One real sign that a movement is in trouble is when it starts to dissolve in self-analysis. Certainly, you would have to say that applies to evangelicalism, a movement which is in danger of disappearing into its own navel at an alarming rate. The sheer volume of books on the subject tells its own story; not to mention the twee 'river, canal, rapids' descriptions (I mean, who wants to be a 'canal' evangelical?) .
So, by way of contributing to the problem perhaps, I penned this thought about contemporary evangelicalism, which seems to me a house divided - at least in the UK.
The common diagnosis of the problem is that, in the 60s, there were three or four leaders of the evangelical movement around whom we all (or our spiritual parents) gathered - Stott, Lloyd-Jones, perhaps Packer. Since then diversity and infighting has been the rule - disputes over charismatic gifts, women in ministry, the new perspective, social action and so on have meant that the movement has no clear common ground anymore. There seems to me to be a significant erosion of what evangelicals used to hold as points of unity: the atonement, the bible, the priority of evangelism/conversion, justification by faith, the work of the Spirit in sanctification of the believer, and so on. Reasserting these, and shouting them more loudly has been the strategy of some, but it isn't working to unify
The various doctrinal bases no longer provide the rallying point that they used to, because it is the question of emphasis and additions to these that is at issue. If evangelicals are going to find a common ground again, it seems to me that they will have to be exclusive as well as inclusive at some point. Which is to say, saying what you are means at some point saying what you are not, too.
Now, I ran this by a UK evangelical leader, and he said I had it completely wrong, and that the movement was in good shape, relatively. Shows what I know...
17 comments:
"Now, I ran this by a UK evangelical leader, and he said I had it completely wrong, and that the movement was in good shape, relatively. Shows what I know..."
Did you ask what the movement whould like if it was in a bad shape?
If evangelicals are going to find a common ground again, it seems to me that they will have to be exclusive as well as inclusive at some point.
Maybe it will help if we first define terms more sharply: is evangelical here being used in the sense that the earnest faithful in our churches often use it, i.e. as a synonym for faithful Christian; or do you mean member of a certain movement in continuity with the Evangelical this-and-that?
If the former, then finding common ground could conceivably embrace the possibility that evangelicalism-as-a-movement dies, and that that might even be a good thing.
If the latter, then someone like me might read the sentence and say "yes indeed, evangelicals may need to do that in order to find common ground", but respond by caring less.
I hope this isn't carping. My point is that the evangelicalism that I've "grown up" with systematically blurs the distinction between itself-as-movement and a more general vision of the church and faithful Christian life. (It would be precious to complain too much about this when ordinary folk speak this way: my target is official speech.) Many people tend to think that full faithfulness is pretty much limited to the evangelical church, at least in their place and time, so that the distinction collapses; or at least, that other Christians are in some sense evangelicals manqué. But in order to talk to anyone else, or to examine the movement critically , the distinction is still needed (even if hypothetical).
Stott, Lloyd-Jones, perhaps Packer ...and what about that charismatic guy in the 60s/70s, was it Michael Green? Perhaps not (hate to have just labeled the wrong guy), but there was one wasn't there? I can't remember his name...
Is it also a case of not only eroding some of the central tenants (we all still believe in the Trinity don't we?) but replaceing them with other issues? Our sibboleths have switched from things central to things which are perhaps more secondary. The way you contruct your Sunday services perhaps, and the way you set up your leadership structures. Some seem to make everything a central issue, and I wonder whether this is the reason we see more division than unity.
I've always thought that an intersesting question to test how committed you are to 'classical' evangelicalism is to ask this: As a committed calvinist/arminian, would you be happy to open up your church's pulpit to a committed arminian/calvinist? Traditionally there has been space for difference in this area, but not in my part of the woods.
yes, Michael Green is it, though because he led the charismatic movement I rather make him a figure of division rather than unity...
Anyone read "What is an Evangelical" by Lloyd-Jones? It's very good. Had evangelicals gone down his preferred path I think the movement would be stronger in Britain than today.
I also read "Dare to Contend" many years ago by Reg Burrows. He made a case for "Classic Evangelicalism" which is still applicable today.
What's the relationship, as you see it, between 'evangelicalism' and 'Christianity'. If they are (meant to be) identical then the plethora of perspectives is a problem; if the latter is bigger than the former then it's not.
My perception of UK evangelicalism (from a distance) is that it is healthier than it was 10 years ago and the fears of no next generation of evangelical giants to lead the movement are not as great.
