Q&A: Michael Reeves Answers Your Questions about Evangelicalism

April 27, 2022 by: Crossway

This article is part of the The Crossway Podcast series.

Follow-Up Questions about Evangelicalism

A few weeks ago, we asked readers to submit their questions about the topic of evangelicalism for Michael Reeves. Many of you sent questions from around the world, with questions ranging from Does Mark Noll’s famous critique of evangelical anti-intellectualism still hold true? to Why does it seem like so many evangelicals are converting to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

Gospel People

Gospel People

Michael Reeves

Should Christians abandon the evangelical label? Michael Reeves argues from Scripture and church history that Christians should return to the evangel—the gospel—in order to identify the clear theology of evangelicalism.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | RSS

Topics Addressed in This Interview:

00:53 - What would be lost if we dropped the term evangelical?

Matt Tully
Mike, thank you for joining me again—very quickly—on The Crossway Podcast.

Michael Reeves
It’s great to be with you, Matt.

Matt Tully
A few weeks ago we released an interview that you and I did related to the current state of evangelicalism. We dug into the use of that term today in our culture and around the world, what a distinctly evangelical theological identity should actually look like, and a whole lot more. If you haven’t listened to that interview I would encourage people to go back and find that one. As we released that conversation and your new book, Gospel People, we quickly concluded that another interview would be worthwhile, this time answering questions that people from around the world have for you about this discussion and topic of what is evangelicalism. What does it really mean to call ourselves evangelicals, and what’s the significance there? So, that’s what we’re going to do today. We’re going to discuss some questions that people have submitted.

Michael Reeves
Excellent. I look forward to it.

Matt Tully
The first question that I wanted to start with is from a listener in Montgomery, Alabama. This person writes, “What would be lost if we dropped the term evangelical? Despite its historical roots and the value of its convictions when properly understood, is retaining the label actually worth the battle? Do we not have more to gain and less to lose than dropping the term for self-identification?” How would you respond to that?

Michael Reeves
I don’t primarily want to fight for the label. I want to fight for being people of the gospel. But with that said, names do matter. How we’re defined and how we’re labeled has implications. We need to be judicious in how we speak of ourselves. In certain contexts I know that misunderstandings will be so acute that you don’t want to put the evangelical label out front and center. You may want to work towards it and you may want to judge it by the context. But my sense is that we could too quickly abandon the fight for the label because it’s difficult. People misunderstand it, so we simply back off. But what will happen is we need to have some self-descriptor. If we abandon this one, with all its historical pedigree and its simplicity (it’s simply saying we are gospel people), then we need to pick some new label. There are two potential problems with that. One is that by picking a new label, that could wear thin or be misunderstood just as quickly. If we’re constantly rebranding ourselves every ten years, the thought that we’re not just sectarian, that we’re representing historic, credal, confessional, catholic Christianity just becomes laughable. Also, if we are going to pick a new label for ourselves, the danger is that if it’s not gospel-defined, however good it might sound from a quick brainstorm as we get together and think what our new label should be, very quickly unintended consequences could be seen and we’re driven by something that’s not the gospel. So, the labels do matter. We need to be careful, but not too blithely abandon a label that has been so historically useful.

Matt Tully
Maybe as an aside, what do you make of what feels like a distinctly evangelical thing to oftentimes say, I don’t like labels. We don’t need labels. Why don’t we just get rid of them and just be people who love Jesus? What do you make of that general suspicion of labels as a concept?

Michael Reeves
Yes, I understand it. Evangelicals are really wanting to say, We’re mere Christians. We’re not to be defined by some other thing than the heart of Christianity. Therefore, can’t we just be called Christians? But the thing is, people are going to use labels of us somehow, and there are many different stripes and traditions of Christian. People are going to apply a label to you and you’re going to be defined somehow, so make your definition the gospel.

05:26 - To what extent is the term evangelical used outside of the US?

