|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Dave Tomlinson- The Post Evangelical
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
Apologies if a thread on this already exists- but i am sure this thread will get nuked if it does!
I have read the book with great interest, and found it an interesting read. For those who haven't read it, PE is a book about why people leave Evangelical churches, in the sense of feeling they need to "move on" to something else. It tackles a lot of issues about evangelicalism, from the perspective of someone who thinks Evos need to move on, in terms of subculture, doctrine, approach etc.
On the plus side, I think Tomlinson makes some very valid points about evangelical subculture- and is uncomfortably near the mark in slaughtering many "sacred" cows- by which I mean things which shouldn't have been elevated to the level they have been.
My main critcism of the book is twofold. First up, Tomlinson briefly refers to biblical inerracny, and dismisses it without much discussion. However "obvious" it may appear to him, by failing to engage in a debate, he creates the impression of not being willing to debate perhaps the most crucial plank of evangelicalism. Secondly, Tomlinson is a bit unclear on distinguishing between criticising evangelical doctrine, subculture or something else. He needs to separate out his criticisms- because sometimes it seems as if he uses an attack on one thing (say subculture) to imply that another thing (say thelogy) of evos is wrong.
I don't want this thread to become a general discussion of evangelialism- cos that's a very dead horse. But the questions that the book throws up are interesting?
1. What did you think of the book? (i would be very interested to hear from a variety of traditions on this one)
2. Do you share my comments?
3. Can you buy into Tomlinsons argument and remain an evangelical?
4. What bits of the book struck a chord with you?
[ 01. February 2004, 17:36: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I found the book very interesting. However, it certainly seemed to be coming from a very narrow definition of evangelical. I read it and a lot of what he seemed to see as essential features of evangelicalism didn't feature in my experience of evangelicalism (though I'd come across them in various places) ... for example, he asserts that regarding the Bible most evangelicals "hold a position which is very close to inerrancy" which is simply not my experience of being introduced to the Christian faith by a group of evangelicals who held a much more nuanced view of Scripture (though plenty of evangelicals do hold to inerrancy).
Having said that, his critique of many aspects of evangelical belief and culture were spot on. My main criticism was, and is, that there are plenty of evangelicals equally critical of aspects of the sub-culture who remain solidly evangelical. Evangelicalism is simply far broader than he suggests.
I would recommend The Post-Evangelical Debate, a decent critique of the book.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
1. I read it when it came out and was impressed. It made a number of criticisms of evangelicalism I agreed with, and at that time hadn't really seen articulated. I reread it last year, and was less impressed second time round for the reasons below.
2. Partly.
I agree Tomlinson's criticism of evangelical sub-culture is valid, but I think it applies mainly to Calvinist conservative evangelical traditions e.g. in UCCF, Reform and some Brethren and other independent evangelical churches (I think he came from a Brethren background?). I think he assumes evangelicals are a homogenous group and ignores the differences between different evangelical traditions.
I certainly do not agree that biblical inerrancy is "the most crucial plank of evangelicalism" - many evangelicals don't agree with it (including me!)
I agree that Tomlinson confuses evangelical culture and doctrine. His argument seems to be evangelical culture is naff, therefore the doctrine must be naff.
I don't feel Tomlinson offers much of an alternative - he seems to advocate a form of liberalism with a bit of Alt worship - which has problems of its own.
I am unconvinced by Tomlinson's definition of a post evangelical. It isn't clear to me which bits of evangelicalism he thinks he still accepts.
3. Yes, particularly his comments on evangelical culture. And some evangelicals are not as hardline on doctine as Tomlinson appears to think.
4. The legalism and overemphasis on minor issues of some evangelical traditions.
I would be interested to know if Tomlinson has published anything since the Post Evangelical, or of any other books on this topic. I've read "The Post Evangelical debate". Can anyone recommend anything else?
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25
|
Posted
The book is radically dating now, the Evangelical culture has moved on no (at least in my neck of the woods), and many of his arguments seem dated.
