Six years ago I became Vicar of a
There were far more Holy Communions than I would have expected, the wearing of attire and usage of liturgy which a previous generation of evangelical leaders would baulk at. Moreover, there were unconverted people involved in every area of the life of the
As far as I can tell, the definition of 'Evangelical' has evolved in recent decades. If a modern Anglican calls themselves 'an evangelical' nowadays it tends to mean that they have a 'low church' ecclesiology; sing Matt Redman choruses (or equivalent), are flexible liturgically, and are concerned to 'reach out' with the Gospel in some general kind of way.
Ah, but do definitions matter? The meaning of words is not found by purely tracing their etymology. The current usage of 'hot', 'cool', 'wicked', 'gay', 'neat', 'safe', 'sound', 'sweet' all illustrate the point. All these words have rather different meanings now than they did twenty years ago. But this is how language works, isn't it? The meaning of the word is defined by the way it is used... or is it? Try telling a postmodernist that you believe that when they talk about finding meaning in a text you always assume that they are referring to the intention of the author and they will try to restate what they are saying until they think that you have understood their meaning. Exactly. Even postmodernists want you to be sure you have understood what they said!
David Bebbington's four qualities which mark out Evangelicalism are well known:
Conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.[1]
Whilst Bebbington's analysis is very helpful there is a danger that his observations of evangelicalism perpetuate the very problem of definition which we are struggling after.
Although there is no set definition of what an Evangelical believes, the following are among the most common tenets: the authority of Scripture alone in religious matters, the importance of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, a stress on the experience of the new birth and individual conversion, an emphasis on good works and holy living after conversion, and the evangelisation of non-Christians.[2]
I was brought up to believe that Evangelicalism is defined 'confessionally' - according to certain doctrinal beliefs. The 5 Solas of Evangelical faith, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, Solo Christo, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide surely encapsulated the heart of this belief.
I think that this view of Evangelicalism is very much at the heart of the Reformed tradition which FWS seeks to follow. However, at the risk of reductionism, surely the critical axis of definition has to do with an attitude towards the authority and effectiveness of the Bible to produce the kind of qualities of Evangelicalism which Bebbington defines. In our pluralistic, post modern, evangelical culture, where is the battle most fiercely fought? Surely, it is over the authority, inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture.
It would be foolish to attempt to delve into the technicalities of these debates in this short article. My current wish is to encourage you to appreciate that one's 'orthodoxy' and 'orthopraxis' exemplifies the point at which the definition of evangelicalism hangs or falls.
Bultmann encouraged countless numbers of theological students to doubt the link between the Christ of faith and the historic events of Christ. In his mammoth book called the Gagging of God (which is reviewed in this Newslink) Don Carson points out that this 'gagging' is epitomised in the post modern reversal of Romans 3:4 "Let every man be true and God as liar!"[3] It ever was thus.
"Did God really say?" whispered the serpent to Eve in the garden (Genesis 3). If Satan can only drive a wedge between the words of God and the trustworthiness of God; or between the words of God and their meaning; or between the words of God and goodness of God, the battle is already won.
1. Evangelicalism must be defined - not just confessionally - but in a confession which leads to biblical practice!
This is surely the hallmark of saving faith isn't it? James warns that even the devil believes certain theological truths, and shudders. But faith without deeds is worthless (James 2:18f.). Jesus warns that the hallmark of the foolish builder is one who hears His words but fails to put them into practice (Matt. 7:26).
Similarly, the definition of an evangelical should be seen, not purely in their verbal assent to the relevancy and reliability of Scripture, but in the way in which that conviction is borne out in their
* Pulpit ministry - producing nourishing sermons which are evidently biblical in content (1 Cor 3:2; 1 Pet 2:2); in their * Pastoral ministry - ensuring that it is the word of God which is the counsellor, guide and wisdom (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16f.); and in the * Discipline and Order of the
This is a personal challenge for me, six years down the road: If you came now as a visitor to our congregation on any given Sunday - a
2. Evangelicalism isn't defined by a certain kind of community. A certain attitude towards the Bible forms evangelical community!
By this I mean that "Evangelical" is not a label we choose to adopt because it fits in with the kind of things which we like or do. Rather, surely, the local congregation is defined as Evangelical, precisely because of its attitude towards the Scriptures and practical outworking of biblical implications.
So, Article 19, Of the
The visible
Well, my time has run out. There are many challenges to the tenets of Evangelicalism at the moment. I think I want to remind myself afresh, that from whatever quarter they come, they are motivated by a distrust of the bible at some level or other, and originate from the slippery, deceptive plans of the evil one.
--The Rev. Dr. Simon Vibert is vicar of St. Luke's