Matt Tully
Maybe a related question that a listener from Christchurch, New Zealand sent in: “To what extent is the term evangelical used outside of the US? What impact should that have on whether or not we continue to use it or maybe find something new?”

Michael Reeves
The term evangelical is used a lot outside of the US and will normally have slightly different connotations to what it has in the US. Outside of the US it is very rare for evangelical to have any of the political and cultural connotations that Americans expect the label has. It simply just doesn’t have those kind of connotations in most places. But the fact that it is used differently in different places around the world again suggests we need to be careful with how it’s perceived, but not primarily be driven by that. We need to recognize there may be some misunderstandings that we need to be careful to avoid. We don’t want to be driven by people’s perceptions but be driven by the gospel. If we can work towards a clarity in people’s minds—whatever we call ourselves—that we are people of the gospel, that’s where we want to be so that we can embody that and people can see that’s what we’re standing for.

06:50 - Is the future of Western evangelicalism dim or is it bright?

Matt Tully
Another question from a listener in Kuwait. This person writes, “I’ve heard it said that the gospel is like a bird that has flown south and east to other branches. In your opinion, is the future of Western evangelicalism dim or is it bright?”

Michael Reeves
Western evangelicalism is going to be impacting the global church for centuries because of the wealth of resources that it has had for the last few hundred years. I’m thinking primarily not of finances, but I’m thinking of education and books. That wealth of deep Christian study that has been put into books is going to be blessing the world for hundreds of years. That’s a wonderful thing. But where Western evangelicalism itself will be in a hundred years or two hundred years really depends on the integrity of those who will call themselves gospel people. By integrity I’m not just talking about orthodoxy, because it’s possible to have an orthodoxy that’s only skin deep, to affirm on paper but deny in the heart and in practice. Integrity requires that the truths we formally confess are embraced such that they affect and change us. Integrity—this is what we need—gospel integrity is where the head and the heart are aligned. That’s what we need, so we need to confess the faith of the gospel. But more than confessing it, we need to have the gospel affect us so that we are changed and stamped and altered and transformed by the renewing of our minds in the light of this gospel.

Matt Tully
Would you go so far as to say that Western evangelicalism is currently experiencing a kind of crisis of integrity? We do have the doctrinal on-paper-orthodoxy sort of largely in place, but is it only skin deep largely?

Michael Reeves
Yes. I think that’s exactly the issue. I think the greatest challenge facing the church today is not better leadership, even orthodoxy, or training, or church planting; I think it’s integrity. And not moral integrity, but gospel integrity; being shaped by the gospel. That’s the greatest need underneath every other valid need.

09:34 - What are the key dangers that threaten evangelicalism today?

Matt Tully
We’ve mentioned the baggage that can sometimes be attached to this label of evangelical, especially in the US. A listener from Melbourne, Australia writes, “The last couple of years have widened the political and cultural divides in our society, including within evangelicalism. What are the key dangers on both sides—left and right, liberal and conservative—that threaten evangelicalism today? How do we, who call ourselves evangelical, avoid sitting in an echo chamber on either side of that divide?”

