Categories: uncategorized
Date: 10 January 2008 06:57:27
We all have certain people we look up to and regard with a certain level of awe and, within the bubble of the evangelical sub-culture, I have to say Elaine Storkey has been one of those people for me.
She was the person who made me aware that it was quite possible to be a Christian feminist, (I still regard What's Right With Feminism as one of the most useful books I ever read), and realise that it was possible to hold many of my political and personal views and legitimately view myself as an evangelical. That's not to say I have always agreed with what I have heard her say; I remember hearing her at Greenbelt one year basically defending what I now understand is the ex-gay movement and their view of homosexuality. However, as I say to a certain extent she has been looked up to, from this direction, as a role model.
So it was I was dismayed to read both on Ruth Gledhill's Times blog and on Ekklesia that she has decided to step up the whole Wycliffe Hall debarcle (which is part of the ongoing battle for the soul of evangelicalism in this country - see also Steve Chalke vs. Word Alive) and take a test case for religious discrimination against the conservative evangelicals in this country.
I think this is problematic for a range of reasons:
1. If you put two Christians in a room they would be unlikely to agree on everything and in many cases one would have power in the relationship over the other. As such would it be reasonable to assume, if this case succeeds, that most of us would be able to claim descrimination in some form or other if that disagreement caused a difference in treatment.
2. The whole appeal of open or progressive evangelicalism has been that rather than the hard edged approach of conservative evangelicalism, (and its legal challenges through UCCF, etc), they have tried to make peace making and reconciliation their approach. This legal challenge is to some extent, (unlike the employment tribuneral which was appropriate), going against everything that open or progressive evangelicalism is meant to stand for.
3. I think it will act as an own goal and will come to be seen as a rash act, particularly if the challenge fails. Thus, it will undermine not only her own credibility and reputation but also that of open or progressive evangelicalism generally.
4. Conservative evangelicalism appears to breed on fear and being driven into defensive positions. This is action is likely to lead certain conservative evangelicals into more of a bunker mentality and become even more wary of the actions of more liberal / radical evangelicals. The consequences of this will be even less dialouge between groups and more demonisation of the alternative views.
5. If the church is to be effective in its witness in a post-Christian society the current in fighting needs to stop. Even if we can't agree on everything we need to stop trying to destroy each other and focus on the task in hand which is (depending on your terminology and theology) helping people connect with God or evangelism. If the resources of the kingdom (i.e. the money and time of Christians) are instead being thrown into legal challenges
the people who will suffer are those who we want to reach with the gospel.
6. As Christians we are called to be set apart, partially, by the level of love that we have between us and an ability to forgive (whilst not getting turned into door mats). At the moment this is the very last thing which is being shown between many evangelicals, (particularly those who are in senior leadership in this country), on a range of issues.
So the view from the very open evangelical pew here is that the "evangelical establishment" in this country need to grow up and stop the infighting.