those coming from a majority world context. Other areas meriting further research would be the relationship between evangelical theology and postmodern deconstruction, or postconservative evangelical thought with respect to recent theological trends in phenomenology. Nevertheless, I trust that this Special Edition of RELIGIONS will be a launchpad to stimulate ongoing deliberation between divergent perspectives and encourage ongoing explorations into the multi-textured shape and possibilities of evangelical theology, while acknowledging its diverse expressions among those who consider themselves “evangelical” theologians.

Finally, many thanks to the contributors to this Special Edition, with a special thanks to the managing editor, Violet Li, for her always prompt attention, patience, and expertise along the way.