Dear brothers and sisters,

I thought people might be interested to see an article I wrote for the August 07 edition of the monthly "Evangelicals Now" on this theme of defining evangelicalism, and I hope people will find it helpful. Tim Keller's talks, that I refer to below, are humble, gracious, warm and inspiring, and are well worth getting hold of and I think would clarify a lot of the issues being discussed here. I'd urge you to get hold of them - they are talks to change a generation. They can be obtained via http://www.proctrustmedia.co.uk/shop/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=227 and I think people might be surprised by some of what he says.

Sincerely

David Baker

Anglican Update:  whats in a name?

According to Jesus, many people we know are in danger of hell and are heading for a lost eternity.

On a more physical level, 3,000 children are dying every day from Malaria in Africa. We face the huge challenge of global warming, and the threat of international terrorism. Meanwhile, the Anglican Communion continues in turmoil.

Against all those things, the idea of devoting a column to the question, What is an evangelical? might seem petty and trivial. And in one sense, of course, it is. The important question Christ asks us is, Do you love me?  rather than, Would you describe yourself as a conservative, open, charismatic, mainstream, Calvinist, classical or pietistic evangelical? Thankfully!

Unfortunately, however, words do matter. Lack of clarity in using words may reflect unclear thinking. And all too often, unclear thinking leads to unclear theology, which then affects  very directly  all those massively important matters enumerated in the paragraphs above.

In the case of the word evangelical, its actually rather important, because apart from anything else, the term should elucidate our sources of authority  in other words, the sources we take our beliefs from. And if were unclear on that, then, like a polluted spring, everything that flows out of that will be muddy and opaque as well.

Ive therefore followed with interest recently renewed debate in The Church of England Newspaper and elsewhere about what an evangelical is. Writing helpfully in one recent issue, my Evangelicals Now co-writer Chris Sugden questioned whether we should accept the common idea of there being three streams of Anglican evangelicalism  open, conservative and charismatic. There is in most cases a cigarette paper of nuance between orthodox evangelicals on matters of Christian faith and practice, and a chasm separating them from those who do not subscribe to the authority of Scripture and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, he quite rightly wrote.

The following week, Graham Kings, of open evangelical group Fulcrum, said those in the evangelical centre  by which he meant moderate conservative, open and charismatic evangelical Anglicans  should be aware of how they converge in commonality.

It seems to me that whatever our precise flavour, most Anglican evangelicals could benefit enormously from the truly amazing talks on What is an evangelical? given by American Presbyterian Tim Keller at the recent Evangelical Ministry Assembly  talks to surely get hold of if you missed them. He argued for three evangelical essentials:

ﾷ         The final, full, authority and clarity of Scripture.

ﾷ         Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, by his substitutionary atonement.

ﾷ         All of life is repentance. We are penitent, and therefore gracious and humble. The truth alone does not make us evangelical.

There are, of course, real issues around the authority of Scripture. Bishop Pete Broadbent, for example, in seeking to define open evangelicalism, suggests that it includes Believing scripture to be inspired, but not wishing to wear the inerrantist  (sic) label,  whereas I think inerrancy is theologically essential. Then again, it does depend on how you define inerrancy.

And when it comes to the second point, we are all aware of the recent attacks on the traditional (and true) doctrine of penal substitution.

But, if I am honest, it is probably on the third point that all of us have most to think about, isnt it. Robert Murray McCheyne wrote, My peoples greatest need is my personal holiness. Without that, whether we regard ourselves as open, charismatic, conservative or whatever, we are all Pharisees. With genuine repentance, however, who knows  we might just find a way of talking, learning and moving forward together after all.

David Baker

Emmanuel, Tolworth

Why should /would anyone define themselves as evangelical (E)? Aren't we all followers of Christ?

(Sorry to drop in with comments which have possibly already been discussed earlier in the thread.)

Within Protestantism the term evangelical in every day church parlance seems to a imply a variety of ideas;

(1) a divide between those who are Protestant (any denom.) from those who are Roman Catholic. By using the E word in this context, I don't think Protestants are actually saying that RCs aren't evangelical about their faith; the mission of Rome is clearly evangelical. I think that instead something exclusive or excluding is being said about how we as Protestants define ourselves. I have heard some evangelicals say remarks, of varying degrees of disparagement, about the RC church, usually in the context of defining 'error'. It seems that the more "E" some Protestants feel themselves to be, the less likely they are to be charitable to RC brethren or at least that is what they vocalise amongst their "E" friends, even if they act with love at all times. That said I wonder if by identifying closely with evangelicalism we are trying to distance ourselves in a very observable way from the RC church?

