Bifurcating Evangelicals!

This from Roger Olsen on why it might not be a bad idea for evangelicals to stop kidding themselves that they are still one coherent movement.  (HT Jonathan Robinson)

Been thinking of spouting off about this myself.  Not sure I'm entirely convinced by Olson's analysis but I do reckon there may well be potentially terminal tensions in the movement.  Maybe I'll fling some thoughts together later this week.  For now I'd be interested to hear what you make of Olsen's piece.

Let's Be Generous

My turn to do a month's worth of opinion pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again. With the agreement of the editor I'm posting my BT article here. To check out the Baptist Times as a whole click here.
 
Am I the only person who thinks that evangelicalism could do with a generosity transfusion?  Well, actually, no, I’m not.  I know I’m not because I’ve read Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy and I remember Nigel Wright’s splendid chapter on the subject in his.  The Radical Evangelical  Also I know I’m not because I recently read a blog post form Krish Kandiah on the same theme.

Krish speaks of his experience of meeting with church leaders while travelling the country on behalf of the Evangelical Alliance.  What struck me was Krish’s description of how he often feels when he is introduced to a new group: guilty until proven innocent.  I know exactly what he means.  We evangelicals can be a suspicious, defensive bunch. And it’s not pretty.

It wasn’t pretty when a fellow church leader with whom I had worked closely for a number of years came to see me because he had heard that I held a different point of view to him on what he regarded as a key evangelical shibboleth.   “If that’s what you believe and teach then I can no longer be your friend.”  It would seem that loving your enemies is one thing but loving your brother who has suddenly become non-kosher is a different matter.

Now, in part, I think I know where this attitude comes from.  One of the strengths of the evangelical movement is its refusal to capitulate too quickly to pressure to conform to the spirit of the age.  I like this.  What’s more I realise that maintaining a minority world view takes a good deal of effort but the trouble is, if we are not careful, it can also make us pretty mean spirited not unlike the kind of Pharisee we meet in the gospels.

To view truth and holiness as delicate things, brittle, in need of our protection is profoundly unhealthy.  Militantly patrolling of the border fence of evangelical orthodoxy is less a sign of concern for the truth and more an evidence of profound insecurity, or, in other words, a lack of faith.

It seems to me that it would do both us and our witness to the gospel a power of good if we asked the Holy Spirit of our prodigal God to bless us with a lavish does of generosity. You know the kind of attitude that gives people the benefit of the doubt that makes us more likely to welcome them in than to rule them out; the sort of good grace that enables us to embrace those with whom disagree.

One of my United Reformed Church colleagues here at Luther King House doesn’t hover over the same patch of theological territory as I do.  Just yesterday he introduced me to one of our external examiners.  “This is Glen, he’s an evangelical, but we are praying for him.”  To which I replied, “But you’re a liberal which means there’s no chance your prayers will be answered.”  The external examiner only hesitated briefly before joining in the laughter. It’s one of the things I like about this place.  I get to work with people with whom I disagree quite profoundly but we somehow seem to manage to like each other. 

Now of course I’m not saying that either my colleague or I have got this thing sussed.  But I am saying that on those occasions that I stumble upon generous acceptance on the part of those who see things differently it does feel an awful lot closer to stumbling across Jesus than it does when I bump into the mean spirited orthodoxy of some of my fellow evangelicals.

Evangelical Alliance Ireland and Civil Parntership

This from the Evangelical Alliance Ireland’s report on the civil partnership bill.

As followers of a just and compassionate God we can recognise the justice and fairness of providing some legal protection for the reality of both same-sex and opposite-sex cohabiting relationships.

• “just” - check
• “compassionate” - check,
• “justice” - check,
• “fairness” - check,
• “some” - ???????

(Click here to read the full statement)

Tony Campolo on Evangelicalism

This from Tony Campolo on developments in evangelical identity in the states. HT the good people at Ekklesia

Evangelicalism

There's quite a conversation going on in the blogosphere stateside at the moment on the nature and future of evangelicalism. Here's three contributions as starters: Mark Galli of Christianity Today Troy Jackson of God's Politics Scot McKnight of Beliefnet

Let's Hear It For Activism

My turn to do a month's worth of opinion pieces for the Baptist Times' "Outside Edge" column has come round again.
With the agreement of the editor I'm posting my BT article here. To check out the Baptist times as a whole click here.

