I have never ever written a response to someone else before; nor do I intend to make a habit of it. Giles Fraser offers much to the Church of England, and I usually find his Comment section in the Guardian Newspaper informative and illuminating, even when I disagree with it.

I found this morning’s caricature of evangelical faith and theology to be wholly inaccurate. To be fair to Giles Fraser what he had constructed was a ‘straw man’ of what liberals thought of evangelicalism around 20-30 years ago. Even then, it would have needed nuancing. The problem with ‘straw men’ generally is that they are easy to knock down. In this case, Fraser’s caricature is far from current reality. It certainly is true that there are Evangelicals and Evangelical Anglican churches who seem to exist in a bubble of unreality; I have also met liberals, catholics and people of no faith who might find that accusation true of them. However, to suggest as he does that Evangelicals somehow distort Jesus into their own happy-clappy image is simply not true; except insofar as it is true of all forms of Christianity.

I have seen broken lives put together within Evangelical churches; and people turned away by the same. That is true of all different theological positions sadly. Foodbanks are run by evangelicals as well as catholics and liberals, debt counselling is run by liberals, catholics and evangelicals. Evangelicals proclaim the faith in a way that may or may not get up people’s noses; particularly religious intellectuals. I seem to remember Jesus doing the same.

It seems to me that Evangelicals are now who are serious about working out a theology that is fit for purpose. This is done at HTB, through New Wine, St Melitus; as well as in Durham, Nottingham. Oxbridge and Bristol. The Jesus who is met in these places transforms lives, challenges bigotry, and offers hope for the world.

Anglican Evangelicalism may not be everyone’s cup of tea. I have some questions about how HTB’s approach might work on my urban estate. However, it is simply wrong to offer a one-sided critique particularly when the evidence on which such a critique is offered is both dated and muddled.