Excellent observations, or at least a repackaging of them. I couldn't quite put my finger on what I was seeing and experiencing, but this offered much clarity. I've been Presbyterian my entire life. I've worked at five Presbyterian churches over the past 40 years. During college, I floated around in different denominations but always came back because if the ties to traditions, creeds, rich theology, hymns, etc. A few years ago, we moved our kids into a private, non-denominational Christian school. The contrast was so stark from what I was familiar with. All of the things you mentioned are on display there, daily. It's steeped in the culture. Although we find ourselves completely at odds with the Bible teachers (they all lack formal training and are quite wishy-washy with their obvious lack of Bible knowledge), we still love the people. I bring up the experiences and culture of our church in private conversations, and you can see this look of, "Wow. That sounds so beautiful." I think even they realize they are lacking in beauty and tradition with their windowless, rock-concert, wear-what-you-woke-up-in atmospheres. It's like eating a dingdong. Super tasty but ultimately unfulfilling in the long-term. The fascinating thing is, if you talk to kids who have moved out out of that environment, they are left feeling empty and do not return to church...or go Orthodox (the opposite direction). They need something substantial to ground themselves.
Church A: Was a church we were at before COVID. Charismatic Anglican - when we were there originally we had a very broad membership - we had a pentecostal missionary (retired), a baptist evangelist and many from within the evangelical wing with a Vicar who was from the HTB network. After COVID the leadership passed to a younger couple who have really dumbed down the teaching to make the church more attractional. Despite a few good preachers on the roster it was still trending towards unchallenging and by chance every Sunday I visited I found that the services were poor, and the roster of worship songs seemed to be at the mawkish and sentimental end. I understand now that this has gone further along that lines with Sundays being for 'Celebration' so as to be attractional and 'Teaching' being done during the week in small groups.
Church B: Started attending during COVID - a truly multidenominational church that importantly had an afternoon service. Mainly for US expats it had an American pastor who was well read (Dallas Willard, Jonathan Haidt and more) who had a low anthropology. Services used to start with a Psalm and a mixture of old and new worship songs and hymns. Sadly his marriage failed he went back to the US (alone) and a S African Pastor took over. Services went back to the am only, new Pastor is very verbose and a bit patronising, loves to talk about 'The Early Church' but basing his understanding of that only from Acts and the Epistles. He kind of sets it up that once you’re a Christian its just a matter of believing as hard as you can and being in Church as much as you can then you'll be free from sin.
The last time I attended he prefaced communion by asking us to take out our phones and proceeded to say that communion is just like the photos we have on our phones - a reminder of things we love. I found this very crass.
Church C: A reformed but very Charismatic church. Liked the people, but I really cannot connect with Charismatic teaching these days. Felt slightly culty. Big on fasting and weeks of prayer. Services are about being filled with the Spirit and then going out into the world.
Church D: Middle of the road Anglican - but with an early morning BCP communion service which I adore.
The communion at Church D feels like balm for the soul - I feel part of a body that exists through time.. But when I go its just me as my family don’t really get it. (I think my wife who was raised Catholic and is very suspicious of anything Catholic and my girls 10 & 12 wouldn’t enjoy it).
So feel unChurched at the moment. I feel that the Church properly understood is participatory, the body of Christ, that the sacraments have efficacy in their own right and that it's not just a case of saying 'the sinners prayer' at an altar call and doing the Alpha course and you're a Christian. Church is seen in this context of somehow 'topping up' the Spirit tank for the week and like a sales meeting for the sales force to get inspired to get out and get more people in. In this basis Churches A to C feel like the same thing to me but just differing in intensity. Maybe that’s why MLM is so popular in evangelical churches.
I understand what you are saying! My husband was pastoring a great church which was congregational. The music was fantastic, so was the preaching … but the church had been run previously by a man who made all the decisions… they wanted to be set free some. And when my husband’s health failed him, and he was no longer to be down at the church as much.. they booted him out… has been on disability ever since!
I’m sorry to hear that, Jules. Saint Clement, one of the earliest church fathers who lived and labored along side of the apostles (was consecrated a bishop of Saint Peter) wrote about that very thing in 1 Clement. He called ousting a church officer who is laboring faithfully is a great sin.
I have found those who have experienced what I’m writing about, this essay hits home and makes sense.
HTB is a mixed bag. They have flirted with the bethel types - the 'Focus' summer camp I went on back in 2016 had Jentzen Franklin and Bill Johnson as speakers but seem to have moved away from that to more home grown speakers.
The network has done a lot to revive parts of the Anglican church in the UK but at the expense of making them copies of HTB and down playing any aspects of Anglican worship or history. The Alpha course has been a major tool in their spread through the church in the UK. I have very mixed feelings about Alpha - on one level its a good introduction and the format is quite good. On another level it says nothing about worship (or assumes worship is only singing worship songs), liturgy or sacraments. So if you do the course at a more traditional course you have no introduction or understanding of what is going on in traditional liturgy. Finally the Holy Spirit weekend / day is to my mind very very manipulative. You are taught that you should want to be baptised in the Holy Spirit and that this manifests itself as speaking in tongues. You are put in a position of people around you with arms out and making noise as the band plays - and a lot of people will convince themselves to comply with this. I think most people are faking it. (my own personal opinion is that God can do what he wants, but most people speaking in tongues in this setting are performing a learned behaviour that has nothing to do with what happened at Pentecost or in the apostolic age. It may have benefits to the participant - like a meditative exercise but I don't think its of the spirit, especially if its not accompanied by holiness). The charismatic emphasis often plays down 'mundane' liturgical worship as worldly and not as spiritual. If integrated this kind of stuff could revitalise and reinvigorate. Sadly I think its kind of spiritual marmite and has a natural ceiling for regular folks - you'll get churches full of flighty, excitable overly emotional people who love this kind of thing - for a time, whilst driving away dutiful more reflective people. Just my very biased opinion though.