One of the hazards of ministry is the risk of being misunderstood. Ask any preacher. There are of course things one can do to reduce the risk. But sometimes you just have to go for it. So here goes.

The main secret of church growth is to want to grow and then to do something about it. I prescribe a good, old fashioned dose of evangelical activism.

Of course it’s not quite that simple. If it were I’d be out of a job. I spend a lot of time and energy helping students to identify cultural trends and to consider how to respond. We look at a whole range of approaches to evangelism and church growth from missionary congregations to personal faith sharing; from fresh expressions to healthy church growth thinking. We ask all kinds of important theological questions about such things as the relationship between our mission and God’s mission or the place of evangelism in our pursuit of the kingdom.

It’s encouraging that reflection on evangelism and other forms of mission is becoming more nuanced, theologically more robust. But it remains true that the three most important steps for those who would like to see growth are to want to grow, to plan to grow and then to do something about it.

Not that these things alone are enough. Church growth theory has always stressed that there are factors way beyond how a local congregation goes about things which have a huge influence on how likely they are to see an increase in numbers. It could well be, for instance, that the arrest of numerical decline detected in both the 2005 English Churches Census and the recent figures published by TEAR Fund is largely down to the culture-wide resurgence of interest in spirituality and the re-entry of religion onto the public stage since 9/11 and 7/7. Not a lot your local church can do about such things.

Nonetheless, it doesn’t take a census or a survey to tell you that churches that try to grow tend grow faster than those who aren’t interested in growth or won’t work at it. We need to be intentional and active.

Activism however has recently fallen out of favour. You must know the old joke about the patron saint of evangelicals being St. Vitus. Much of the criticism is indeed neccessary. Mere busyness is soul destroying. Prayerless reliance on human effort is faithless. We ought not to live as if we believe in justification by results. On the other hand it would be a gross denial of our evangelical heritage and a huge loss to the Church universal if we were to swap activism for quietism.

I wouldn’t want to go as far as the remark attributed to 19C evangelist Dwight Moody who respond to a critic by telling her that he preferred his method of doing evangelism to her method of not doing it. I am not commending mere activism or heedless hard work. What’s called for is faithful, imaginative engagement.

Nor do I want to simplify to the point simplicity. “For every problem there is a solution that is simple, straightforward …. and wrong!” Amen. But neither do I want to see the church paralysed by complexity or bewildered into impotence.

We might only understand in part but that doesn’t mean we know nothing. We might not have it within our power to transform our own fortunes but that doesn’t mean we can do nothing. So let’s hear it for activism. Gospel faithful activism? Theologically savvy activism? Prayerfully reflective activism? Spirit inspired activism? Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! But for all that, still activism.

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism

Thanks to Sean for alerting me to this. Looks interesting. Just booked in.

Unity and Sexuality

This from Ekklesia on Lambeth, Evangelicalism and the issue of homosexuality. I detect in the ether that this issue of whether or not the wider evangelical movement can or should hold together is moving up the agenda. Rob Warner, whose recent book (see side bar) is a must read for all who are interested in this issue, detects a possible split or splintering for a variety of cultural and theological reasons. I reckon he's pretty much on the money. However, one thing he doesn't make nearly enough of in his review of trends in the movement is the divergence of opinion on specifically ethical matters. I wouldn't mind betting (if that's allowed) that issues of sexuality are likely be even more influential than the tensions between the reactionary theological conservatives, the pragmatists and the progressives. It's one thing to hold together when there is disagreement on theological matters quite another when it boils down to a question of justice.

Death Throes? Hope So

This from Ekklesia on the latest rabid rattlings from the politico-religious Christian right in the States.

Dentistry and God Talk

Taking photos distracts me from my mild dentist-phobia.
Originally uploaded by Mollissima!

Found myself talking about God at the dentist’s yesterday. Both the dentist herself and the dental nurse had their questions. Getting caught reading books on evangelism after christendom can lead to some interesting conversations.

The dentist, a practising Catholic, wanted to know the difference between being an evangelical and being evangelistic, “They are not the same are they? Because Catholics can do evangelism but I don’t think they are evangelical.” And, “At the freshers’ fair at uni I was talking to the Christian Union but when they found out I was Catholic they said, ‘Oh no, this is not for you; the Catholic Society is over there’.” Thinks: Catholics doing evangelism? – please God. Thinks 2: When oh when will evangelicals learn to be generous and hospitable?

