It isn't the sort of question that keeps me awake at night. But it's something I think about occasionally...
It's easy to say that I used to be. 5 years ago I was involved in lay leadership in a conservative evangelical church, going to conservative evangelical camps and conferences and so on and agreeing with most of what was being said, and reading mostly conservative evangelical books. I criticised mainstream conservative evangelicalism on issues like their failure to communicate the primacy of grace when discussing homosexuality, but I did so from within the movement.
But am I still one? My context has certainly changed - I'm now an ordained minister in a charismatic evangelical church and while I still go to some conservative evangelical events, I probably go to more charismatic evangelical ones and read quite a lot of books from both charismatic and open evangelical perspectives. And I seem to fit the label "conservamatic" fairly well, though I'm a lot more comfortable in high church settings than most conservatives or charismatics, and don't like being defined as fitting into any one group.
The thing is, my theology hasn't changed much at all. There are quite a lot of areas where my understanding has deepened or clarified, but I don't think my theology has moved much. The big things that have changed which affect whether I'm a conservative evangelical or not, as far as I can tell, are:
- I've realised that conservative evangelicals often emphasise and word things in reaction against points of view they've come into conflict with - especially Ryle's caricature of 16th century Roman Catholicism, modernist liberalism, postmodern syncretism and pentecostalism.
- I've realised that there are a good number of charismatics who don't fall into the traps which I used to associate with them, and that a lot of them don't mean what I thought they meant in the way they talk about the Holy Spirit. Many of them also seem to use the ecstatic gifts (which I never really thought had ceased) sensibly rather than just ignoring them as the conservative evangelicals did.
- I think I understand much better how it is quite possible to be a sincere and Bible-believing Christian and to be a convinced charismatic (like my training incumbent) or anglo-catholic (like the local suffregan bishop), and I'm happy getting along with such people and even being a regular member of their churches. I think there are much more important issues than church politics, such as love for God and others, mission and evangelism, and so on.
- Conservative evangelical culture has solidified a bit more and moved slightly, and I'm not hanging around with them as much.
Having thought about it a bit, I think I'm happy and comfortable being a conservative evangelical (albeit one with charismatic leanings and some catholic sympathies) when I hang around with conservative evangelicals. And when I hang around with charismatics, I'm happy being a charismatic with strong Biblical tendancies and conservative influences. When I hang out with open evangelicals, I'm happy fitting in at the more conservative end of open evangelicalism unless they start conservative-bashing. And when I hang around with wider groups, I'm happy not really fitting any label well but saying controversial stuff and trying to mix up the stupor that seems to hang over such gatherings. And I think and find it is quite possible to be all of those without inconsistency.
9 comments:
Sounds like Paul's attitude in Corinthians.
Except that was evangelistic...
Hi Lydia. Looks like no one cares what sort of evangelical he is. Surprise!
No, you're wrong, Poppy -- many people (myself included) do care.
Many people also care what kind of comments they leave on blogs, and don't want to leave waspish, snide, and unconstructive comments.
You've made your points about Custard and about yourself. We know that you are capable of witty and sarcastic rejoinders -- you have got nothing left to prove, except that you are also capable of constructive, charitable interaction.
Please, either let the rest of us enjoy Custard's blog in peace or join us in at least trying to be helpful and courteous.
Custard
You state that CE culture has solidified and moved a bit slightly.
Could you explain a bit more what you mean by this?
Why not try being an Anglican - you know, Thirty-nine Articles, Prayer Book, that stuff? That is not at all the same as being 'all things to all men'. My worry is that such an "I'll adopt a middle position between them all" approach is essentially the attitude of private judgement to the nth degree. I've seen it before and the outcome is always basically a drift from any bounding centre.
Iconoclast - CE culture has shifted and solidified largely in reaction to (or against) events in the Episcopal Church in the USA, and now seems to include an acceptance of GAFCON, membership of the stupidly-named FCAUK and so on.
In doing so, Conservative Evangelicalism seems to include an acceptance of certain stances on ecclesiology and church polity, which weren't expected in the same way 5 years ago...
John - yes, I am an Anglican; I think the BCP is in many ways excellent and I agree with most of the 39 Articles (but see my article on Confessional Anglicanism and the ensuing discussion. I don't think it works as a confessional label, unless you have a very odd set of beliefs.
I don't think what I'm doing is aiming to straddle labels. I think what I'm doing is trying to hold fast to the truth as set forwards in the Bible, and doing that in the context of ministry in the local church.
Custard, looking at your article on Confessional Anglicanism, I think the problem is one I'd like to address at a later date, of making the Articles into 'boundaries' of a 'set', rather than the centre of a such a set. As you have noted, the Articles themselves establish Scripture as their own plumbline. However, they also propose certain resolutions of issues on which people may take different views of Scripture - such as on Arminianism vs a more 'Calvinist' view.
I think the Articles can be an invaluable resource (and are much under-rated) as giving a 'core' to our theology. That does not preclude questioning their content, but it does mean we start from them, not from some other presumed centre in our theology.
John - thanks for that. I look forwards to seeing what you come up with. I think I agree with you in general terms about some of the problems with the collapse of identifiable evangelicalism, though I remain to be convinced that a new emphasis on Anglicanism is the answer.
Post a Comment