Not sure what I make of that to be honest. I’ve never actually experienced a word of knowledge being delivered that wasn’t so vague as to be universally applicable - whether delivered through tongues or not. As a “prayer language” studies have shown that what ever is being vocalised does not show the structure common to speech in any language, different areas of the brain are being activated from speech centres found in normal language usage. The whole phenomena seems to disappear outside of Paul’s letters and acts and none of the Church fathers write of it. Seemingly only really emerges with the Pentecostal movement and becomes normative with the charismatic movement. I think if it has to be encouraged then it is a learned behaviour if it arises spontaneously in people at all times throughout the history of the church then it’s for real.
I think these points are using far to big a brush to paint a picture. Some are true to be sure but others misleading.
Grew up Lutheran, joined Presbyterian for 8 years or so, was born-again and joined an Alliance church (some would say Evangelical).
Know plenty of Reformed in general and have a brother in the Canadian Reformed.
Love John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul.
I write all this to say that some of the points made are absolutely not true and so be careful you are not making a distinction between typical evangelicalism and the monstrosity it is becoming as it drifts from its roots.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Lyle. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective and background—it’s clear you bring a rich understanding of various traditions, and I value that.
I do want to address your point about some of my observations being “misleading.” While I understand that you may not agree with certain aspects of my assessment, I would respectfully suggest that disagreement doesn’t necessarily make something misleading. My goal was to identify broader trends within Evangelicalism as it has emerged as a distinct movement, and while these trends may not apply to every individual church or believer, I believe they capture a general trajectory worth examining.
I agree with your concern about the direction Evangelicalism is taking as it drifts from its roots, and I hope conversations like this can contribute to a better understanding of where things have gone astray and what might be done to recover a more grounded faith.
I also agree with what you said about Sproul and McArthur. I still very much appreciate the ministry of R.C. Sproul to this day.
Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement—I truly appreciate it!
My concern is that someone reading the article without much knowledge would or could automatically lump in sound independent Churches that are under the evangelical umbrella as evolving heretics.
Sorry for using the term misleading. Maybe too strong. My bad.
The word “evangelical” has lost its meaning to many and I understand why because some points in the article are correct.
Must be confusing to many. A tactic of you know who.
Very true! There are many denominations that have an evangelical arm that still have the same foundational beliefs and traditions . All they do is worship in a different way. But both church have the same foundational beliefs .
For example there are the “quiet” churches, a part of the “Religious Society of Friends” founded by George Fox of England ! Who was lead by what he called the inner light also known as the Holy Spirit.
The original congregations were called the “quiet people” who would sit quietly for an hour or less waiting on the Holy Spirit to speak to their hearts… the have a clerk of the meeting.
The other churches who were also part of the Religious Society of Friends have a Pastor, who preaches a sermon and have music and musicians, a choir, but they also have a part of their service where they wait upon the Holy Spirit to move among them, guiding the to speak a Bible verse, speak a directive or share something from their heart. It is a beautiful part of their worship. After being asked if “all hearts are clear”, then normally finish the service with a hymn!
Having read the comments, I think most evangelicals (and critics of the article) simply aren’t familiar with the distinctives of the other three branches. I was Southern Baptist for 45 years before becoming Orthodox and I’m not sure any pastor or leader I crossed paths with would have realized the discontinuity with the three traditions that preceded it.
I made a very similar point in a recent essay on Ordo Amoris. Most evangelicals don’t know what that is, nor do they care. There is a great discontinuity. And I suspect that most of the critics also are unaware as well.
I think you are attributing some of the characteristics of New Age “Christian” churches to Evangelical Christian churches.
For example, Evangelical Christian churches (1) are Protestant, (2) they respect the sacraments simply and without hiding Jesus’ salvation behind cumbersome traditions and rituals, and (3) Evangelical Christian churches are strict about not allowing non-Biblical doctrines to influence their worship practices and Christian behavior/ethical practice even if that means becoming independent of denominational influence or church precedence. Most importantly, Evangelical Christian churches profess that Jesus, the Son of God, is the sole means of salvation, whereas this is not a defining characteristic of New Age “Christian” churches!
I think that the rise of New Age “Christian” churches is more what you are describing in this article, and that Evangelical Christian churches are competing with the New Age “Christian” churches to become what you describe as the “fourth branch,” which is why you see some shared methods between the two, such as mega-church ministries and decentralized church authority.
It is strikingly clear that the New Age “Christian” churches are hardly Christian at all, whereas Evangelical Christian churches typically adhere as much as humanely possible (given that we are sinners who fall short of the glory of God) to the Bible in true Protestant fashion. It is true that some evangelical Christian church congregations do allow women to become pastors, but many congregations prohibit it. Most New Age “Christian” churches allow women to be pastors or authority figures. Protestant denominations in general are split on the issue, with many of the centralized denomination authorities allowing the practice in the last 20 years or so. This is a big reason why you now see so many non-denominational Evangelical Christian churches recently. It is similar for the issue of gay marriage. However, none of this pertinent information is mentioned in your article at all.
