Categories: uncategorized
Date: 02 March 2011 14:07:05
Ok, so I got it wrong on one level....but I don't think I did on another. I think what I was trying to put forward is that an alternative way of discussing these issues is available and that we need to find our voice as Christians occupying the middle ground. This is vital if we are not going to find ourselves in real trouble. I am going to take a break from the bible study again to explain.
The Christian Legal Centre are stirring up alot of the trouble. I agree totally with those who have highlighted this elsewhere, but I think alot of the issues that surround the work they are doing and the way they are able to get support comes from the fact there are secular groups in society playing into their hands, who know exactly what they are doing and are indeed doing it in order to get groups like this to react and thus weaken Christianity in this country overall, aswell as pushing conservatives who were heading for the middle ground into positions of fear and a move back towards hard conservatism.
We need to recognise some facts. Firstly they know how to use the media and activism to get a voice. Andrea Minichiello Williams (one of their key players) has a place at General Synod and spoke there. If one follows through the links to articles, and who links to who in order to get to her site, you can find the way these groups are following a New Right philosophy. These types of organisation are particularly seeking to influence the Conservative Party. This Observer Article which Richard Batholomew commented on last year is I believe relevent. Thus, on one level what we are seeing on the "gay" debate I believe is an internal battle in Conservative politics aswell as conservative Christianity.
Way back almost a decade ago Tony Campollo gave this interview indicating why he believed "Evangelical Chrisitanity" had been hijacked. Within it he is talking about the United States. I found it on Belief Net whilst trying to find an article from a former Greenbelt Angels magazine where I swear I saw him saying that we were in the UK in danger of the same thing happening. I think we are at a point when we are at our greatest danger of this happening.
I say this because in Britain today when we have a coalition government with political parties trying desperately to pick up support we need to be very vary. History tells us these are the points of uncertainty where people feel alienated and will flock around a strong charismatic leader rather than supporting the middle ground. There is evidence that the "group" who are most astute to the situation at the moment and winning in this country are the New Right. This philosophy uses rhetoric around the family and an appeal to previous values to develop their support. This is the articulated philosophy of the Daily Mail. It is also the philosophy of David Cameron and George Osborne, as I put in this poem.
There are several ways in which New Right philosophy is linking into Christianity at the moment which I think need responding to. We are at a crossroads where we have to decide how to react...before it is too late because those who "get the system" and have been taught well by Right from the United States manage to take control of good ideas and put us all in a muddle.
Firstly, through the way some para-church groups are developing. We need to recognise that there are some excellent initiatives which are being developed through franchising...thus, in order to take up "the brand" you need to take up the philosophy aswell. Alpha is one example of this but so are things like Street Pastors.
Don't get me wrong....but I don't have a problem with either of these or this model as such, but it is does present an issue for grass roots initiatives. The franchised organisations related to social action are going to be the ones who are most able to tap into funding on a national level to support local projects. They are the types of organisation who are influencing "The Big Society" and who are expected to provide it (which I have previously highlighted as an idea based on New Right theory). The Ascension Trust is the parent body for Street Pastors and has a broad set of trustees who include many prominent evangelicals including Rev Lyndon Bowering. If one looks at this Independent article and this Debretts entry one can see that he has links with conservative evangelicalism in America (note here not fundamentalism but conservative evangelicalism).
Another way that good work is happening, but is being linked into these initiatives which might end up consuming glass roots work is through the way new church networks such as New Frontiers are developing their ACT 2000 social action projects. They are again promoting a specific New Right style theology but giving their members good advice on fundraising and networking with local counils, etc through their resources. This is an example of how their "vision" is expressed in one local context.
I would argue for some projects who are "competing" with this type of thing one of the few courses of action they have open to them is engaging with alternative Christian groups such as Faithworks who are committed to looking at things from a different direction...generally from the direction of "progressive evangelicalism".
Thus, we are in a situation where "the church" via "para-church organisations" are increasingly becoming important on a national and local level. Additionally, this franchising is taking place increasingly on an international aswell as national level (as it has in the secular social entreprenurial environment with things like the Big Issue).
The second other key way which I think the New Right are using the church through parachurch organisations and church networks is through trying to dominate the ground on "the family" and particularly in relation to this "homosexuality".
Those of us who are "the silent majority" in the middle are allowing the hardline conservatives that is those who are hardline conservative Christians and those who are hardline secularists on both sides to manipulate the argument and harden the attitudes of those who only get their information from the soundbites in the main stream media.
We need to do this by re-engaging with the debates around family and so forth and actually showing what the progressive view means. But more than that we need to ensure these types of issues are not allowed to dominate the debate and wider issues, particularly poverty type issues get prominance.
That's what I think I was trying to articulate yesterday.