At the time I read it I certainly found lots useful in the book, the disatisfaction with Evangelical culture he felt struck a chord with me - I now put myself outside the Charismatic/Evangelical "culture" while remaining active in an Evangelical church - It was reading this book that made me start exploring whether it was possible to do so, and I have found that it is (just about).
Theologically I am not sure his ideas were that great, a fairly naive liberal approach which seemed patchy and inconsistant - but hey, it was a little pocket paperback, could not expect much more really!
The fact we are still talking about the book all these years later shows the impact he had on the Christian community, some of the ideas are still relevant, but it is in desperate need of a new edition.
Neil
Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
An excellent book, although it has become slightly dated I think, as some parts of evangelicalism have grappled with the issues he raises in different ways.
I agree with you in that he tends to criticise the evangelical culture, and assume that this applies to all other aspects of evangelicalism too. He therefore avoids real engagement with evangelical theology - where he would find far less disagreement that he supposes.
As to whether you can accept his criticisms and still remain an evangelical - yes you can. I think his critique of some parts of the evangelical church are valid, and he addresses many of the important issues that need to have been raised. I think the answers/responses to these issues require far more consideration that he is able to give.
[Gosh 2 other posts in the time to write mine!]
FWIW, DT is coming to host a discussion at my ( evangelical ) church next month on responses to the homosexuality debate. I feel that he would fit in with our church reasonably well. That probably says it all.
[ 30. December 2003, 11:17: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
It's a bit like "Honest to God", in that it actually needs someone to say something that clearly so that everyone else who's been thinking it can realise that they were not alone. (And, of course, there was a deliberate attempt to draw the parallel by having a "...Debate" follow up). It is very much of its time - the morning after the night before of "Restorationism" that influenced all sorts of churches in the 80s and 90s. Not particularly radical in the context of the wider Church, but important for those of us who needed someone to put things in perspective
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Maybe:
"Losing My Religion: Exploring the Process of Moving on from Evangelical Faith" by Gordon Lynch
Would be some thing similer more up to date.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385
|
Posted
I think people are right to suggest that Tomlinson perhaps focusses on a certain strand of evangelicalism- although to be brutally honest, from my experience, the part that he focusses on definitely seems to be the large majority of what I have come across in my experience (Affluent, South East England).
I was particularly intruiged by a lot of people saying that the book was dated and that evangelicalism has "moved on"- how has it moved on? I haven't noticed much in the way of change myself!
Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
I was particularly intruiged by a lot of people saying that the book was dated and that evangelicalism has "moved on"- how has it moved on? I haven't noticed much in the way of change myself!
I am talking in a local context here, Evangelicals in this area have moved towrds liberal end, and are more likely to be accepting of other Christian traditions, and be less frightened of "The World".
Neil
Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I concur with the main thrusts of the commendations and the criticisms in the OP and the further comments from other contributors. You have to remember that it was very much 'work in process' for DT having moved on from the kind of evangelicalism he describes - very similar indeed, to my background. I was becoming involved with 'R1' restorationism just as he was moving onto 'R2' ... the slow, slippery slope to dropping out of evangelicalism altogether ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I think evangelicalism has indeed moved on in some places. I go to an evangelical church still (Baptist) and it is much more reflective than evo church I've been involved with hitherto ... Brethren, charismatic Anglican and house-church mostly ...).
That said, many of the congregation and leading lights within it, are still pretty fundie to some extent, but by no means whackily so.
It would be good to see a follow-up.
On one level I can see some quarters 'coming of age' and much of the material coming out of the Evangelical Alliance these days is pretty scholarly and well-reasoned by previous evo standards. That said, at the risk of opening up a discussion of evangelicalism per se, I'm also very concerned about a populist dumbing-down in an attempt to mirror the perceived success of US mega-churches (no offence to our US shipmates intended).