As such, the carelessness of your (lack of) research and writing in not separating the two groups as competing entities of spiritual fellowship and discipleship, one Christian and the other not at all, and also attributing somewhat heretical attributes of New Age “Christian” churches to Evangelical Christian churches without attributing the Biblical and Gospel-centered attributes to the Evangelical Christian church is highly misleading and very likely to lead souls looking for salvation away from Jesus!
I sincerely hope and pray that you would revisit your article and amend it with careful research to reflect truth, specifically the truth of the Gospel and away from the slander of Evangelical Christian churches, churches which, most importantly, profess that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation.
If you are interested, some prominent Evangelical pastors include Jenetzen Franklin, Allen Jackson in Tennessee, John and Matt Hagee in Texas, and Will and Franklin Graham (— son and grandson of Billy Graham).
Summer, thank you for sharing your perspective. I can see this is an issue you care about deeply, and I respect your passion for defending Evangelical churches. While we clearly disagree on some points, my intent was never to slander but to highlight trends I believe are worth discussing. I appreciate your feedback. Have a great day!
You are very welcome. I am sure you did not intend to slander, that would be a very rude and unChristian thing to do, and you don’t seem to be the sort of malicious person who would do that intentionally. Have a wonderful day, and be blessed in Christ!
Summer, thank you for your comment and for taking the time to engage so thoughtfully with the article! I appreciate your passion for defending the Gospel and for ensuring clarity in how Evangelical Christian churches are represented.
I’d like to start by noting that this essay is rooted in the work of Dr. Ken Samples, a respected scholar, so it was not written carelessly or without consideration of the distinctions within modern Christianity. That said, I understand why you might feel the need to differentiate between New Age “Christian” churches and Evangelical churches, as they are certainly not the same. I agree that many Evangelical churches remain faithful to the Bible, professing that Jesus is the only way to salvation, which is not a defining characteristic of New Age movements.
However, I do disagree with your assessment. The Evangelical pastors you named, such as Franklin Graham and the Hagees, exemplify many of the characteristics I outlined in the article. While I have no doubt that they love the Lord and are sincere in their ministry, sincerity doesn’t necessarily equate to theological soundness or faithfulness to historic Protestantism. My critique is not of individual pastors as people, but rather of broader trends within Evangelicalism—trends that, I believe, have contributed to its evolution into something distinct from traditional Protestantism.
For example, you mention that Evangelical churches are strict about not allowing non-biblical doctrines to influence their worship practices, yet many Evangelical churches have adopted practices and methods more aligned with cultural trends than with historic Christian worship. The emphasis on entertainment-style worship, decentralized authority, and seeker-sensitive approaches—while not inherently New Age—can blur the line between biblical faithfulness and cultural accommodation. This is one of the central concerns I aim to address.
I also understand your concern about the Gospel being misrepresented. My goal is not to slander Evangelical churches but to highlight significant shifts that have taken place within the movement. These shifts don’t negate the Gospel-centered focus of many Evangelical churches, but they do raise important questions about the future of the movement and its alignment with historic Protestantism.
Finally, I agree that the rise of New Age “Christian” churches is a troubling phenomenon, but I would argue that these churches are not competing with Evangelicalism to become a new branch of Christianity. Rather, the characteristics I outlined reflect trends within Evangelicalism itself—trends that need careful examination if the movement is to remain rooted in biblical truth.
Again, I appreciate your comment and your heart for ensuring that the Gospel is clearly proclaimed. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position further. I hope this dialogue contributes to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the church today.
Thank you for responding so kindly. I do believe it is slander of Evangelical churches because you have lumped the new age and evangelical attributes together carelessly under the umbrella of Evangelical and you have been misleading about Protestant theology and Protestant denominations.
You even make statements about Evangelical pastors which are just not true. I have no idea who Dr. Ken Samples is, God bless him and save his soul, but I know Christ and I know many Evangelical Christians, Pastors, churches, and ministries, and what you have written about them is just not true, point blank. I do hope you consider this or offer a more careful and extensively researched position on Evangelical churches, if only for the reason so as not mislead people into walking into a New Age church to find salvation, which I must say, with conviction, is more what you describe in your article.
Just one example is that you write that Evangelical churches rely on what you describe as “mere Christianity.” This is blatantly untrue. Evangelical churches are rich with theological doctrine, coming from a rich Protestant history, and this has been the very basis for many of these churches leaving centralized denominational authority to become independent in the last 20 years, specifically on the issue of gay marriage and woman in positions of authority. Where New Age churches more fit the “mere Christianity” you’ve described in your article though they also generally allow for salvation methods other than Christ, evangelical churches have specifically left centralized denominational authority on the basis of theology and doctrine when the centralized authority has become heretical. In fact, several groups of non-evangelical Protestants in America have done the exact same, such as Episcopalian and Anglican groups. Presbyterian groups, as well.
✨The feminine urge to manifest the lifestyle of your great-grandmother ✨
Check out the newest (and first) issue of American Lady, the magazine, today!
The Winter 2025 Issue includes:
* A special guest feature by The School For Housewives writer, @Leila Marie Lawler, on the importance of Fortitude
* A comprehensive exposé on the hot cottagecore decor trend — what it’s about, why it’s so popular, all you need to know about adding it to your life
* A 2-month daily Bible reading calendar for February and March that covers the Biblical topics of The Mighty Works of God, God of Salvation, Living a Life Pleasing to Jesus, and Hope in Christ return
* And more!
