I have always been struck by the transformation of the wibbly-wobbly followers, hiding behind closed doors, into bold and courageous people of faith who proclaimed the truth regarding Jesus.
Today as we come to this I find myself challenged by people who seem to have lost the plot in that they regard the Christian faith as something that can evolve and deliver new ways forward and still be 'orthodox' Christians (that is, in-line with the tenets, practices and beliefs of the Christian Church as it has been for a couple of thousand years!). They look at the always counter-cultural Judeo-Christian faith that we have and as if it were some weird sociological entity and seek to change the very tenets of it whilst assuming that others will regard this new creation as one and the same faith! How [insert word or words here]!
I tire of those who seek to continue using 'evangelical' when it is obvious that 'evangelical' they most surely are not (whatever it is that we consider'evangelical' to mean but that's perhaps another discussion for another day). Seems to me that universalist and evangelical is an oxymoron and that to have 'evangelicals' who wish to see us accept (when they really mean promote) people who act contrary to the teachings of the Church is another misuse of the word and a departure from 'orthodoxy', 'evangelcial' or otherwise!
In dialogue with someone who considers themselves 'evangelical' I soon realised that they had in fact (in their own words) "Grown out of the evangelical bit with its rules and oppositions and oppressions." This would, I assume make them merely 'post-evangelical'. To assume that the 'evangelicals' have had their day and to proclaim a glasnost that embraces and accepts differing lifestyles, attitudes and behaviours surely makes them no longer 'evangelical', for the evangelical is not a sociological term which, much like modernism, leads us to a 'post' period of it but a term that refers to personal sin, accountability, responsibility and grace ('grace' is not translated as "Turning a blind eye towards," is it?).
Perhaps those who wish to use the term 'evangelical' with something that clearly isn't, no matter how 'open' one wishes to be, would be more honest if they dropped the 'evangelical' label completely and told is as it is. They are liberal or revisionist or libertarian or whatever they want to call themselves but surely once one removes the responsibility for personal sin and the opportunity, no command, to refrain from it there has to be a question mark over whether is it even Christian at all. For just as Mormons, Christian Scientists or Quakers and many others are not Christian perhaps it is time to accept that using the words 'Jesus', 'God' or 'Christian' does not make what you believe 'Christian'. You've moved on and if that's true then I am happy for you to pursue your own NEW faith, but stop billing it as Christian, for it barely is (as I understand it in terms of teaching and practice that is).
As an open evangelical I am appalled at many of those who see themselves as 'fundamentalist evangelicals' and struggle with many who call themselves 'reformed evangelcials' for this seems to give permission to be wicked, cruel, harsh and bitter. My Christian faith means that I will continue to embrace those with whom I disagree, but how I wish they would be honest and tell it as it is and call themselves 'post evangelical' or whatever it is that they are (for some post-Christian fits the bill even better it seems for the faith they peddle has little similarity to the traditional 'orthodox' faith and is merely modern society in a building with a pointy bit!) and let us dialogue and work together from a place of honesty.
Let us not put aside the boldness of the early believers and the fidelity to God's word that the Christian faith has called us to for generation - let us not put off addressing personal sin for the popularity of this world, for when we look like the world, what point is there coming into a body that offers nothing and is no different from that they have outside it?
Pax
ps I also struggle with the fact that we have to have labels, but that's another issue!
3 comments:
I struggle with this "post" label for surely what it means is that the person who uses is is merely experiencing being "no longer part of it".
In the past we used the label when a new epoch had come upon us and now we use it denote that whilst the epoch might still exist, we are outside of it. If this is the case then I think your view that post-evangelical simply means "no longer evangelical' is sound in that it makes sense of the position that many who use it find themselves in.
I too struggle with the hardline evangelical groups and echo your sentiments. Thanks for having the courage (for I'm sure your views are not always popular or well received) and the humour to post as you do.
Blessings
"I also struggle with the fact that we have to have labels, but that's another issue!"
Yet you spend a whole post trying to define (or assuming you should be able to define) what one of these labels means and to whom it does and doesn't apply? And also trying to choose which label(s) ought to apply to someone who doesn't quite meet your criteria?
But that's the point Simmy - The person was seeking to make themselves (whatever) by use of a label which in reality said they weren't what the label was anyway.
Wouldn't you hate labels with that (and I was setting the scene for a bit more on that tack but life has interfered).
Pax
Post a Comment