Helen asks
what’s the difference between evangelist and evangelical, which some of
us think Will Hutton confused in his piece in the Observer that I
commented on yesterday.
First, dictionary definitions from COED (always a place I like to start):
evangelist n. a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith, especially by public preaching
evangelical adj. of or according to the teaching of
the gospel or the Christian religion; (and hence) of or denoting a
tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of
the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith
in the Atonement.
It’s this last one which leads to the confusion, because it’s
another case of a part of the church having hijacked something which
properly belongs to the whole, and claiming it as its own sole
possession. Every Christian, and every church tradition, is
evangelistic, because they want to help people to find faith in Christ.
And every Christian, and every church tradition, is evangelical; but
the ones who call themselves Evangelical (best to use the big E, to
distinguish them) emphasize them to the extent of downplaying the
importance of other aspects, or sometimes even denying that they have
any importance.
For example, Evangelicals often attach less importance to church
structures, forms of worship, ritual, Sacraments, tradition (meaning,
what theologians and others have taught, and what has been the lived
experience of Christian people, during the centuries of Christian
history).
I formerly felt more at home in the Evangelical wing of the Church
of England, because I became sure of my faith as a result of reading
the New Testament, and made a personal decision to commit my life to
Jesus. The church I then began to attend was of an Evangelical hue,
where I resonated with the kind of preaching I heard, and they
recognised the kind of experience I had had.
But over the years I came to feel that I needed to go further.
Evangelicalism is not a good final destination; it is, as my excellent
Patristics teacher used to say, ‘A good place to start’. You have to
build on to the personal commitment to Christ, and to taking the Bible
seriously, such things as: being a part of a community of believers and
taking them seriously; taking the Bible more seriously by
studying it critically, and wrestling with the questions that
Evangelicals often ignore, or just shout louder to drown them out;
taking the real world and its discoveries seriously.
Evangelical has become in far too many ways a synonym for
traditionalist (not the same as respecting Tradition! - see above),
blinkered, bigoted, biblically simplistic and selective, choosing the
texts you want and ignoring the uncomfortable ones which seem to
suggest a different truth. As someone who still believes in what I held
to be the true heart of the Evangelical tradition, I resent this
bitterly. It so much contradicts what I loved and signed up for.
The great strength of the Church of England, and of the whole
Anglican way, is its acceptance of three sources of authority,
representing the three ‘wings’ of church tradition: Scripture (the
evangelical wing), Tradition (the catholic wing) and Reason or human
experience (the liberal wing). As long as these are in some sort of
balance, the whole body continues in good health. But whenever one of
them becomes overgrown, at the expense of one or both of the others,
the whole body of the Church falls sick. This is clearly the present
state of affairs, with the huge - one might almost say cancerous -
growth in importance and power of the Evangelicals. It’s the main
reason why I have stopped thinking of myself as a card-carrying
Evangelical, and have wanted to try to build up the Catholic and
Liberal sides of the Church. They are the ones that are endangered, or
wasting away, and the spiritual health of all of us depends on them
being exercised and reinvigorated.