(2) within Protestantism itself - it seems to me that the E word is about telling other Prots. that WE are evangelicals as part of a package of identifiers. If say I am a Christian, or a Disciple of Jesus, over time via converation and observation of my actions, other Christians, especially those more conversant with the divisions, (catholic, liberal, reformed, charismatic, ad infinitum), will try to ascertain what type of Christian I am; I have to fit in a box. But who made the box(es)? Anglicanism seems to made from many boxes which anglicans can put themselves and others into and out of - which may or may not be a perfect way but it does allow for the individuals own journey!

.Unfortunately I have heard some Free Church people describe the CofE as being not evangelical. What did they mean? It seemed that this view was largely formed on the basis of our not being Pentecostal, our not making altar calls and our accepting of infant baptism. Obviously I think these bros., are mistaken, because Anglican churhes are wide and various, but it does seem to indicate that any definition of evangelicalism is very much based upon how we see ourselves in relations to others and how we understand the relations we have with one another.

In other words saying I am Evangelical could be a covert way of saying to you that I am not Anglo-Catholic. Is something like group dynamics going on, rather than any real engagement with what defines evangelicalism?. Some say the Articles of Religion define evangelicalism, but these same Articles are accepted by others who would not be defined as evangelical either by their own estimation or by others who know for ceratin that they themselves are evangelicals.

Working on the basis that every Christian church declares the Good News, then they all want to make disciples, to baptise those disciples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. All Christian churches teach the disciples to observe Christ's commands and that He is with us until the end of the age. There may be variations with regard to say, baptismal procedures (infant vs adult) and of course differing interpretations of Christ's commands( e.g. different ideas about what the Gospels say about homosexuality but all based on feelings of integrity even if you don't believe them to be right.) and differing views on what entails the 'end of the age'(to Rapture or not Rapture etc.), but the intent is the same - to point towards Christ. Essentially all churches carry out the Great Commission and yet I feel that I have been taught and have sensed that in certain circles the a particular view of the Commission is the hallmark that defines some Christians as evangelical, whilst excluding others from that same definition.

Is Evangelicalism real? Did Jesus define our being his follower as meaning that you have to be an evangelical. Call and Purpose are not necessarily the same thing. Paul says people are variously gifted. I personally do not believe that anyone is called to be an evangelical, evangelist yes, evangelical no, but instead all are called to the saving grace of Jesus. Are people confused between Evangelist and Evangelical? The Great Commission is something Christians do but it has been confused with what Christians are. Evangelicalism is a created reality of certain Christians that seems to hint at the division or set apartness of themselves from others who also call themselves Christian. And often the sole cause of this sense of apartness is down to perceptions of how we THINK other people regard the bible i.e. not as seriously as we do....? I think if we could survey what ordinary church members in all the various strands of the CofE believe we would find fairly similar beliefs and understandings its probably just the 'political' types who really care about group signifiers.

Is there another question? How seriously do we take the power of the Holy Spirit. The aforementioned Free Church aquaintances of mine tended to see Charisma as one of the hallmarks of evangelism / evangelicalism. No charisma equals not evangelical? I think that that is a harsh definition, but there might be something in that criticism. The Holy Spirit's work is not confined to convicting sinners of the need to repent. We all know that, don't we? So why don't we exercise Charisma in our churches, they are Gifts from God afterall, and Paul does suggest that we be desirous of these gifts. Poor Paul, he must be fair spinning in his glory clothes at the way we pick over his words and just choose the bits that suit us, especially when we try to wiggle out of what he really said about the Gifts and about the liberation of women??

Let the Spirit of God be visibly corporate. Yes we do know that His Spirit is with us and that the quiet ways are important, often the places and times when He does the greatest things in our lives. But what about letting in some of His louder ways too. People, in and outside of churches, are thirsting for the power of God to be manifest in their lives; for signs and wonders - and some may say this makes them a faithless and perverse generation, not satisfied with the Cross, but I say the Cross bought us the Holy Spirit, (and at what a price?), just as Jesus told the first disciples. This is the Helper we may not eschew by carnal reasoning - for He is the real Evangelist not us.

Real evangelicalism should be about letting the Holy Spirit have His way, not pretending we've got our every doctrine and our every action and thought nailed to specific or exclusive criteria.

Very good question.

