I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of other people having my opinions for me. I'm twenty you see- just turned, a mere sprog, and everywhere people seem to think that they know what I'm about and where I'm headed. They keep getting it wrong though. Especially Christians. Apparently I am fortunate enough to have been born after the "hinge" generation, that I am a member of a generation of Christians who have grown up within the church but knowing nothing but a post-modern culture. I should have "no internal tension between the culture in which [I] was raised and the culture in which [I] now live."* The church culture in which I was raised was radically different to the "real" culture in which I now live, and even then lived in most of the time. I am referring to Graham Cray's section of "The Post Evangelical Debate". This article was inspired by that section of the book and by hearing Graham Cray speak at Greenbelt.
I am a young Christian, miraculously enough. I found growing up in the Church very different to growing up in the real world. I didn't like the Church Culture, though being a kid you don't identify that that is what is gnawing at you. The end result of that was a bout of cynicism that I have still not recovered from (though normally cynicism is a healthy aid to spiritual digestion, it can get out of control). My point? I find it impossible to support some of Graham Cray's major observations. I think that, if anything, my generation has had a worse time of it than Graham's "hinge" generation. We grew up living in two very different cultures - the Church and the World - because the two cultures have never been more dichotomous, a point I think that Graham Cray would support. Children are remarkably able to tolerate very strange swings in environment, but the two cultural narratives can only run parallel for so long before you have to make a choice. Certainly the Church seems to think so, what with all its cultural substitutes and cut-out replicas. This is the dilemma faced by my generation: which do we choose? It is not a case of accepting or rejecting God, it is a case of living our lives with sanity and integrity intact. And, to be frank, Church culture is a poor facsimile of Culture. Things just aren't the same.
By sanitising Culture into a Sub-Culture the Church has somehow managed to largely remove innovation and replace it with Christian Politically Correct imitation. The problem with imitation is that it's never forging ahead because something has to be there for it to imitate, so it loses its vitality. God gave us creativity and here we are not using for its intended purpose: for each of us to glorify God in our own unique way, not to glorify the efforts of other people by merely imitating their style. It's a little simplistic, but I hope you understand my point. This thing, added to a myriad of other things that began to annoy me, was largely a side-effect of my theological awakening (that is my awakening to the idea of theology, not an epiphany) led me to become very disaffected with the Church. If it hadn't been for Dave Tomlinson's book and the Greenbelt festival I believe that not only would I have left the church (little 'c') I would have adopted a much more selfish spirituality. What the Post-Evangelical gave me was a sense of not being on my own and what Greenbelt gave me was a place I could explore my faith. I was lucky enough to meet some Christians on a similar journey to me at university. Through that I was able to continue my journey conscious of what I needed - to integrate my Faith and my life, which is an ongoing and sometimes painful process.
Where does this leave me (and my point)? The tag "Post-Evangelical" is where. At the moment I am content to use the tag because I can't stomach the tag "Evangelical" anymore. After the collected experiences with the Evangelical Church of me, my friends and my family I cannot use the label. I know there are great Evangelicals out there, but the Church purports to be one body and the attitudes and actions of the minority affect and reflect on the Church as a whole. The connotations that have become attached to Evangelical Christianity take far too much explaining away - if half your time in a conversation is spent debunking ideas about things you don't believe in, but people assume you do, then what's the point? You find yourself saying "I'm not like that!", then defending things you don't agree with because you don't want to completely discredit yourself (to yourself as much as to anyone else). The tag Post-Evangelical is little known outside Christian circles, so it stops people's stereotyping dead and forces them to think about what you are saying, to a greater or lesser extent. And, unlike Dave Tomlinson, I have to confess I quite like the tag: to me it seems to suggest a process of thought, a journey that has roots somewhere and leading on to somewhere (somewhere without the "Post" prefix), but that's probably just me. The term is a reaction, yes, but I have been reacting and I still am in many ways: not necessarily reacting against, but reacting to, so I don't mind that attribution either.
I said earlier that there were several of Graham Cray's points I took issue with, and I will deal with one more. The 'Dwarves' metaphor he uses, taken from C.S. Lewis' "The Last Battle", the final part of the Narnia Chronicles*. As the world of Narnia is coming to an end and all the people are moving "farther In and farther Up" there is a group of dwarves who refuse to be 'taken in' by all this. He then identifies some Conservative Evangelicals and 'burned' Post-Evangelicals with this group, and the rest of Narnia's population represented by Christians happily engaging with and missioning their culture. I think the burned Christian analogy is a poor and dangerous one. It suggests that these Christians, who been abused by the Church in whatever way, should approach their abuser and ask to start a dialogue, when all that has happened when they have tried it before is more hurt. I suggest that this is wrong. Surely the onus is on the abuser, the Church, to take positive action and reach out to these people and help their healing process rather than pitying them for not "joining in." Ignoring them merely reinforces whatever defensive walls they have built and increases their sense of isolation. We need to be pro-active in repenting of the situations in which our Church has put them in.
If we truly believe that we are a united body then we have to take responsibility for the actions of parts of it, because the responsibility becomes ours when we profess unity. We need to look to a more ecumenical future where our differences become celebrated as part of our diversity - the very thing which enables me to be a Christian alongside people like Graham Kendrick (no offence, Graham) - where the extreme difference in our cultural expressions of worship doesn't stop us both being Christians, whereas if I was forced to conform to his model (and vice-versa) we'd have problems... The example is silly but I think the point is made. Graham Cray makes the point that for the sake of mission in the church dialogue is essential**, a point I totally agree with. It seems that many sectors of the Evangelical church feel threatened by the whole post-evangelical thing, as if by leaving the tag "Evangelical" behind we are somehow scoffing at them. Some people may well be so (maybe because the Evangelical church has scoffed at them). I try not to. I recognise the fact that it is culturally relevant to significant numbers of people. Please can there be a reciprocity here, so that we can put our respective pride down and move on in our wonderfully diverse unity.
* The Post Evangelical Debate, Triangle 1997, pp 17
** The Post Evangelical Debate, Triangle 1997, pp 16
*** The Post Evangelical Debate, Triangle 1997, pp 16