“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”
That’s the opening line to Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind 
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).
Carl Trueman plays on that title in his latest book: The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Chicago: Moody, 2011). (This 41-page book is available only electronically in the Kindle format.)
Some excerpts:
Is there an evangelical mind active today? Nearly two decades ago Mark Noll concluded any evangelical mind had gone soft through lack of use. Today the question is whether a healthy evangelicalism exists to host such a mind. I am not sure, theologically, that such a thing still thrives. (p. 13)
[E]vangelicalism lacks clear doctrinal definition within the wider Christian community. (p. 17)
[E]vangelicalism’s lack of definition makes the drawing of boundary lines very difficult, if not impossible. (p. 22)
[M]y guess is that the historicity and individuality of Adam will become the clear point of challenge to scriptural authority. (p. 34)
When Mark Noll declared that the scandal of the evangelical mind was that there was no mind, he meant to criticize the lack of cultural and theological engagement among evangelicals. I agree there is a scandal involving the evangelical mind, though I understand the problem in the exact opposite way. It is not that there is no mind, but rather that there is no evangelical. (p. 37)
[E]vangelicalism has a twist: It doesn’t exist. . . . There simply is no pure, platonic ideal of evangelicalism, no common identity in which all evangelicalisms participate. (p. 37)
When the fog has lifted and it becomes clear that all talk of evangelicalism as a clearly defined movement was a category mistake—a confusion of a coalition for a doctrinally committed movement—then new alliances may emerge. (p. 40)
The real scandal of the evangelical mind currently is not that it lacks a mind, but that it lacks any agreed-upon evangel. Until we acknowledge that this is the case—until we can agree on what exactly it is that constitutes the evangel—all talk about evangelicalism as a real, coherent movement is likely to be little more than a chimera, or a trick with smoke and mirrors. (p. 41)
Hi Andy. I haven’t done more than peruse Noll’s book in question, though I have high esteem for him as a scholar. And I haven’t yet looked over Trueman’s book. But I’m concerned about one sentiment that is emphasized in your excerpts: that evangelicalism as a movement must be clearly definable along doctrinal lines, with clear boundaries. I’m not sure that’s ever been the case, nor do I think it needs to be. I’m comfortable being considered an evangelical, and consider myself as such because of my emphasis on the transforming power of the gospel, the need for all people to hear, and the high view of scripture that both comes from and leads to all of this. But I don’t think evangelicalism needs a set of doctrines to define it clearly. This may make it more difficult to discuss, and make it more difficult to determine who is in and who is out, but is that really so important. Someone doesn’t have to be an evangelical (either self-described or categorized by some system or criteria) to be a faithful believer and a brother or sister in Christ. So while it’s a useful movement or grouping to discuss, I don’t think clear boundaries are a prerequisite for fruitful discussions.
Today’s term “evangelical” is like the biblical term “Pharisee.” Oh, yes, Pharisees is a term of derision today, an epithet synonymous with “hypocrite.” But we must be quick to remind ourselves that this was not so in New Testament times. Then it was a term indicating faithfulness to the Scriptures and what they taught.
Thus while “Evangelical” has not yet become such a term of derision, it one day will be. What matters is not whether we can claim allegiance to this name but whether we begin to practice the truths that we say we hold dear. This marked the difference between Saul of Tarsus and the apostle Paul – and it can mark the difference in us if we are willing to turn away from the vain rituals of churchgoing and turn fully to the Lord who shines His light on us all.
James, I’d recommend that you reserve judgment until you read Trueman’s short book (about the length of an essay in a theological journal). Trueman is not arguing that “evangelicalism as a movement must be clearly definable along doctrinal lines, with clear boundaries.” Neither does Trueman assert that “that’s ever been the case” nor that “it needs to be.”
Andy, I certainly will reserve my judgment on the book (as I said, I haven’t even looked at it beyond your excerpts above). I was merely responding to the them of the excerpts you quoted. I’m all for theological rigor and doctrinal commitments, and hope doctrine plays an ever-increasingly important role in evangelical thinking and acting. I just don’t think a clear, boundary-defining consensus ever has been a component of evangelicalism, nor do I think it is a possibility today. I think unity of mission surrounding the good news of Jesus Christ at work in the world to save the lost through Christ’s death and resurrection can provide the foundation for our association together. That’s why I can call you an evangelical brother in Christ even though I haven’t studied all of your bona fides, nor have I provided mine, so to speak. Blessings.
Will this book ever appear in print for those of us who are e-book challenged?
Not sure.