Brought to you by American Beauty Publications, American Lady is a sophisticated quarterly magazine inspired by the elegance of our beautiful First Lady, Melania Trump.
Decidedly American, unapologetically conservative, and intentionally Christian.
» Sign up for a First Lady membership today to receive each new issue as soon as it’s published on Substack, at the link here:
Suggested price for First Lady Membership is $120/year
» Interested in just a single issue? Stay tuned for the opening of the American Beauty Publications Store, where you can purchase each issue after its release date.
» Want to support the creative efforts of Summer Nicole at American Beauty Publications? Follow the link to make a one-time donation:
This is a little confusing for me. I would consider someone like Tim Keller to be a major evangelical figure. Despite that, his church would not line up with many of these categories, particularly in that they affirm the Westminster Confession. Secondly, the Gospel Coalition is a major evangelical institution that a made up of a large number of Protestants that consider themselves evangelical and often do not fit these categories. Thirdly, the definition of an evangelical was helpfully laid out in 1989 by David Bebbington and I think it’s still helpful. Evangelicals are those who are Biblicist, activists, and focus on conversion. To me, the major characteristics of an evangelical are those that focus on conversions, regard the Bible more highly than any tradition, and are actively involved in cultural renewal. Just my opinion though
This is great, and I think a fairly good generalization about the last decades of the rise of evangelicalism.
A lot of people have called the charismatic evangelical movement a new reformation, but I think in many ways it strawmans and over-broadens the complexity of Christianity in a globalized world. For example, there are many evangelicals and Catholics alike who seek a fully creedal while ‘encounter-focused’ environment.
In my observation, the face of denominational generalizations is changing drastically. People are becoming more open and more aware of all of expressions, and increasingly desire the fullness of all of it. To quote a recent pastor “if you’re hungry for God, you’ll feast wherever you find Him.”
Evangelicalism shows its danger by being the seeds cast on stones. Its shallow-Christianity and entertainment attracts initial followers but has no rigor to survive even some of the most basic criticism or heresies. Apostates to atheism usually come from evangelical backgrounds as much as they might attract a lot of visitors or new converts.
Excellent analysis. As a Catholic, your emphasis on identity and the pressures to change it make more sense in this framework than only 3 branches. We must serve God and be aware of our traditions while serving Him. God bless you and I hope you become Catholic too!
> shying away from traditional affiliations with either denominations or confessions (...) nondenominational Identity (...) Charismatic or Pentecostal Leanings (...) The Bible Only (Solo Scriptura) (...) Mere Christianity (...) Noncreedal (...) Nonliturgical Worship (...) Contemporary Worship over Hymns (...) Nonsacramental Theology (...) Congregational Polity (...)
Idk there's a trend from lutherans on down to symbolize the eucharist. To me it just feels like an enlightenment aspect (where the enlightenment is sufficiently caused by the reformation over the Renaissance) being realized into Christianity. To me it not having doctrines or anything means it is not a fourth branch.
Shawn, thanks for the comment! You’re correct. It is certainly amorphous. In my mind, that’s one of the things that does set it apart from the other three branches. I could certainly be wrong to go so far as to call it a distinct branch, but in comparison the others are not amorphous, whereas Evangelicalism at this juncture is. One thing is certain, at least experientially, if you encounter it in your own church as I have, you will certainly see that it is its own, distinct phenomenon.
I grew up in evangelical churches. My parents were mainline but we were homeschooled in Texas and our best friends were fundies so we had friends who all watched veggie tales even before I went to an evangelical church. I appreciate the culture and all that very much. That being said I take evangelical to be Christ shining a light through liberalism (or reformation, enlightenment and all that). I don't take its amorphousness to be a form of Christianity if you see what i mean.
This was a good article! Thank you for putting it out there. I think many of these points raised are mostly true except for the fact that there is a lot of theological and maybe even ideological diversity in Evangelical churches today. Some are very dispensational while others seem to be only focused on the here and now. The worship is fairly similar but a pastor often has the ability to emphasize and interpret scripture to varying degrees. I think that despite all of this, these churches are usually still able to help people in their Christian faith. The alternative to not attending any church at all means drifting into what ever you may find. This is a much greater risk.
Martin Luther: Catholicism is wrong, but I’m too impatient to wait to hear back from Constantinople, I’m going to invent my own faith and call it apostolic, and start 1,500+ years of reverse engineering what just works in the Orthodox Church
Moderns: Woman and gays can be clergy, and dog can take Communion
I find it fascinating that evangelicals don’t give any thanks to the catholic churches from which they and other Protestant sects have sprung. I’ve said it before that evangelicals’ core beliefs (I hope!) were hammered out before and after the Great Schism and prior to Luther’s rebellion.
I appreciate the time and effort you put into this post! I think that many historic Baptist groups would (mostly) for into this broad category of an Evangelical branch. All I mean by that is that I don't think it's as distinct from what is meant by protestantism as you have suggested.
Of course I'm speaking as someone who would likely be labeled Evangelical... But I think that many of the Protestant groups have moved more toward Catholicism in form/practice than they were historically. Perhaps that is why Evangelicalism seems not to for into your category of Protestant? I may be wrong - This isn't my area of expertise.
