Jonny Baker made a point some weeks ago about his discomfort with church labels: evangelical, liberal, catholic etc. I understand completely where he is coming from. For many Christians now, we are recognising the gift and complexity of our various traditions and drawing lessons and insights across a wide range of spiritualities and theologies that would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago. I talk to liberals urging their churches to get serious about mission and be more passionate about their engagement with scripture. Evangelicals are asking searching questions of textual criticism and reading the Bible with a political lens. Catholics are promoting ecumenism and fostering the charismatic. Does this mean all these labels and descriptions are now history?
"Labelling" already suggests a bias to the question because the problem of any category of identity is its inadequacy. No one wants to be defined in advance; for their life to be reduced and preempted. If you are from an evangelical tradition, you've got the added problem that such a closure assumes ignorance, reactionary attitudes and fundamentalism. Media coverage of "evangelicals", especially under the previous President of the USA seemed to make evangelicalism into a swear word. So is it time to move on? Is Jonny right to stick with "Christian" as the baseline?
I'd want to say yes and no, I think. I'm not sure any of us should be hiding under labels; and there is a great temptation to do so out of fear: to seek the comfort blanket of the group mentality. But there is something about owning what is still a real part of my history. In interfaith circles and Church of England stuff, I get to mix with a broad range of folk. Doing PhD studies at a Jesuit college has given me a turbo-charged experience of the breadth of church tradition, too. My evangelical roots have given me an inescapable love for scripture and an unavoidable appreciation of the personal claims of Jesus. Now you don't have to be evangelical to have these, and my understanding of scripture and the nature of Jesus' claims have changed over the years. But they are part and parcel of my evangelical heritage. I actually find that in ecumenical groups, that heritage is being looked for (yes, Roman Catholics and liberationists to name two examples). Should i disown not just the gift of the other to me, but withhold the gift of myself to the other?
So can evangelicalism be redeemed? I'm not sure; and I'm with Jonny in not being overly concerned by the word itself as a rallying point. But, for the time-being, if someone wants to label me "evangelical"; I'll run with it as part of the richness of the church i'm pleased to contribute towards. Just expect me to confound any preconceptions.
I'm in the middle of surveying 300 years of evangelical tradition and history and in terms of self identification has made me want to be 'evangelical' more than ever, whilst being aware that with others that word means something very different.
So like you, it's a yes and no for me.
Posted by: Jason Clark | October 17, 2009 at 06:41 AM