Michael Reeves
We’re all aware, I think, of the different cultural and political challenges that are facing us, but the way that they are dangers to evangelicalism and dangers to a gospel faith is that they could cause us to add to or subtract from the gospel. In that, and this is maybe a particularly conservative danger, we could add a political or cultural issue to our proclamation of the gospel. And maybe more of a liberal danger is that the cultural/political pressures around us cause us to subtract something from the gospel to make it more palatable to the culture. Those seem to be the greatest dangers. This is why in the book Gospel People I finished it with a little self-diagnostic chart to try to get people to see that you may say, Yes, yes, and amen. I’m an evangelical through and through. I believe these things. But I wanted to press on it a little bit to say yes, but if you’re a pastor and you’re regularly teaching your people, when in the last three years did you unfold all these truths? Are these truths assumed in your church and in your circles? Are they taught clearly? We can assume that we have an evangelical gospel faithfulness but actually be lopsided in it unless we do that sort of self-diagnostic test on ourselves. To that second part of the question about how we can avoid sitting in an echo chamber, the answer is really the supremacy of Scripture. We cannot simply hold to saying, We are people who believe in the authority and reliability of Scripture. We need to say, We are people who believe in and live by the supreme authority of Scripture. Therefore, when we’re faced with one of these challenges we’re asking first and foremost what does Scripture say? And we’re not accommodating what the Scripture says or balancing it with wisdom from elsewhere. We want wisdom from elsewhere, but Scripture and what God’s word says is going to overrule everything and not be hijacked by any other message. So, the supremacy of Scripture is the key, but I would add one other thing as well. If evangelicalism is historic, mere, credal, catholic Christianity, then it is a good thing for evangelicals to read old books as well as new books to ensure that you’re reading and finding yourself in unity with the church down through the centuries as well as the church today. Read Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine and you will find that things they’re saying, some you may disagree with and think, I’m not sure that is scriptural. And there are certainly things you’ll read in Augustine and say, That’s not scriptural. But they will also challenge ways in which you’re not scriptural that you don’t see because you’re bathing in this culture and you’ve not seen how you’ve accommodated yourself to it. They are in a different culture and coming from a different place, so to read Christians of past centuries helps us see where we might be in danger of adding to or subtracting from the gospel. Two heads are better than one.

14:06 - How open should pastors and church leaders be with their political views?

Matt Tully
Right. That’s so good to look to history as that resource. Something that I’ve heard from pastors on all sides of some of these debates that we have—these are orthodox, Bible-believing pastors—is that the line between clearly proclaiming what Scripture teaches and letting that set the agenda so to speak for their teaching, and then the application of that teaching in the political or social realm, that’s where the rub gets a little bit hard and it’s not always clear how to make those applications. Another listener from Hawaii sends in, “How open should pastors and church leaders be with their political views, with the application of these principles to actual policy, not just from the pulpit but in their day-to-day discussions with their people?” What would you say to that?

Michael Reeves
The prime question to ask yourself is, Is it the gospel? If a pastor speaks the gospel and his political views with the same emphasis, then people are going to hear them together. A pastor is in a position of authority, and he should have authority when proclaiming the gospel but people can hear that authority in areas where he doesn’t rightfully have an authority. In other words, to guide people in every part of their political view. So he needs to recognize that he will have political views which he might think, rightly or wrongly, can be theologically argued for. But if those political views are views in which evangelical Christians do disagree on (people who believe in the gospel can hold different positions) then he needs to be much gentler and more cautious in how he presents those political views and say, This is not something at the same level of the gospel. This is an issue on which Christians disagree. I’ll argue through my position, but don’t hear my view on taxes as having the same weight of authority as when I preach Christ crucified. They are not.

Matt Tully
So you would say it could be, in certain situations or contexts, permissible for a pastor to express those views, but it would just be important for him to distinguish that from the gospel proper?

Michael Reeves
Yes. It’s like presenting different theological views and not just political ones. It’s right to go through Albert Mohler’s theological triage and say, Is this a first-level issue? I can simply proclaim that. This is gospel truth that I can herald. Is this a second-level issue? Whether it be political or theological, this is an issue where good gospel Christians will disagree. I can think they’re profoundly wrong on their view over there on their view of baptism or spiritual gifts or church polity, but while we can have disagreements, they are brothers and sisters in the gospel and there are other issues that are less consequential than that too. So we need to be able to present things and let people see where they rank in the order of importance of truths.

Matt Tully
All of that requires so much nuance and care, something that seems often very lacking in our conversations today.

Michael Reeves
Absolutely. To be evangelical is very much to walk the path of discernment and wisdom. That’s something that’s too easily ignored by people who simply want to throw out their views. It’s right to be able to say, We can acknowledge that there are some truths we will not give up on. There are hills we will die on. And there are other truths which Christians can rightly disagree.