Excellent observations, or at least a repackaging of them. I couldn't quite put my finger on what I was seeing and experiencing, but this offered much clarity. I've been Presbyterian my entire life. I've worked at five Presbyterian churches over the past 40 years. During college, I floated around in different denominations but always came back because if the ties to traditions, creeds, rich theology, hymns, etc. A few years ago, we moved our kids into a private, non-denominational Christian school. The contrast was so stark from what I was familiar with. All of the things you mentioned are on display there, daily. It's steeped in the culture. Although we find ourselves completely at odds with the Bible teachers (they all lack formal training and are quite wishy-washy with their obvious lack of Bible knowledge), we still love the people. I bring up the experiences and culture of our church in private conversations, and you can see this look of, "Wow. That sounds so beautiful." I think even they realize they are lacking in beauty and tradition with their windowless, rock-concert, wear-what-you-woke-up-in atmospheres. It's like eating a dingdong. Super tasty but ultimately unfulfilling in the long-term. The fascinating thing is, if you talk to kids who have moved out out of that environment, they are left feeling empty and do not return to church...or go Orthodox (the opposite direction). They need something substantial to ground themselves.
Very well said, Stacy. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Wanted to write about my experience in the UK:
Church A: Was a church we were at before COVID. Charismatic Anglican - when we were there originally we had a very broad membership - we had a pentecostal missionary (retired), a baptist evangelist and many from within the evangelical wing with a Vicar who was from the HTB network. After COVID the leadership passed to a younger couple who have really dumbed down the teaching to make the church more attractional. Despite a few good preachers on the roster it was still trending towards unchallenging and by chance every Sunday I visited I found that the services were poor, and the roster of worship songs seemed to be at the mawkish and sentimental end. I understand now that this has gone further along that lines with Sundays being for 'Celebration' so as to be attractional and 'Teaching' being done during the week in small groups.
Church B: Started attending during COVID - a truly multidenominational church that importantly had an afternoon service. Mainly for US expats it had an American pastor who was well read (Dallas Willard, Jonathan Haidt and more) who had a low anthropology. Services used to start with a Psalm and a mixture of old and new worship songs and hymns. Sadly his marriage failed he went back to the US (alone) and a S African Pastor took over. Services went back to the am only, new Pastor is very verbose and a bit patronising, loves to talk about 'The Early Church' but basing his understanding of that only from Acts and the Epistles. He kind of sets it up that once you’re a Christian its just a matter of believing as hard as you can and being in Church as much as you can then you'll be free from sin.
The last time I attended he prefaced communion by asking us to take out our phones and proceeded to say that communion is just like the photos we have on our phones - a reminder of things we love. I found this very crass.
Church C: A reformed but very Charismatic church. Liked the people, but I really cannot connect with Charismatic teaching these days. Felt slightly culty. Big on fasting and weeks of prayer. Services are about being filled with the Spirit and then going out into the world.
Church D: Middle of the road Anglican - but with an early morning BCP communion service which I adore.
The communion at Church D feels like balm for the soul - I feel part of a body that exists through time.. But when I go its just me as my family don’t really get it. (I think my wife who was raised Catholic and is very suspicious of anything Catholic and my girls 10 & 12 wouldn’t enjoy it).
So feel unChurched at the moment. I feel that the Church properly understood is participatory, the body of Christ, that the sacraments have efficacy in their own right and that it's not just a case of saying 'the sinners prayer' at an altar call and doing the Alpha course and you're a Christian. Church is seen in this context of somehow 'topping up' the Spirit tank for the week and like a sales meeting for the sales force to get inspired to get out and get more people in. In this basis Churches A to C feel like the same thing to me but just differing in intensity. Maybe that’s why MLM is so popular in evangelical churches.
I understand what you are saying! My husband was pastoring a great church which was congregational. The music was fantastic, so was the preaching … but the church had been run previously by a man who made all the decisions… they wanted to be set free some. And when my husband’s health failed him, and he was no longer to be down at the church as much.. they booted him out… has been on disability ever since!
I’m sorry to hear that, Jules. Saint Clement, one of the earliest church fathers who lived and labored along side of the apostles (was consecrated a bishop of Saint Peter) wrote about that very thing in 1 Clement. He called ousting a church officer who is laboring faithfully is a great sin.
I have found those who have experienced what I’m writing about, this essay hits home and makes sense.
Really resonated with this journey. Thanks for sharing.
Update- after faithful 8am attendance at communion I have joined the electoral roll for the church.
HTB is a mixed bag. They have flirted with the bethel types - the 'Focus' summer camp I went on back in 2016 had Jentzen Franklin and Bill Johnson as speakers but seem to have moved away from that to more home grown speakers.
The network has done a lot to revive parts of the Anglican church in the UK but at the expense of making them copies of HTB and down playing any aspects of Anglican worship or history. The Alpha course has been a major tool in their spread through the church in the UK. I have very mixed feelings about Alpha - on one level its a good introduction and the format is quite good. On another level it says nothing about worship (or assumes worship is only singing worship songs), liturgy or sacraments. So if you do the course at a more traditional course you have no introduction or understanding of what is going on in traditional liturgy. Finally the Holy Spirit weekend / day is to my mind very very manipulative. You are taught that you should want to be baptised in the Holy Spirit and that this manifests itself as speaking in tongues. You are put in a position of people around you with arms out and making noise as the band plays - and a lot of people will convince themselves to comply with this. I think most people are faking it. (my own personal opinion is that God can do what he wants, but most people speaking in tongues in this setting are performing a learned behaviour that has nothing to do with what happened at Pentecost or in the apostolic age. It may have benefits to the participant - like a meditative exercise but I don't think its of the spirit, especially if its not accompanied by holiness). The charismatic emphasis often plays down 'mundane' liturgical worship as worldly and not as spiritual. If integrated this kind of stuff could revitalise and reinvigorate. Sadly I think its kind of spiritual marmite and has a natural ceiling for regular folks - you'll get churches full of flighty, excitable overly emotional people who love this kind of thing - for a time, whilst driving away dutiful more reflective people. Just my very biased opinion though.
