I was reading a thread and a poster mentioned that he was Evangelical and had been in the Episcopalian Church. I had never before considered believers in the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches or the Lutheran Church (basically the more traditional Protestant Churches) to be Evangelical and had always reserved the ‘label’ for non-denominational believers and believers with Baptists leanings. This got me thinking; why did I come to this conclusion about my definition of an Evangelical?
Because in America lots of evangelicals are non-denominational or have basically Baptist theology, and they tend to be the noisiest in their self-identification as evangelicals.
However, as a matter of fact English-speaking evangelicalism began among Anglicans. Most of the great evangelical evangelists of the 18th century (Whitefield and the Wesleys, for instance) were Anglicans. Many of the greatest evangelical hymns (Amazing Grace, for instance) were written by Anglicans. In fact, in 19th-century England the term “Evangelical” primarily denoted a faction within Anglicanism.
However, the Anglo-Catholics fought back in the 19th century by defining Anglicanism as a “via media” clearly distinct from Protestantism. This was a revisionist, even dishonest interpretation of Anglican history–one of the main reasons I cannot be a full-fledged Anglo-Catholic, in spite of my agreement with and love for many aspects of Anglo-Catholicism. Similarly, liberals came to define Anglicanism in terms of pluralism and tolerance. These definitions were particularly powerful in the United States. While many Evangelicals remained in the Church of England (if only because, as the state church, it was the “best boat to fish from”), they had fewer reasons to be Episcopalian in the American context. And in the late 19th century the “Reformed Episcopalians” left the Episcopal Church in protest against Anglo-Catholicism, which meant that there wasn’t much of an “evangelical wing” in the Episcopal Church until the charismatic movement of the 1960s.
So what is an Evangelical?
Personally, I don’t use the word with the capital letter. I’ve noticed that people who do are generally more likely to define it strictly, insisting on sola fide, sola scriptura, and Biblical inerrancy as well as a strong doctrine of conversion. They could be called “hard core evangelicals.”
However, I would defend my fuzzy usage of the word by the fact that evangelicalism has always been a bit fuzzy. I would define evangelicalism as a broad tradition of Christianity accepting the basic tenets of the Faith as found in the Creeds, but interpreting those tenets through a piety that stresses individual commitment to Christ, gives the experience of ordinary Christians an important place in both theology and devotion, and not only upholds the authority of Scripture but uses Scripture devotionally on a regular basis.
Is being an Evangelical opposed to being a Catholic? Can a person be both?
As I’ve defined evangelicalism, one can certainly be both. There were certainly evangelicals by my definition who remained loyal to the Catholic Church in the early sixteenth century. (In fact, I’d even be willing to suggest that the “Catholic evangelicals” sound more like later Pietist evangelicals than the Protestant Reformers do–but that may be pushing it too far). The Council of Trent made it very hard for this style of Christianity, but Vatican II made it much easier. There are many people in communion with Rome who are at least as evangelical as I am.
On the other hand, there are definitions of evangelical that would necessarily exclude Catholics (or at least Catholics who fully adhered to official teaching). Those definitions would also for the most part exclude me!
Edwin
). All that Wikipedia thinks is needed is a “high regard” for Biblical authority. I consider the Bible authoritative and I definitely have a high regard for that authority.