I certainly have met people who think that only Evangelicals are Christians. I only know of 2 CE who think something like that. I had a couple of OE friends who thought something like that which is why they had to argue so passionatly that they and "their kind" are "proper" Evangelical.

John Stott's "Christ the Contraversialist" (small book) and Mark Thompson's "What is an Evangelical" (booklet) are really good on this and I think I agree with them. Stott says Evangelicalism is Christianity with nothing added or taken out.

A Christian is simply someone who believes and repents (Mark 1:16). So personally I think someone could be a Christian without being Evangelical. I think adding or taking out matters. Adding suggests the Evangel isn't enough  -it is! Taking out - well it's obvious why that might be serious.

Now terms like Evangelical or Liberal are to a point relative aren't they. x is more liberal than y, but far more Evangelical than z. So a "proper" CE won't be static in their beliefs. They should be seeing all the time ways (big or small) that they have added, subtracted or just got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Thank you Jody for that. Do please get back to the evangelical defining debate. Gosh, I've just been reading a speaker that linked the nineteenth century debate about ritual to the distracting work of Satan. That's rather a distracting view of evengelicalism.

Let me answer. The position I stated to my church friend was one I called "radical doubt" (lots of radical things, it can get tedious) regarding the transcendent or not. It is one way I'm different from Cupitt, who philosophically rules it out because you cannot get outside language. I am indeed more sociological and social anthropological, and see where it overlaps with the theological. It follows on from Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, Robin Gill (much I don't go with), David Martin (in parts), Richard Niebuhr, Ernst Troeltsch, Max Weber indeed. But social anthropology I think gets to the heart of the functioning of religion, and deeper than that into actual theology.

In that I have this radical doubt position, but that there is delivery of the transcendent through culture in forms of language, then that is what there is. As individuals we process symbol and language, and send it back into the pot, but we also get hit by the collective language. Now it is a bit more complicated than this, because in the past there was a sacred canopy and you really were clobbered by a very narrow range of collective understandings. Now there are choices regarding the collective language, and no obvious home - but you can still pick a home, and choose a home, and walk in faith. This is what I have done. One reason why I am interested in liturgical expression is how that walk is constructed, and I am pretty much opposed to what I call the reductionism of my former rather painful existence in the Unitarians. Reductionism carries the myth that what is left is objective, a myth that what is left can more easily be shared (it can't; with remaining objectivity comes subjectivity that is its individualism) and religion needs remythologisation, whether on new or along historical lines, and even if new it ends up raiding concepts from the past (as in neo-Paganism). So the answer is that we are inside the carrying mechanism of the language and storing of language (therefore a library of our past) that in all effect can be no different from how anyone receives Christian believing, whatever they may speculate about its sources. I can identify (as anyone can) where the construction points have been, but I can say no more than that, nor whether they in fact come from some secret place that qualifies as revelation.

As for turning up with nothing, you do actually turn up with yourself. You give yourself (as well as money and support). I am not saying there is an automatic exchange - I am saying this is the economy of the eucharist, that the exchange involves hope and a gift. I am suggesting something like this: you turn up, give of yourself and your materiality, that the eucharistic tokens are themselves material, and that in your giving you may receive nothing, but you hope you receive something. The parallel is intercessionary prayer. You put in the effort and no idea what comes back, if anything, but you hope it does, and it does in the form of a gift. Of course you may disagree with this, but I am suggesting that it is theological and social anthropological.

Behind all this too is a theological approach that notes that Karl Barth's anti-cultural pure revelation God was so high and dry that it pretty much disappeared in any worldly anchored sense, and that the open postmodern approach where objectivity and subjectivity have collapsed have left a theology where the God within has pretty much disappeared, inside a kind of reforming and deforming instant moment spirituality. This is my position.

It is why I find all the boundary making of current debates (and the same sort of debate in the Unitarians by the way) just beyond where it is at.

Then in this there is what makes this Christian. Well, first of all it is the terms of the Western religious debate (a looser identification: one that theist Daphne Hampson identifies with, she gave up being Christian), secondly because of the ethical heart and reversals of the rabbi Jesus (with all the qualifications of historical difficulty), and thirdly the community of Christians in all their diversities through the ages, from the pre-trinitarian, through the trinitarian and all the varieties afterwards. So there is a tradition - refernce points - but really I do find orthodox uninteresing.