1 Corinthians 14:27 is the rule. In fact, read all the chapter 14. It is full of good instructions and other issues.
Not sure what I make of that to be honest. I’ve never actually experienced a word of knowledge being delivered that wasn’t so vague as to be universally applicable - whether delivered through tongues or not. As a “prayer language” studies have shown that what ever is being vocalised does not show the structure common to speech in any language, different areas of the brain are being activated from speech centres found in normal language usage. The whole phenomena seems to disappear outside of Paul’s letters and acts and none of the Church fathers write of it. Seemingly only really emerges with the Pentecostal movement and becomes normative with the charismatic movement. I think if it has to be encouraged then it is a learned behaviour if it arises spontaneously in people at all times throughout the history of the church then it’s for real.
I think these points are using far to big a brush to paint a picture. Some are true to be sure but others misleading.
Grew up Lutheran, joined Presbyterian for 8 years or so, was born-again and joined an Alliance church (some would say Evangelical).
Know plenty of Reformed in general and have a brother in the Canadian Reformed.
Love John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul.
I write all this to say that some of the points made are absolutely not true and so be careful you are not making a distinction between typical evangelicalism and the monstrosity it is becoming as it drifts from its roots.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Lyle. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective and background—it’s clear you bring a rich understanding of various traditions, and I value that.
I do want to address your point about some of my observations being “misleading.” While I understand that you may not agree with certain aspects of my assessment, I would respectfully suggest that disagreement doesn’t necessarily make something misleading. My goal was to identify broader trends within Evangelicalism as it has emerged as a distinct movement, and while these trends may not apply to every individual church or believer, I believe they capture a general trajectory worth examining.
I agree with your concern about the direction Evangelicalism is taking as it drifts from its roots, and I hope conversations like this can contribute to a better understanding of where things have gone astray and what might be done to recover a more grounded faith.
I also agree with what you said about Sproul and McArthur. I still very much appreciate the ministry of R.C. Sproul to this day.
Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement—I truly appreciate it!
My concern is that someone reading the article without much knowledge would or could automatically lump in sound independent Churches that are under the evangelical umbrella as evolving heretics.
Sorry for using the term misleading. Maybe too strong. My bad.
The word “evangelical” has lost its meaning to many and I understand why because some points in the article are correct.
Must be confusing to many. A tactic of you know who.
Very true! There are many denominations that have an evangelical arm that still have the same foundational beliefs and traditions . All they do is worship in a different way. But both church have the same foundational beliefs .
For example there are the “quiet” churches, a part of the “Religious Society of Friends” founded by George Fox of England ! Who was lead by what he called the inner light also known as the Holy Spirit.
The original congregations were called the “quiet people” who would sit quietly for an hour or less waiting on the Holy Spirit to speak to their hearts… the have a clerk of the meeting.
The other churches who were also part of the Religious Society of Friends have a Pastor, who preaches a sermon and have music and musicians, a choir, but they also have a part of their service where they wait upon the Holy Spirit to move among them, guiding the to speak a Bible verse, speak a directive or share something from their heart. It is a beautiful part of their worship. After being asked if “all hearts are clear”, then normally finish the service with a hymn!
Having read the comments, I think most evangelicals (and critics of the article) simply aren’t familiar with the distinctives of the other three branches. I was Southern Baptist for 45 years before becoming Orthodox and I’m not sure any pastor or leader I crossed paths with would have realized the discontinuity with the three traditions that preceded it.
I made a very similar point in a recent essay on Ordo Amoris. Most evangelicals don’t know what that is, nor do they care. There is a great discontinuity. And I suspect that most of the critics also are unaware as well.
I think you are attributing some of the characteristics of New Age “Christian” churches to Evangelical Christian churches.
For example, Evangelical Christian churches (1) are Protestant, (2) they respect the sacraments simply and without hiding Jesus’ salvation behind cumbersome traditions and rituals, and (3) Evangelical Christian churches are strict about not allowing non-Biblical doctrines to influence their worship practices and Christian behavior/ethical practice even if that means becoming independent of denominational influence or church precedence. Most importantly, Evangelical Christian churches profess that Jesus, the Son of God, is the sole means of salvation, whereas this is not a defining characteristic of New Age “Christian” churches!
I think that the rise of New Age “Christian” churches is more what you are describing in this article, and that Evangelical Christian churches are competing with the New Age “Christian” churches to become what you describe as the “fourth branch,” which is why you see some shared methods between the two, such as mega-church ministries and decentralized church authority.
It is strikingly clear that the New Age “Christian” churches are hardly Christian at all, whereas Evangelical Christian churches typically adhere as much as humanely possible (given that we are sinners who fall short of the glory of God) to the Bible in true Protestant fashion. It is true that some evangelical Christian church congregations do allow women to become pastors, but many congregations prohibit it. Most New Age “Christian” churches allow women to be pastors or authority figures. Protestant denominations in general are split on the issue, with many of the centralized denomination authorities allowing the practice in the last 20 years or so. This is a big reason why you now see so many non-denominational Evangelical Christian churches recently. It is similar for the issue of gay marriage. However, none of this pertinent information is mentioned in your article at all.