At the moment, it seems to me, you've got some pretty wide extremes within UK evangelicalism with much to ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) about, much to ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) about and much to ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) about as well as much to celebrate ... but I daresay the same holds true for the wider Church.
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Black Labrador:
quote:
I certainly do not agree that biblical inerrancy is "the most crucial plank of evangelicalism" - many evangelicals don't agree with it (including me!)
I was surprised by this. I was pretty much under the impression that biblical inerrancy - in matters of faith and morals, if not in history and biology - was pretty much the raison d'etre of evangelicalism. I write as an ex-evangelical (from the charismatic house church tradition), and biblical inerrancy in faith and morals was pretty much the party line in my day. In fact my inabillity to believe this was one of the reasons I left.
If you say it's not definitive, then naturally I accept it - your experience of evangelicalism is rather more recent than mine. I would be interested to know what you think the crucial plank of evangelicalism is (avoid obvious joke here). I hesitate to evoke the spectre of an obviously dead horse, but the sound of rattles being flung out of prams in the Reading area earlier this year was related, was it not, to the issue of the authority of scripture? I'm sure that none of us wishes to reprise those particular arguments, but the evangelical position seemed to be that homosexuality genuinely couldn't be countenanced because scripture had definitively spoken on the issue.
I'm genuinely seeking enlightenment here, not having a go. What have I misunderstood?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
As a former member of Dave Tom.'s churches when he was based in Teesside I have been somewhat bemused and puzzled by his criticisms, partly because whilst he was in R1 and R2 he succeeded in developing non-legalistic, thinking evangelical churches. Since that time there are plenty more churches with these hallmarks, developed without Dave's involvement. It therefore seems to me to be an inaccurate criticism to suugest that these are absent from UK evangelical Christianity.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Dave Tom was one of our (Harvestime) leaders "apostle' or "prophet", I can't remember which. He was a good teacher - and he publicly apologised for the way he had taught and began to teach differently. I respected him for that.
Then, of course, after he left, he was ordained CofE. We were at St Paul's Cathedral when one of our friends was being ordained and to our surprise, he was there being ordained the same day as she was!
He had to cope with being in a strong, tough group with tough rules which were not always kept by all the leaders. He was obviously working out what was truth - and the book must be response to where he was coming from.
I found it wonderfully refreshing when I first read it. I had also left Harvestime and was struggling to find a way to rationalise my changed way of believing and thinking. It was a relief to find something I could label myself with "Post-evangelical". Of course it is not so relevant for people who have not been in the same kind of belief-group.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Maybe:
"Losing My Religion: Exploring the Process of Moving on from Evangelical Faith" by Gordon Lynch
Would be some thing similer more up to date.
Yeah this is a better book because he doesn't take himself so seriously and doesn't stereotype evangelicals. Ok, he does...but in a jokey way.
Biblical inerrancy is not technically the plank of evangelicalism, although, unfortunately I feel it is going that way...
The paradox is that what Tomlinson critised regarding evangelical churches' social makeup is so much of the reason why people keep going to them. He's identified the juggernaut, but it's impossible to stop.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jane of fools
Apprentice
# 5328
|
Posted
I'm reading PE and wanted to point out that while this book has apparently been out for some time (ten years?) in the UK, it has just been published in the US, with an updated chapter on North American Evangelicalism.
My US copy has a gen-x design to attempt to look sort of cool. There are also many quotes beside the text of the book that provide some "dialogue" with other people. I find that the dialogue boxes somewhat slow things down, but do provide some way to digest the authors ideas. In general though, I found the marketing to be trying too hard to look cool and edgy - made me suspicious.
Did the original print have this swanky feel, or is it the US incarnation?
Did anyone read the chapter on NE Evangelicalism? I thought it to be very brief, to the point of caricature.
I appreciate the other books on the subject that have been mentioned. I'd like to check them out if I can get them here.
j
Posts: 13 | From: NJ- USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ebor
Shipmate
# 5122
|
Posted
DT only intended the book as a discussion starter rather than the final answer. It might be a bit light theologically, but he would not claim to be a theologian.