Hi

well Darren, Pluralist is what he says on the tin and has always been honest about that.

it would be good to get back to 'definding evangelicalism' and one question I have is whether CEs believe it is possible to be a Christian and not be evangelical, because a lot of the time it comes across as 'no', but I'm sure that is not the case.

but I have a question or two for pluralist.  I have no problem with the idea that God is expressed through signs and symbols, those are the things that we have and we must use them.  However, what you are saying, it seems to me, is that God is those signs and symbols, or is perhaps the sum of them together with the community of people who they belong to.  For you, God himself is not outside these signs and symbols and thus there is no transcendent.  But I think you would go further than that to say that God is not a separate entity who is simply immanent, but actually God is his symbols, or rather the God that we(humanity) have made up.

For you there is no God-revelation only anthropological discovery and creation - you might still define this as God, you are free to do so, but it is far away from the Christian God of Scripture and Tradition, is it not?

With regards to Communion - I bring nothing and I gain everything.  there is no exchange, I bring myself I suppose, if that is what you mean.  But this is not a manipulation of the deity, it is a fulfilling of a promise.  God promises to be present in the bread and wine, and so he is, because his promises are true, but this is not a case of 'I do this, so God has to do that.'  But if you do not believe in that spiritual succour, then is it simply the hope of something that brings you to Communion?

x Jody

I'm pleased it is seen by you as healthy. I was having a discussion with a chap in our church after last Sunday's eucharist who is a bit of a fan of Don Cupitt, though it turns out he does believe in transcendence. So I said he is more like John Hick then, but as soon as you describe the transcendent you have invented another religion. I said for Cupitt, seeing as we cannot ever get outside the dictionary, talking about the transcendent is a meaningless outside - though his latest view is actually now against non-realism (and I disagree with Cupitt's latest view about autological language). I reckoned I go along with signals of transcendence, that is pointers - such as art, the sublime, silence, indeed liturgical traditions. Tne point I made earlier here is that as we are symbolic, speaking people, the God we express is in the world of symbolism and language too, both as created by us and delivered to us collectively. I am myself pretty convinced by the notion of the gift and exchange, that is in a community people bind together through giving a material gift in the hope of receiving a more profound spiritual gift, this done by passing a token. It is good solid social anthropology, and where it meets theology. If this is not a descruption of the dynamic behind the eucharistic service, then I don't know what is. And this is symbolic communication, and so God is right there in that - as we do say.

I go away for a week and look what happens...

I was still chewing on the individual/coperate sin thing, came back, &... we seem to have moved from defining Evangelicalism to defining God! All very healthy nonetheless.

Understanding him or not understanding him, what bothers me is those who claim they do understand him and then try to load that on to everyone else. I personally do not go along with this sort of "cosy he is watching over us" form of christianity. Christianity is a human set of traditions, to be weighed critically and brought to use, and not exclusively either, for what is a faith walk. You know, tomorrow, if some fool comes out of a side road and hits me, or whatever event happens, nothing is going to happen otherwise to make anything any different. It is in my hands, and I cannot protect against the unfortunate accident. The faith matter, then, is that I look out for the other person, and treat them compassionately and hope I might be treated the same. By the way, I am not a deist. Rather God is a communication in language and culture, a means of organising the faith walk.

We cannot dictate to God how he will bless us but thre are come tremendous promises in scripture  about protection, healing and guidence. The Bible portays a God who is intimentaly involved in our lives. Even when we do not understand him we are to trust him.

David

Yes.  'Even' in fairy tales, after the magic moment / breakthrough life goes forward ---it is never & can never be the same again.

What is at stake one might say is the relationship of ego and Self (in Jungian terms).

The Self demands the modification / curtailment /death of ego---or at least that is how it feels at the time when their dynamic equilibrium is shifting.

Churches ignore all this at their peril (and are proud of it--but it leads to situations like Wycliffe; and like the trouble in the AC)

Usually people want miracles to restore the status quo ante, and life just isn't like this.

People pray and the Lourdes or Trevor Dearing type miracles do not happen. Then very often the 'miracle' worker blames the one who wasn't healed. I WANT those miracles but the world ain't like that. I've had to grow up.

Yes, the more we pray, meditate, enter analysis, use the I Ching etc the more coincidences happen. I have experienced this. CG Jung has written of it, calling it synchronicity.  It is an extraordinary phenonenon----             but it is unlikely to take my cancer away or deliver the pooor poor people of Darfur from those who harrass and murder them  with impunity ........

I would gladly (I hope) say "dear God don't heal me ---save them-- Thy little ones in Darfur"