When is an Evangelical not and Evangelical?

I was recently invited to a meeting of church leaders to consider co-operatively setting up a new initiative. The organising body was an evangelical parachurch organisation. The churches invited were, to anyone looking in, broadly evangelical. The initiative is something that I think would be good for Rochdale.

There were some alarm bells though. First, the large evangelical Church of England church hosting seemed to have invited people from other Church of England churches that I probably wouldn't have thought of as evangelical. Second, it was just after the Church of England synod had pronounced on blessing same-sex relationships. People who know my background would, I guess, not be surprised that I was nervous and wanted a bit more clarity on where the Church of England churches in particular stood.

There was also some reassurance though. It was clear where the representative of the parachurch organisation stood and he emphasized that to set up the work as a group of churches we would all have to sign their statement of faith. So I went away from the meeting unsure, planning to investigate.

Here's what I found out:

1. The statement of faith was what I would have considered a reasonable evangelical statement of faith. However, although it spoke of the Bible in ways I would agree with, it said nothing about sexual ethics. And, here's the problem, I knew that progressive or affirming 'evangelicals' would probably be happy to tick the box.
2. A friend in the Church of England suggested to me that the vicar of the large evangelical church who were driving the plan was actually just such a progressive or affirming 'evangelical'.
3. That vicar is on General Synod, so I waited to see what the voting would reveal. Suffice to say, the voting record indicated that she was indeed such an 'evangelical'.

So we can't partner in that kind of situation.

Now I've been putting the word evangelical in quotation marks when referring to affirming or progressive Christians, because it seems to me that the two don't go together. However, others would disagree with me. In fact, a group of such 'evangelicals' wrote to the Church Times complaining about just that. They want to be evangelical and affirming/progressive on sexuality. The church that I'm referring to above is, as I understand it, linked to Holy Trinity Brompton and does Alpha Courses. How much more evangelical can you get? (Please don't send me the answers to that question - it's rhetorical!)

Well in Church of England terms it can often seem like evangelical is a catch-all for all kinds of people. For one thing, much effort is expended during selection and some training trying to convince clergy that all of the church is a bit Catholic (in terms of High Church), a bit liberal (I mean no-one wants to be thought of as not using their reason) and a bit evangelical (who doesn't like a bit of growth?). So for years now people have been self-identifying as evangelical (at least a bit) and often, looking in, there are elements that do look like that. But in the end, you just end up with meaningless labels, which is surely the intention of those pushing these views (we're all the same really!).

The alternative risk is, of course, to say evangelical is defined by your position on sexuality. But that is to place the cart before the horse. Any sensible definition of evangelical must start with the gospel, or the evangel. Part of that gospel is that sin separates you from God and places you under his judgement. How you define sin then is important. And the truth is that evangelicalism has always included sexual immorality as sin that separated you from God and sexual immorality has always included same-sex sexual relationships, because that is what the Bible seems to clearly teach (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 6:9-11; Revelation 21:7-8).

I understand that progressive 'evangelicals' want to say that we've misunderstood the Bible until the last 50 years - obviously I'm not convinced. But however you look at it, the evangel of progressive 'evangelicals' is different. So, it seems pretty confusing and quite unreasonable to want to be called an evangelical, whilst openly admitting you have a significantly different evangel. But then it seems pretty unreasonable to join a church when you don't agree with its beliefs and then campaign to change it and push the people out who do in fact believe what the church states are its beliefs, but that's been the pattern for decades in the Church of England now.

So, what to do as an evangelical? Well first, be clear on your statement of faith about your definition of sin. Second, don't believe people are evangelical just because they say the are. More and more you're going to have to ask the questions. Third, don't trust externals that seem OK. "But they do Alpha..." Finally, be willing to say the hard stuff, like "you're not an evangelical!" If you don't, you'll end up working with false teachers who preach false gospels and you'll allow the term evangelical to become some meaningless descriptor rather than something rooted in the good news of Jesus Christ.