18:21 - Is unification among evangelicals by a statesman-like figure is possible, or even desirable today?

Matt Tully
Another question from a listener in Plainview, Texas: “In the early days of the neo-Evangelical movement, figures like Billy Graham and Carl Henry unified evangelicals. Do you feel unification among evangelicals by a statesman-like figure is possible, or even desirable today? If so, what would it take for this person to rise to prominence and have that effect?”

Michael Reeves
God has raised up through the centuries statesman-like leaders who have singularly blessed the church and brought the church together. But hope for unity is not to be found in anyone other than Christ. The gospel is the cause of unity. Our great prayer should not be so much, Lord, raise up a man who can be the hope for our unity, but rather, Lord, make our churches gospel churches. It’s when the Son of Man is lifted up that he will draw people together to himself. It is the gospel that is the cause of unity. In fact, there is a danger in having even a great, mature statesman-like figure. They all have their quirks. They’re all sinners. Our danger can be that we find ourselves unable to detect what is a good and faithful gospel emphasis and what is the quirk of that man, because we so admire him for where he is faithful. It becomes hard to detect for us. But that gives us the answer to what that man will have if God does raise up such a man: he must have, beyond everything else, not just ability and gift; he must have integrity to the gospel. He must be a man who has convictions of the gospel and a heart and mind and character and life shaped by the gospel.

20:40 - What do you see as the main benefit and role of formal partnerships, coalitions, and organizations?

Matt Tully
Maybe as a related question, a listener from Kentucky asks, “What do you see as the main benefit and role of formal partnerships, coalitions, and organizations when it comes to protecting and giving an identity to evangelicalism?”

Michael Reeves
Partnerships and coalitions have always been an important feature of evangelicalism down through the centuries. You see beautifully churches, organizations, individual evangelical Christians down through the centuries cooperating with each other, partnering with each other across continents. It’s one reason I love deliberately being trans-Atlantic in my ministry because I’ve seen how men like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield together when they worked—that was an evangelical partnership together. What good came out of those men working together! Those partnerships and coalitions are so important because they express unity in the gospel, and they build unity in the gospel. Let’s say a Presbyterian church in Scotland partners with a Baptist church in Rwanda. They can see here’s the gospel that we share. We don’t actually share an ecclesiology, and that’s okay. We will still give money to their missionary efforts and to their church growth efforts because we are about the same gospel. That partnership enables us to distinguish between first-level gospel issues and some second-level—and important—ecclesiological issues.

Matt Tully
It’s so helpful to hear that nuance, that these partnerships and coalitions can help to express and even encourage unity around the gospel, but they aren’t establishing that unity. The unity comes from the gospel itself.

Michael Reeves
Absolutely. Absolutely right.

22:41 - Is criticism of evangelicalism in Mark Noll’s book still valid?

Matt Tully
Taking a broader step back here, Mark Noll is famous for many things, but one of them is his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. One listener from Sheridan, Wyoming asks, “Is his criticism of evangelicalism in that book still valid? If so, how could it be corrected? If it’s not valid anymore, what happened to address that issue that he saw?” Before answering, just briefly summarize for our listeners what Noll was arguing in that book.

Michael Reeves
He said it very simply as he opened the book. He said, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Brilliantly in a nutshell there’s your book. That problem is definitely with us still today, some thirty years off that he wrote the book, that evangelicalism far too often is known for its anti-intellectualism. The problem here is that you see intelligent, young evangelicals leaving evangelicalism because they find more intellectually stimulating fare elsewhere. That’s a tragedy because the evangelical faith is intellectually stimulating if people could be given its riches. How can it be corrected? Well, that’s not an easy question to answer, especially in a very few short minutes. I think at the root of it, underneath everything, is pride. The anti-intellectualism actually comes from pride.

Matt Tully
Which is counter intuitive probably.

