Bruce Tomaso at the Dallas Morning News' fine religion blog highlights a horrible Reuters story that Christianity Today's Ted Olsen found.
The story appeared in The Boston Globe with this curious headline: "New evangelist leader plans to avoid politics."
But the story is about the pastor-elect at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, not a new "evangelist leader." Whatever that is. New Life Church is, of course, the megachurch that Ted Haggard built. Here's how the story begins:
Nine months after influential US evangelist Ted Haggard was disgraced in a gay sex scandal, the man poised to take his place in the pulpit says he plans to steer clear of overt politics and focus on the Bible instead.
Ack, ack, ack! Evangelist? Or megachurch pastor and National Association of Evangelicals leader? Who is writing this copy and why is The Boston Globe publishing it?
So, Anonymous Reuters reporter, let's go to the style guide. You're also welcome to use a little writer's tool I like to call the dictionary. It seems you need a lesson in the difference between evangelical and evangelist. And yes, we're embarrassed for you.
An evangelist, according to The Associated Press Stylebook, is a preacher who makes a profession of seeking conversions. If you're the pastor of thousands of people, by definition they've already been converted.
The word evangelical was used historically as an adjective to describe dedication to conveying the message of Christ. The stylebook explains that "today it is also used as a noun, referring to a category of doctrinally conservative Christians. They emphasize the need for a definite, adult commitment or conversion to faith in Christ and the duty of all believers to persuade others to accept Christ."
And the word evangelism refers to "activity directed outside the church fold to influence others to commit themselves to faith in Christ, to his work of serving others and to infuse his principles into society's conduct."
Confusing the fairly obvious terms evangelist and evangelical is a journalistic error based in complete and utter ignorance. But what, exactly, is the excuse for the bizarre statement at the end of the article?
American evangelical Christians, who number 60 million, believe that many of the country's social ills stem from high divorce rates and teenage pregnancies.
What? So the anonymous reporter who doesn't even understand what an evangelical is tells us how many there are in America and what they believe? And comes up with the notion that above all other things one might say about them, they believe the country's social ills stem from the rates of divorce and teen pregnancy? Okay.
The only thing that's even remotely interesting -- although not newsworthy -- about the sentence is what it shows reporters believe about evangelicals.
It's not that Christians -- be they evangelicals or not -- aren't concerned about divorce or teen pregnancy, but it's just such a weird way to describe a group.