Evangelicals at Greenbelt 2008

Categories: uncategorized

Date: 27 August 2008 11:00:16

Joel Edwards, who is retiring from the Evanglical Alliance and moving onto the Micah Challenge in September, spoke on "What Are Evangelicals For?" at Greenbelt this year & in someways it summed up a sub-stream of conversation that appeared to be going on. His appearance was part of the EA's Agenda for Change tour.

Edwards took as his starting point that evangelicalism has had a bad press and needs rehabilitating. He also then said that he was not overly interested in the label and "the word Evangelical is not to die for". This was interesting, because it was the first indication that what Edwards and co. are seeking to do with evangelicalism is exactly what New Labour have done with the politics. That is they want to reposition the product in a way which makes the content rather than the label the core.

As for what an evangelical is Edwards took David Bebbington's definition as the core; i.e. the 4 distinctive elements of evangelicals are:
1) Belief in the scriptures
2) Cross Centred
3) Conversionists
4) Transformed Communities, (that is they seek a transformation of life)

He then gave the case for evangelicalism by saying it has a history of radical transformation, (e.g. the role it played within the anit-slavery movements of the past), and pointed out it is a globalised phenomenon not just UK based. This was why he argued that evangelicalism still has an important part to play within the 21st century.

Edwards then went onto look at the three main strands of evangelicalism and in the same way as Blair and co. argued for "Third Way" middle ground politics he argued for middle ground evangelicalism. This involved, what he admitted was characterisation of the left and the right strands before stating what he believed should be the dominant position. This characterisation and stereotyping of the other positions was what worried me most about this good and pursuasive talk. He characterised the left as being a group of people who wanted stories rather than the scripture and wanted to push the boundaries and ditch tradition. He did acknowledge the left had been useful in challenging others and had a role to play but did this in such a way that was at best "othering" and in someways quite disturbing. Anybody who has an understanding of Gramsci's concept of hegemony will understand that what he was doing was looking to be tolerant whilst dismissing the left as "extremists", therefore promoting the centreist view as the "common sense" one. The talks given by Brian McLaren and Frank Schaeffer had shown how those groups beyond the centre and right of evangelicalism also hold scripture and tradition as important.

When he got to presenting his vision for evangelicalism, which he stressed was just his contribution to the conversation he again, to some extent, took up the language of New Labour. He described this type of evangelicalism as being "tolerant at heart but will take risks" and wanting to reposition itself to make Christ credible. He argued that it is less about propositions than it is about Christ and it is about seeking to be engaged. He argued a credible presence is important and we need to move away from imposing the Constintinian view on liberal democracy. In distancing himself from the religious right he said that truth without love is invalid and evangelicals need to avoid being the thought police. He also argued that the right had been culturally blind and talk of truth without grace had obscured justice. He argued it had failed in the US and would fail here.

In the later part of his talk he argued that vibrant evangelicalism recognises Jesus as Lord and as a "right", in a society where people talk about their rights, we should be able to offer an invitation to Christ. He said we need to undomesticate Christ and realise what he has to offer. Mystery and miracle of Christ is important, but he argued charasmatics had made overclaims which were damaging. He said that what needed to happen was for the evangelicals to engage in conversation to ask themselves questions because questions invite self reflection.

Overall it was an excellent talk, and I was glad that the EA had a presence at Greenbelt because it was a sign of (i) Greenbelt recognising its own history and (ii) the evangelical establishment being ready to engage with those on the edges of the sub-cultural bubble.

It did, as I have indicated raise some questions though:
Firstly, as I raised in a question I got to ask at the end of the seminar, whilst I understand evangelicalism is now globalised it made little mention of rediscovering our own English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish evangelical history and heritage. The divisions and polarisation which Edwards was referring to are, to some extent, US divisions. I strongly believe, although I could be very wrong, that part of the secret of rehabilitating Christianity is to be found within looking back at the radical tradition of the past he briefly spoke about and seeing how we can creatively re-engage with this within our current post-Christian culture.

Secondly: Whilst Edwards argues he is just "engaging in the conversation" and his characterisation of the other strands is necessary due to the constraints of time and space it has to be acknowledged that within conversations some voices are more dominant than others. Edwards is presenting his vision and "characterisations" as a well known figure, through a book and speaking tour amongst other things. He has the resources behind him to communicate his part of the conversation with tens of thousands. Is it really a conversation when those who might want to "respond" and "contribute" don't have the same opportunities to do so? Rather, what tends to happen is that this dominant contribution turns into the "percieved wisdom" and "accepted view" amongst the majority. The stereotype then moves beyond being a characterisation to accepted fact amongst large sections of the audience, who may not be familiar themselves with people on "the evangelical left" and what they think. McLaren talked about getting off the chairs of dominant discourse in a post-modern world, yet it seems that Edwards is cleverly using the same type of language in order to support his place on the chair and to promote his "truth".

Thirdly: Edwards was using language in a very interesting way to "reframe" the arguments. His links to Third Way politics are clear, (he was given a place on their equality quango) and it appears he is using the same kind of tactics "New Labour" did to disenfranchise the socialist left in order to reposition and strengthen the evangelical centre.

I know I have appeared slightly cynical and negative within this post yet, if it is a choice between this or Terry Virgo and co's more right wing version of evangelicalism becoming dominant in this country I have to say that I am really greatful to Joel Edwards. I think that Joel Edwards and the Evangelical Alliances decision to be at Greenbelt and Greenbelts decision to invite them is a positive move. The conversation is important and needs to happen. Perhaps next year there might be a speaker from even further right on the spectrum who might surprise us all. If the conversation is to truly happen and if the "average bum on the pew" is to be involved it needs to happen in public spaces. One wonders if somehow a "rolling" panel could be put together from all three strands who could individually give talks and then engage in a question time which could do a tour around the main evangelical festivals / conferences (e.g. Spring Harvest, New Wine, Keswick, The New Frontiers leaders Conference, Greenbelt, etc) and then seek to come up with a new vision for evangelicalism. This vision would be based upon a combination of prayer, discussion, respectful conversation and common exploration of scripture and of (late/post) modern culture. At the end of the day we all want to help people connect with the God of the scriptures whose choice to die and rise again for us, in the part of Him which was Jesus, gives hope to the Prozac Nation and MTV generation, suffering from the credit crunch.

As Edwards said, "evangelicalism may not be to die for"....... but Christ is. If sorting out how to "do" evangelical Christianity helps us make Christianity more credible in our society then the discussion isn't just important it's vital.