Middle ground option please

Categories: uncategorized

Date: 04 August 2006 09:06:51

The whole debate about Nicky Cruz in Hackney is a complicated one, which I think raises all sorts of issues.

This BT article is almost triumphalistic about it, but I think it has raised some seriously awkward questions all round.

Firstly, there was the attempt to ban Cruz from speaking on the grounds that he was homophobic. That in itself raises some very awkward questions. In my opinion the interpretation of scripture that Cruz appears to take is wrong, and has caused undue pain and hurt throughout the church and beyond particularly to LGBT people. That said I don't think there is anything to be achieved through allowing secular fundamentalists to use this issue for its own ends.

In this country fundamentalism as opposed to conservative evangelicalism is relatively rare & as the outrage against Christian Voice has shown, has relatively little support. Acts like trying to ban Cruz are more likely to lead conservatives into fundamentalism as they faced increase pressure and isolation, in my humble opinion.

Also whilst I find the obvious emotional manipulation and "bad taste" appeals reported in the article repulsive there is the point that if the lives of just 5 of those young people change for the better isn't it worth it? Who are we to say that God is not actually connecting with these young people and that it is just emotional manipulation?

Finally there is the issue of cultural identity. These types of meetings and interpretations of scripture are part of the cultural identity of large groups of people. Is any attempt at stopping these an attack on that cultural idenity?

Those involved in this "crusade" are obviously doing loads of positive groundwork with young people in difficult situations, should this not be recognised and praised and then if there is question about the motives or some of the teaching that addressed through meaningful dialouge and engagement?

I think too often that media coverage & ideological battles (between secularists and evangelicals) are trying to push us into simple "for" or "against" positions when the fact is that real life is far more complicated and sometimes the "I see good and bad in both positions and so am neither simply for you or against you" is more appropriate.