Of course there must be debate about what it means to be evangelical but the endless self analysis can be wearisome. There is obviously a place for doctrinal clarity
I think though, that the lack of consensus may actually be a sign of health. We are not such a tight circle that we can produce a list of the elect. We're happy to leave Jesus to sort that out & for us to see it with time. In the meantime as the gospel is preached to a fallen world the results are inevitably messy. Can we stand alongside our charismatic brother or are they preaching a different gospel? What should repentance and faith look like to homosexuals and adulterers and corporate lawyers? What place is there for following dynamic preachers? How should women be involved in leadership? What obligations do we have to the poor? Should we speak out against immorality in our city? The better we preach and live out the gospel, the more issues like these are raised and the harder we make it for ourselves to be united and the more we need to look back to the cross and forward to the resurrection. For me, a lot of your post reads like Corinth. I think we can be too quick to write off the Corinthians and too slow to realise that the problems they face are the good problems of the gospel being preached to pagans who then need to rethink life and life together.
'If evangelicals are going to find a common ground again, it seems to me that they will have to be exclusive as well as inclusive at some point'.
Michael, do you have any suggestions as to what this 'point' or points ought to be? This, it seems to me, is precisely part of the problem that has accompanied the demise of a commonly agreed set of defining markers, as you yourself note: 'The various doctrinal bases no longer provide the rallying point that they used to, because it is the question of emphasis and additions to these that is at issue'.
Also ... why is this a bad thing?
I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. However, when you go on a mission with a broad evangelical group having signed a commonly agreed statement of doctrine, and an evangelist in a proclamation of the gospel emphasizes the charismata and not the cross or resurrection, what are you supposed to do?
Michael K, I like your analysis.
Sam, I am not a pluralist, so I don't want to just say, oh this disagreement and diversity is just good for us. It might be, but that needs to be thought through with utter seriousness rather than just in a contemporary blah way. If you know what I mean!
I think that you've got it about right. The evangelical movement in the UK no loner coheres around an agreed doctrinal basis and is therefore fragmenting.
The whole Steve Chalke "Cosmic child abuse" thing is a sympton of the underlying problems. Some evangelicals have defended him, others (rightly I believe) have pulled out of events like Spring Harvest because of Chalke's stance.
On the other hand, where evangelicals in the Reformed and Charismatic camps find themselves in agreement on things like penal substitution, we find that the truths that unite us are more important than some of the issues that divide us.
Why can't a movement be composed of family likenesses (in the Wittgensteinian sense)? Why must there be a universally agreed upon essence?
Byron, the "family resemblance" is a little hard to detect in some evangelicals.
For example, how comfortable would you be in having your beliefs identified with that famous US evangelical, Joel Osteen?
Michael J: if I might make another attempt at this, perhaps it will help if I stress it's a layman's rather than a clergyman's perspective I'm trying to offer. You asked, if in a mission
an evangelist in a proclamation of the gospel emphasizes the charismata and not the cross or resurrection, what are you supposed to do?
I don't know why the immediate answer isn't: work around it; do what you can with what's within your gift; cope; pray; get frustrated and bitch to your like-minded friends about it afterwards. Because this is what I (and it seems to me many layfolk) end up doing much of the time, with anything connected to the officially Christian part of our lives (it is hard to know what terminology to use: I trust you know what I mean by it). I don't understand why the predicament of being on mission or in an organisation with people with different (mistaken) emphases is special, or has special implications.
craigs asked how comfortable would you be in having your beliefs identified with that famous US evangelical, Joel Osteen?
Welcome to my world. I am a working scientist: I cannot begin to describe the ill-repute with which any kind of conservative Christianity is lumbered in my community, much of it deserved. I have to rely on people taking me as they find me, and based on my work and speech and behaviour. Again, I don't understand why the related problem for professionals has any special status.
Michael J, you wrote that you liked michael k's analysis: so did I, in that it gave a sense of what evangelicalism is for. On this basis I understand why one would be concerned about evangelicalism: after all, there are all sorts of (contingent) institutions I care about very deeply indeed. But your partial answer to sam norton suggests you regard the evangelical movement in a more essential way than this. I think we part company at that point.
Good questions, and good discussion. Have linked to this article over at islamdom.blogspot.com with further questions about what this would mean for world missions.
CraigS - yes, the family resemblance can be difficult to spot at times!
how comfortable would you be in having your beliefs identified with that famous US evangelical, Joel Osteen?
I suspect that they already are, whether or not I like it. What am I to do with this? Launch a full-scale assault to claim back a word?
Historically, I think the idea of a strong evangelical consensus about much is probably a myth. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, evangelicals were engaged in some very similar activities - world mission, social activism, local evangelisation - but they did these through quite divided (and often competitive) organisations. This is not to suggest there wasn't some friendly cooperation at times, but it is to say that just because we can identify overall similarities between these groups (as David Bebbington has famously done) it doesn't mean they experienced a greater sense of unity than we do. There was lots and lots of infighting, dividing, public condemnation and backstabbing within broader evangelicalism - as there is now!
Well, that's a relief!
Post a Comment