I am intrigued by comments regarding the maturing of evangelical attitudes towards theology. The EA does produce scholarly material, but still within a fundie type of way. One only has to think of the reactions to Jeffrey John to realise that evangelicals have not really changed that much.
DT does paint evangelicals a little too harshly, in a way that Gordon Lynch does not do. DT is interviewed at length in Gordon's book.
I hope there is further debate. Perhaps it will conclude that there is life after ALPHA. That would be a boon to us all.
ebor
Posts: 180 | From: on the way to cumbria! | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ebor
Shipmate
# 5122
|
Posted
can never work out how to edit posts...
consider the last sentence about ALPHA deleted. It was far too catty for New Year's Eve
ebor
[That's OK, ebor. Next time click the "notepad with pen" icon, within 2 minutes of posting, in order to edit.]
[ 31. December 2003, 22:40: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 180 | From: on the way to cumbria! | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Well, this probably will sound a bit catty, but I found it a very frustrating book. It seemed, to me, to say a lot of very obvious things - some so obvious that I could hardly believe anyone didn't already know them - as if they were amazing discoveries that cried out to be shared with the world.
And it seemed to assume that educated modern people couldn't possibly actually believe all that old-fashioned Christianity stuff without a serious excercise in double-think.
It was like being grabbed hold of by someone and being told lots of things you already know, over and over again.
And that confused me because lots of my friends really rated the book.
In the end I could only read it by recognising that I am probably not the target audience. Maybe it was aimed at cradle-Christians who always assumed the "evangelical" lifestyles as background.
Not coming from there it didn;t really get to me.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I think you're a younger generation, ken, and have lived and grown in the P-E times. For some of us, dave tom was expressing - and publishing- what we were thinking. It gave it more power.
Evangelicals nowadays form a much more diverse grouping than they used to. They are not a tiny, totally dissed section of the church any more, as they were when "Modernism" ruled.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, the UK edition of PE wasn't marketed in an aggressively 'cool' way. I hate to say this, but, O American friends, many UK titles do appear to be dumbed down or sensationalised for the US market. My Orthodox friends tell me it also happens to Orthodox books cf. Fr Michael Harper's 'The True Light' which was given a sensationalised dust-jacket and triumphalist note when published in the US.
Why this should be deemed necessary, I know not, as experience on these boards has finally convinced me that our colonial cousins aren't all snake-handling crazies in coon-skin hats ...
I think Ken's bewilderment at the impact of PE suggests that he comes from a more benign evangelical background than that found in the old R1 and R2. Have you been anywhere near what used to be R1 recently, Jeff? I think you'll find that the movement has, sadly, abandoned what brain it ever had with the result that most people who think for themselves have ended up somewhere else. A caricature? Perhaps. There were some theologically acute and reflective people in both R1 and R2 and probably still are in some sectors of it but these days the whole house-church thing has largely lost its way and become a menace rather than a blessing.
NFI is probably ok, though, still in a somewhat fundie kind of way ...
That's my take on it, anyway. DT was always one of the more thoughtful and challenging guys within the movement - which is probably why he left!
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Ken's bewilderment at the impact of PE suggests that he comes from a more benign evangelical background than that found in the old R1 and R2. Have you been anywhere near what used to be R1 recently, Jeff? I think you'll find that the movement has, sadly, abandoned what brain it ever had with the result that most people who think for themselves have ended up somewhere else. A caricature? Perhaps. There were some theologically acute and reflective people in both R1 and R2 and probably still are in some sectors of it but these days the whole house-church thing has largely lost its way and become a menace rather than a blessing.
NFI is probably ok, though, still in a somewhat fundie kind of way ...
Gamaliel
I guess that a sort of backhanded compliment for NFI!