The nurse told me how she had initially taken atheism for granted but was now developing an interest in God. “People always gave me the impression that God was like a man up in the sky but I reckon God’s everything that’s all around us. What do you think?”

As the novacaine took effect I found myself thinking about David Hay’s research into the spirituality of those who don’t go to church. Apparently there’s a growing readiness out there to speak about things spiritual but a groping after a language with which to do so. It seems that people are uncomfortable with transcendent, anthropomorphic God-talk finding it much easier to conceive of the divine as an immanent presence. Not sure if the nurse was groping towards pantheism or panentheism but I do know it’s hard to give a coherent answer with your mouth full of fingers, cotton wool, vacuum cleaners and instruments of torture.

Evangelical Dispute Over Gay Relationships

Civil Partnership - Cake Decs (Sep 06)
Originally uploaded by leaseoflife

This from Ekklesia on disagreement about the validity of committed gay relationship among the ranks of evangelical Bishops. Seems to me that the article's analysis makes an important point but in the end is a little too simplistic. It is too easy to dismiss those like Scott-Joynt as loveless legalists and far from the whole truth to say that if we recognise the reality of gay love it is inevitable that we will come round to accepting gay relationships.

Interesting though to see someone as prominent as Jones coming out on this one. The next big shift among evangelicals or the ultimate taboo for the truly sound?

Evangelical - Muslim Dialogue

Encouraging news from Ekklesia.

Sounds like my kind of dialogue

Elaine Storkey Sues Jim Jones Over Wycliffe Hall

The wrong kind of Evangelical? Check out Ekklesia for a rather sad piece of news

Progressive Evangelicals

clipped from www.prodigalsheep.com

That's another label to add to your list!. Hadn't intended devoting so much space to this issue but Jodie's challenge that I should explain how I label myself reminded me of the generous orthodoxy site. It's an American based resource centre cum network cum think tank that tries to chart a way beyond old dichotomies. Check out the link in the sidebar.

(As an aside it's interesting that the two issues which seem to have generated most reaction on this site so far have both been to do with identity.)

This Week's Poll 4/1/08

If you want to do more than just click comment on this post.

Last week's poll: When describing Christians the labels conservative, evangelical, radical and liberal are completely past their sell by date. 14 votes, 7 agree, 7 disagree. One more vote, I vote "disagree".

Sooo Not Dead

Nate and the dinosaur
Originally uploaded by holgaguy

This is the last of my three posts arising from comments on the poll relating to conservatives/evangelicals, liberals/radicals and evangelism.

I have to confess that some of the comments irked me. Let me respond first of all to Graham and Tim’s observations.

Graham expressed surprise that anyone still used the labels in question and Tim was of the opinion that the terms were “so twentieth century” and tells us that he is in the habit of “ignoring people who use such labels.”

I am tempted to ask if Graham and Tim are living so much on the cutting edge of the brave new postmodern world that they have lost touch with the world as it actually is. They may well want to get beyond the era of evangelicals and liberals but I have to tell them we certainly ain’t there yet.

Taking evangelicals as an example (the movement I know most about), if Tim is to continue ignoring people who wear that particular label he’s probably going to end up shutting his eyes to the church of the future. As Philip Jenkins points out in his top notch The Next Christendom it looks exceedingly likely that the future of world Christianity will be southern (hemisphere), conservative/evangelical and pentecostal. Already in this country, if it wasn’t for those churches which choose to identify themselves as evangelical, the church attendance stats would be even more depressing. (See for example Peter Brierley’s observations on the 2005 English Church Census in his
Pulling Out of the Nosedive.)

We may feel that evangelicalism and liberalism are such thoroughgoing modernist expressions of the faith that they are ultimately doomed. Maybe. But don’t underestimate just how long modernity will be with us. Don’t underestimate the number of people in the church who for good or ill find the certainties of modernity (whether rationalistic certainties or fideistic certainties) a very attractive refuge from the shifting sands of the post. And don’t overestimate the proportion of Christians who have embraced the move away from the old and admittedly creaking categories. (I suspect the fifty fifty split in this weeks poll result is a long way from being representative of the church at large. You are a weird bunch.) We mustn’t project our desires for how we would like it to be onto the way it actually is.

As for describing the labels as “so twentieth century” that’s just sooooo pretentious.