Michael Reeves
It is. It’s very counter intuitive. Evangelicalism is often mocked for being superficial, but we like the gospel and the things of Scripture being simple because it makes our expertise and our comfort more possible. We’re in charge, we’re masters of the text, we’re masters of what we know. So, evangelical culture can then become simultaneously smug and superficial. We can bathe in the comfort of a knowledge that never drives us to our knees. But the gospel that is found in Scripture that is to define people of the gospel is the gospel of the glory of God. The glory of God has always been the guiding light for the reformation of the church. The glory of God is what exposes us for who we are so that we realize we are not the wonderful little things we thought we were. We are mere creatures, wretched sinners. The glory of God that simultaneously is exposing us and so humbling us, enlightens us to know how marvelous and majestic and beautiful and glorious God is. So the glory of God weans us off our own proud self-reliance and makes us tremble in wonder at who God is. It gives us a taste and a thirst to know God better. The glory of God is what will give us the desire to press into Scripture, to press in to know God better. I suggest that it’s a better, clearer heralding of the beautiful glory of God is what will overcome our self-satisfied, smug anti-intellectualism and cause us to long to know an infinitely beautiful and desirable God better.

26:45 - Have you noticed the number of conversions of evangelical Protestants to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

Matt Tully
That’s such an interesting answer to that question that I’m sure is new. It’s causing me to think differently about the problem that we see there that Noll was so helpfully highlighting all those years ago. Maybe a related question: you mentioned that because of this anti-intellectualism and other issues, at times people have left evangelicalism—sometimes very publicly—for other Christian traditions that seem to be more rooted or more intellectual than what they found among the evangelicals. One listener in Grand Rapids, Michigan asks, “Have you noticed the number of conversions of evangelical Protestants to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Is there something in our ecclesiology or our sacramentology—in either doctrine or practice—that we need to change to prevent this from happening in the future?”

Michael Reeves
There is a small but steady trickle of converts from evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I’ve made a point to try to read the testimonies, the books, and the accounts of those conversion stories to try to understand what’s going on. I’ve noticed that there are a number of common threads—too many to mention now, so I’ll just mention two. One is that historicity and richness, that evangelicalism is perceived to be rootless and people want historical roots. We need to show the historical rootedness of our beliefs. That’s why that’s something I try to do in the book Gospel People, to show a little bit how these are not recent beliefs, that classic evangelical beliefs you can see being unfolded and taught in the second, third, fourth, fifth centuries. But another key draw out of evangelicalism has been aesthetics. I think this has been the sense that in evangelicalism—meeting in gymnasia and the feeling of everydayism—you can walk into an Eastern Orthodox church or a Roman Catholic church or go to Rome and you’re just hit by this apparently transcendental experience. It just feels more immediately sacred and beautiful. This was a challenge that the Reformers hit. One answer to it was to be anti-physical, to say the physical things like architecture and painting and beauty just aren’t so important. That never really seemed to achieve an awful lot. The argument that John Calvin really pushed in on that seemed to be much more effective—and I think this is the way to go—is not to denigrate architecture or art, but rather to say let people see the spiritual beauty of the gospel, the beauty and glory of God. To see that that eclipses even the greatest physical beauty of architectural or religious trappings. There’s an exciting challenge for the church today. Not to present a boiled down message—which is what you can hear in evangelicalism too much—not present a boiled down message that is spruced up with a bit of better church architecture and more sensuous worship. Rather, herald the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ such that divine glory evidences itself as more beautiful, more satisfying than anything else. There’s a challenge for the preacher: Do you know that divine glory to be more beautiful than Michelangelo’s “Last Judgment” or some great works of Catholic art? You must show your people the superior glory of the spiritual truth of the gospel.

31:08 - How do we hold fast to the gospel in a context where objectivity is often not even assumed?

Matt Tully
Maybe another question that gets at some of the application of this. A listener in Nairobi, Kenya acknowledges the subjectivity that we see in our culture so often now. There is sometimes this notion of your truth and my truth, so this person asks, “How do we hold fast to the gospel, and even proclaim the gospel, that you’re saying is so central to our identity in a context like that where objectivity is often not even assumed?”