As such, the carelessness of your (lack of) research and writing in not separating the two groups as competing entities of spiritual fellowship and discipleship, one Christian and the other not at all, and also attributing somewhat heretical attributes of New Age “Christian” churches to Evangelical Christian churches without attributing the Biblical and Gospel-centered attributes to the Evangelical Christian church is highly misleading and very likely to lead souls looking for salvation away from Jesus!
I sincerely hope and pray that you would revisit your article and amend it with careful research to reflect truth, specifically the truth of the Gospel and away from the slander of Evangelical Christian churches, churches which, most importantly, profess that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation.
If you are interested, some prominent Evangelical pastors include Jenetzen Franklin, Allen Jackson in Tennessee, John and Matt Hagee in Texas, and Will and Franklin Graham (— son and grandson of Billy Graham).
Summer, thank you for sharing your perspective. I can see this is an issue you care about deeply, and I respect your passion for defending Evangelical churches. While we clearly disagree on some points, my intent was never to slander but to highlight trends I believe are worth discussing. I appreciate your feedback. Have a great day!
You are very welcome. I am sure you did not intend to slander, that would be a very rude and unChristian thing to do, and you don’t seem to be the sort of malicious person who would do that intentionally. Have a wonderful day, and be blessed in Christ!
🙏🏻✝️
Summer, thank you for your comment and for taking the time to engage so thoughtfully with the article! I appreciate your passion for defending the Gospel and for ensuring clarity in how Evangelical Christian churches are represented.
I’d like to start by noting that this essay is rooted in the work of Dr. Ken Samples, a respected scholar, so it was not written carelessly or without consideration of the distinctions within modern Christianity. That said, I understand why you might feel the need to differentiate between New Age “Christian” churches and Evangelical churches, as they are certainly not the same. I agree that many Evangelical churches remain faithful to the Bible, professing that Jesus is the only way to salvation, which is not a defining characteristic of New Age movements.
However, I do disagree with your assessment. The Evangelical pastors you named, such as Franklin Graham and the Hagees, exemplify many of the characteristics I outlined in the article. While I have no doubt that they love the Lord and are sincere in their ministry, sincerity doesn’t necessarily equate to theological soundness or faithfulness to historic Protestantism. My critique is not of individual pastors as people, but rather of broader trends within Evangelicalism—trends that, I believe, have contributed to its evolution into something distinct from traditional Protestantism.
For example, you mention that Evangelical churches are strict about not allowing non-biblical doctrines to influence their worship practices, yet many Evangelical churches have adopted practices and methods more aligned with cultural trends than with historic Christian worship. The emphasis on entertainment-style worship, decentralized authority, and seeker-sensitive approaches—while not inherently New Age—can blur the line between biblical faithfulness and cultural accommodation. This is one of the central concerns I aim to address.
I also understand your concern about the Gospel being misrepresented. My goal is not to slander Evangelical churches but to highlight significant shifts that have taken place within the movement. These shifts don’t negate the Gospel-centered focus of many Evangelical churches, but they do raise important questions about the future of the movement and its alignment with historic Protestantism.
Finally, I agree that the rise of New Age “Christian” churches is a troubling phenomenon, but I would argue that these churches are not competing with Evangelicalism to become a new branch of Christianity. Rather, the characteristics I outlined reflect trends within Evangelicalism itself—trends that need careful examination if the movement is to remain rooted in biblical truth.
Again, I appreciate your comment and your heart for ensuring that the Gospel is clearly proclaimed. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position further. I hope this dialogue contributes to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the church today.
Thank you for responding so kindly. I do believe it is slander of Evangelical churches because you have lumped the new age and evangelical attributes together carelessly under the umbrella of Evangelical and you have been misleading about Protestant theology and Protestant denominations.
You even make statements about Evangelical pastors which are just not true. I have no idea who Dr. Ken Samples is, God bless him and save his soul, but I know Christ and I know many Evangelical Christians, Pastors, churches, and ministries, and what you have written about them is just not true, point blank. I do hope you consider this or offer a more careful and extensively researched position on Evangelical churches, if only for the reason so as not mislead people into walking into a New Age church to find salvation, which I must say, with conviction, is more what you describe in your article.
Just one example is that you write that Evangelical churches rely on what you describe as “mere Christianity.” This is blatantly untrue. Evangelical churches are rich with theological doctrine, coming from a rich Protestant history, and this has been the very basis for many of these churches leaving centralized denominational authority to become independent in the last 20 years, specifically on the issue of gay marriage and woman in positions of authority. Where New Age churches more fit the “mere Christianity” you’ve described in your article though they also generally allow for salvation methods other than Christ, evangelical churches have specifically left centralized denominational authority on the basis of theology and doctrine when the centralized authority has become heretical. In fact, several groups of non-evangelical Protestants in America have done the exact same, such as Episcopalian and Anglican groups. Presbyterian groups, as well.
✨The feminine urge to manifest the lifestyle of your great-grandmother ✨
Check out the newest (and first) issue of American Lady, the magazine, today!
The Winter 2025 Issue includes:
* A special guest feature by The School For Housewives writer, @Leila Marie Lawler, on the importance of Fortitude
* A comprehensive exposé on the hot cottagecore decor trend — what it’s about, why it’s so popular, all you need to know about adding it to your life
* A 2-month daily Bible reading calendar for February and March that covers the Biblical topics of The Mighty Works of God, God of Salvation, Living a Life Pleasing to Jesus, and Hope in Christ return
* And more!
