Image via Wikipedia
Superficially the problem is fundamentalism because it seems fundamentalists have claimed evangelicalism as their own. Their extreme approach is one reason why Protestant ecumenism is split between the World Council of Churches and the Lausanne movement internationally; Churches Together and the Evangelical Alliance in Britain.
This problem cuts deep and often into our neighbourhoods. I remember meeting a well-known ecumenist on the train, who explained it was impossible for some churches to work with large evangelical Church of England churches. There was no point in even trying. I suppose the bigger you are the less you feel the need to be in conversation with other traditions; the less attention you need to pay to other expressions of your faith.
But there is a deeper problem illustrated by this excerpt from the blog 'Evangelism is your Comfort Zone'. The post is Evangelism as a Political Act:
This is a powerful political statement because our allegiance is hence forwards not to a flag. To evangelise is to say, clearly and boldly and usually by implication, No to all other idols – money, fame, success, power, sex: No to all other authorities – religious, political and personal. It is to declare by word and allegiance that the only loyalty we can own is to the two bits of rough wood that once held a man in place to die.
I largely agree with this argument but something isn't quite right and it took me a while to work it out. Perhaps the use of the word 'other' suggests evangelism is itself an idol or authority. That might be an unfortunate turn of phrase.
But these words imply evangelism is the one voice amongst others that is right. This turns Christianity into an absolute and it is the reason for evangelism's divisive tendencies.
As soon as I have the truth, it follows that those who do not agree with me do not have the truth. The dilemma is this. If I admit others who do not fully agree with me are right than there is no single truth and where does that end? If I stand firm then, with those who agree with me, I have to maintain purity of belief, which can only result in schism.
Is there any way of resolving this dilemma? I think there is and that will be the theme of the next few posts.
Chris, I wonder if you've misread John on this one.
The way I read it, his part about "no other authorities" points forward to "the only loyalty we can own is to the two bits of rough wood", not backward to "evangelism."
In the same way, John is locating the truth in the cross of Christ, not (sometimes despite) our varied interpretations of its meaning and significance.
In short, I think he's saying the exact opposite of what you think he's saying.
Posted by: Simon Cozens | Friday, 03 December 2010 at 06:28 PM
You may be right. This is a difficult argument. The point I'm making, and the argument continues in my next post, is that faith is a life lived rather than an ideological debate. The previous post shows my background and experience has been of evangelicalism as ideology. Evangelism is not about being right, the massive diversity of Christian testimony bears witness to that. An ideological approach leads to conflict and division. I do agree with John but I am concerned that he and many others do not address the dangers of being right.
Posted by: Chris Sissons | Friday, 03 December 2010 at 09:56 PM