Michael Reeves
The reality is that truth, goodness, and beauty work together. When truth is not valued, it can still be heralded. We can do that by both explaining and embodying the superior coherence and goodness and beauty of the gospel. So, even when truth itself is not being valued, to let people hear and work through, as well as see and taste, the coherence of the biblical worldview of the gospel, and its goodness and its beauty. To help guide us in that we need to remember that we’re not trying to win people to an argument. We’re trying to draw them to love the glory of God. We’re not retreating from the truth of the gospel to say we want people to see the beauty and the goodness of God. But as we talk about that we’re actually describing the shape of the truth of who God is.

32:57 - What suggestions beyond being people of integrity do you have for how individual Americans can salvage and reclaim the label?

Matt Tully
Another related question from someone in Bakersfield, California: “I’ve read your book, Gospel People”—and just a side note that you can pick that up today from Crossway.org or from Amazon. It’s not available.—“I’m convinced by the argument to hold fast to the term evangelical and all that it means. However, I came away wondering what the application is for me. What suggestions beyond being people of integrity do you have for how individual Americans can salvage and reclaim the label?”

Michael Reeves
If I heard the question correctly, it said “beyond being people of integrity.” I would want to say to that, friend, integrity is not a small application. It is the all-encompassing application, for all the troubles of evangelicalism are summed up in our lack of integrity. So that’s not a small application. To be people of gospel integrity means we’ll be people of the supremacy of Scripture, not people of the commandments of men. Therefore, we won't divide into tribes which are dictated by the cultures and traditions of men. To be people of the gospel means we’re people of redemption. We are redeemed people. We are not a people of proud self-reliance, which means we have a culture of grief for sin and joy in God. We have a church which is a place of welcome where there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We’re a people of regeneration, concerned for our hearts, not just a superficial orthodoxy or superficial activity. We’re concerned for our hearts. That’s a life-long pursuit of ortho cardia. I felt this so much that, actually, the moment I finished writing the last word of Gospel People I wrote to Justin Taylor and said, I think we need a new book on this in order to spell out the applications of this. So, I’ve got a second book trying to do exactly that called Evangelical Pharisees: The Gospel as the Cure for the Church’s Hypocrisy.

Matt Tully
What a title!

Michael Reeves
So, thank you, questioner. I felt exactly as you do. I think we need to press into this more to see what does integrity mean. That is the whole issue, but what does it mean? So I wanted to spend more time on exactly that.

35:37 - The Reformation Fellowship Atlanta Conference

Matt Tully
We’ll be looking for that book coming out in the future here from Crossway, and we’re super excited to have you explore that a little bit more for us. Maybe a final question, and this one from me. This November, you and some others you’re working with are planning a conference to discuss just this topic—how the gospel functions as the center of a distinctly evangelical identity and what it looks like to be faithful to the gospel. Tell us a little bit more about what you’re hoping for this conference.

Michael Reeves
Absolutely. At the conference a few of us—Dane Ortlund, myself, Phil Ryken, and a number of others—are getting together to look at how the gospel is our hope and our uniting banner. How can we be people united by, gelled together by, held by the gospel? That’s going to be in Atlanta on November 11–12. If people want to find out more, we would love to have them along to explore some more with us. You can go to Reffellowship.org, and you can find out more. We would love to see you there.

Matt Tully
Thank you so much, Mike. Thank you for writing this book, Gospel People, and for coming on the show again to answer these questions for our listeners. We appreciate it.

Michael Reeves
It’s always great to be with you, Matt. Thank you.

Popular Articles in This Series

View All

Podcast: Help! I Hate My Job (Jim Hamilton)

January 06, 2020

Jim Hamilton discusses what to do when you hate your job, offering encouragement for those frustrated in their work and explaining the difference between a job and a vocation.

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.