Brought to you by American Beauty Publications, American Lady is a sophisticated quarterly magazine inspired by the elegance of our beautiful First Lady, Melania Trump.
Decidedly American, unapologetically conservative, and intentionally Christian.
» Sign up for a First Lady membership today to receive each new issue as soon as it’s published on Substack, at the link here:
https://summernicoleusa.substack.com/p/winter-2025-issue
Suggested price for First Lady Membership is $120/year
» Interested in just a single issue? Stay tuned for the opening of the American Beauty Publications Store, where you can purchase each issue after its release date.
» Want to support the creative efforts of Summer Nicole at American Beauty Publications? Follow the link to make a one-time donation:
https://buymeacoffee.com/summernicoleusa
This is a little confusing for me. I would consider someone like Tim Keller to be a major evangelical figure. Despite that, his church would not line up with many of these categories, particularly in that they affirm the Westminster Confession. Secondly, the Gospel Coalition is a major evangelical institution that a made up of a large number of Protestants that consider themselves evangelical and often do not fit these categories. Thirdly, the definition of an evangelical was helpfully laid out in 1989 by David Bebbington and I think it’s still helpful. Evangelicals are those who are Biblicist, activists, and focus on conversion. To me, the major characteristics of an evangelical are those that focus on conversions, regard the Bible more highly than any tradition, and are actively involved in cultural renewal. Just my opinion though
Thanks for the summary. I’m Catholic and I don’t know much about the differences between the denominations. This helps understand.
This is great, and I think a fairly good generalization about the last decades of the rise of evangelicalism.
A lot of people have called the charismatic evangelical movement a new reformation, but I think in many ways it strawmans and over-broadens the complexity of Christianity in a globalized world. For example, there are many evangelicals and Catholics alike who seek a fully creedal while ‘encounter-focused’ environment.
In my observation, the face of denominational generalizations is changing drastically. People are becoming more open and more aware of all of expressions, and increasingly desire the fullness of all of it. To quote a recent pastor “if you’re hungry for God, you’ll feast wherever you find Him.”
Evangelicalism shows its danger by being the seeds cast on stones. Its shallow-Christianity and entertainment attracts initial followers but has no rigor to survive even some of the most basic criticism or heresies. Apostates to atheism usually come from evangelical backgrounds as much as they might attract a lot of visitors or new converts.
Finally, terms for the non denominational faith I was raised in
Excellent analysis. As a Catholic, your emphasis on identity and the pressures to change it make more sense in this framework than only 3 branches. We must serve God and be aware of our traditions while serving Him. God bless you and I hope you become Catholic too!
> shying away from traditional affiliations with either denominations or confessions (...) nondenominational Identity (...) Charismatic or Pentecostal Leanings (...) The Bible Only (Solo Scriptura) (...) Mere Christianity (...) Noncreedal (...) Nonliturgical Worship (...) Contemporary Worship over Hymns (...) Nonsacramental Theology (...) Congregational Polity (...)
So atheism with extra steps
Idk there's a trend from lutherans on down to symbolize the eucharist. To me it just feels like an enlightenment aspect (where the enlightenment is sufficiently caused by the reformation over the Renaissance) being realized into Christianity. To me it not having doctrines or anything means it is not a fourth branch.
Shawn, thanks for the comment! You’re correct. It is certainly amorphous. In my mind, that’s one of the things that does set it apart from the other three branches. I could certainly be wrong to go so far as to call it a distinct branch, but in comparison the others are not amorphous, whereas Evangelicalism at this juncture is. One thing is certain, at least experientially, if you encounter it in your own church as I have, you will certainly see that it is its own, distinct phenomenon.
I grew up in evangelical churches. My parents were mainline but we were homeschooled in Texas and our best friends were fundies so we had friends who all watched veggie tales even before I went to an evangelical church. I appreciate the culture and all that very much. That being said I take evangelical to be Christ shining a light through liberalism (or reformation, enlightenment and all that). I don't take its amorphousness to be a form of Christianity if you see what i mean.
This was a good article! Thank you for putting it out there. I think many of these points raised are mostly true except for the fact that there is a lot of theological and maybe even ideological diversity in Evangelical churches today. Some are very dispensational while others seem to be only focused on the here and now. The worship is fairly similar but a pastor often has the ability to emphasize and interpret scripture to varying degrees. I think that despite all of this, these churches are usually still able to help people in their Christian faith. The alternative to not attending any church at all means drifting into what ever you may find. This is a much greater risk.
Martin Luther: Catholicism is wrong, but I’m too impatient to wait to hear back from Constantinople, I’m going to invent my own faith and call it apostolic, and start 1,500+ years of reverse engineering what just works in the Orthodox Church
Moderns: Woman and gays can be clergy, and dog can take Communion
Return.
I find it fascinating that evangelicals don’t give any thanks to the catholic churches from which they and other Protestant sects have sprung. I’ve said it before that evangelicals’ core beliefs (I hope!) were hammered out before and after the Great Schism and prior to Luther’s rebellion.
I appreciate the time and effort you put into this post! I think that many historic Baptist groups would (mostly) for into this broad category of an Evangelical branch. All I mean by that is that I don't think it's as distinct from what is meant by protestantism as you have suggested.
Of course I'm speaking as someone who would likely be labeled Evangelical... But I think that many of the Protestant groups have moved more toward Catholicism in form/practice than they were historically. Perhaps that is why Evangelicalism seems not to for into your category of Protestant? I may be wrong - This isn't my area of expertise.