Jodie’s observation got under my skin for different reasons. It is worryingly sweeping and dismissive. Let me quote his comment in full:

“Yes conservative/evangelical Christians are great at getting people to leave their brains at the door, recite a formulaic prayer and provide little evidence of extending God's amazing grace to the least. Well done!”

Now, to a certain extent, this is a fair description and a justifiable criticism of evangelical attempts at disciple-making … but only if we are talking about evangelicalism at its worst. At its best, and even at a fair bit less than its best, evangelicalism has had a far more positive impact for the kingdom than Jodie suggests.

The revivals of the 18C did make a significant and welcome if relatively short-lived difference. Some of the social/political reforms and hands on social action of the 19C evangelicals (such as Wilberforce and Booth) ought not to be set on one side so easily. More recently the likes of Rene Padilla and other Latin American evangelicals who were influenced by liberation theology have played a key part in helping western evangelicalism to shift back towards a more holistic understanding and expression of the gospel.

I admit that in many ways contemporary evangelicalism is ripe for criticism. (Indeed I’ve spent a fair bit of time in recent years having a go myself – and will no doubt continue to do so in the future.) But this is precisely why we need to be careful. It would be so easy to turn this vigorous, varied and influential (if deeply flawed) movement into an all too easy whipping boy. ASBO Jesus is good for a laugh but it is only a cartoon. We are experts in the church at overreacting to our recent failings by running so hard in the opposite direction that we fail to carry the strengths of our recent past with us.

There’s no doubt that evangelicalism as a movement is undergoing huge changes. There’s no doubt that the meaning of the term is shifting in all sorts of ways. It is certainly filling out. At least in the evangelical academy it is adding a more substantial theology of creation to its traditional crucicentrism; adding an appreciation of more contemplative spiritualities to its traditional activism; embracing notions of journey in ways that substantially modify its traditional conversionism and becoming more diverse in the way it expresses its traditional Biblicism. Will these trends filter down into evangelicalism on the ground? I hope so. Will the term become so extensively modified and stretched as to cease to be of use? Possibly. Will it find a recognisable home beyond the predicted demise of modernity? Let’s see. But whatever is happening, whatever will happen, whatever I would like to see happen, whatever Tim, Graham and Jodie think is happening I’m pretty sure it’s far too soon just yet to be writing obituaries.

Liberals and Evangelicals: the Coy and the Cocky

Tiny Sign
Originally uploaded by probationboy

This is the first of three posts arising from reactions to my recent poll which asked if evangelical/conservative Christians are better at evangelism than liberal/radical Christians.

Tim suggested that this was a strange poll and Jody is clearly unimpressed by what passes for making disciples in evangelical circles. This first post then relates to some of my concerns about evangelism and explains some of the reasons behind the poll.

My own recent experience and reading has persuaded me that the missiologist David Bosch was onto something back in the 90’s when he suggested the possibility of a coming together between the evangelical and liberal movements. (1) If this is right it is a good thing. Each movement has distinctive strengths that are lacking in the other. In relation to evangelism liberalism tends to be much less formulaic and dogmatic than evangelicalism and much better at humble, respectful dialogue but evangelicalism evidences much more enthusiasm and is much more likely to actually get on with sharing the faith.

What I long to see is an expression of protestant Christianity which combines the best of both these approaches. Many seem to think at that the two sets of qualities are incompatible. I cannot accept this. For example I can’t see why it isn’t possible to enter into genuinely open dialogue with an enthusiastic hope that the other will come to follow Christ. I think it was David Bosch again who spoke of the need for a bold humility.

My fear though is that we will end up running away so fast from the more distasteful approaches to evangelism to be found in some forms of conservative Christianity that we will end up being coy about verbal faith sharing and luke warm when it comes to helping others to become disciples. Certainly recent expressions of classic liberalism, most forms of post-evangelicalism/emerging church are depressingly diffident when it comes to telling people about Jesus. The former is declining at a rate approaching the speed of sound and the latter is patently failing to make significant impression upon postmodern generations.

Sure evangelism is about far more than telling, Jesus didn’t call us to be gobs on legs, but why oh, why do we find it so hard to embrace a genuinely holistic form of witness holding together being, doing, showing AND TELLING?


1. This coming together, if it is to happen, is unlikely to embrace the whole of evangelicalism. I suspect that the future of evangelicalism will see a bifurcation between those who become ever more entrenched in reactionary forms of neo-fundamentalism and those on the left wing of the movement who recognise the need for significant change.