Actually, even before I saw your reply, I was thinking about the fact that in many ways NFI's values are similar to those that Dave was stressing 20 years ago-that of being strongly biblically based and having practical social action, belief in grace not law and being normal approachable human beings as key aspects of the implications of that. The pity is that it appears that Dave didn't appreciate how much of that he had succeeded in creating and perhaps started to see what he had built as being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
As someone who was in one of Dave's churches when was in R1 and then in R2 (although these labels are very much ancient history now) and then in one of Bryn Jones' churches and am now in a NFI church, I think its fair to say that I have seen a range of perspectives.
R1 in its early years represented a group of people seeking to move towards radical biblical Christianity-making lots of mistakes along the way-but with a genuine heart to succeed. I'd be the first to say that over the years there were problems with some over-dominant personalities which should have been addressed but weren't until it was too late. It was also sad to see there to be increasing legalism and tradition slip into a group of churches which had been founded partly on the basis of building churches which did not have these issues. However there continued to be large number of people in R1 churches with a genuine heart for building alternative biblical Christianity.
The churches which used to make up R1 have ended up in a range of situations. Some, such as ALC in Bradford, have moved more towards American Pentecostal models. A number of others have ended up in NFI.
However most of the problems for R1 emerged after Dave had left R1 and indeed R2 and I think the state of evangelical Christianity in Britain is a lot healthier than perhap Dave would give it credit.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
I found it helpful in that it told me that I was not alone. However it did realte mainly to the charismatic house churches that I had been to rather than the mainstream evangelical churches.
It was the start of a debate, and probably very useful for those church movements that were too young to have much history. He might have written a different book if his background was say Baptist or Methodist.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
I moved from a similar sort of evangelicliasm as Dave Tom to C of E a couple of years earlier. My immediate impression was that "there are no evangelicals in the C of E". Another way of putting this is that evangeliclism is defined very differently in the C of E than elsewhere.
Inerrancy is a key factor in some circles. Theological training is regarded by some as a method used in the C of E to turn good solid Christians into doubters with no certainty of their faith. And the C of E don't require women to be silent, but allow then to teach! And as for infant baptism, that's beyond the pale.
So DT was critiquing a particular form of evangeliclaism that we don't see much of in the C of E.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
caty
Shipmate
# 85
|
Posted
Slow person asks:
Could someone please define R1 and R2?
Guessing R stands for restorationism, but what's the difference?
Thanks,
caty
Posts: 115 | From: yorkshire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by caty:
Slow person asks:
Could someone please define R1 and R2?
Guessing R stands for restorationism, but what's the difference?
Thanks,
caty
Fair question. Basically, in 1976 the main leaders of many of the then-new 'house churches' had a major disagreement and split into two groups. Andrew Walker labelled these two groups 'R1' and'R2' in his book 'Restoring the Kingdom'. R1 was made up of people such Bryn Jones, Terry Virgo and Tony Morton. R2 was made up of Gerald Coates, John Noble and others. Dave Tomlinson was originally in R1 but in 1982 moved over to R2. Since that time there has been a full restoring of relationships and the labels no longer apply.
[ 02. January 2004, 16:29: Message edited by: Jeff Featherstone ]
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
wanderingwonderer
Apprentice
# 4645
|
Posted
i liked it ... ... coming from what i regarded as an evangelical background ( although a very liberal one - if such a thing exists?!?!?!?!!?!?) i found it struck many chords, about wanting to have something to "move on to"
i'm not sure whether u can buy into it and still be an evangelical... still wandering and wondering .......
--------------------
if everything is coming your way
you're probably in the wrong lane!
Posts: 3 | From: Manchester | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I found it very helpful to read it at the end of a very rough ride from Christians who took the 'devils and demons'/ 'hell and damnation' thing waaaaaaay too seriously - it helped to show them up for what they were, despite positions of leadership, and acted as a gentle introduction to other literature which explained what was going on and why they were the way they were. It was very helpful to know that I was not alone in being targeted by such people, and why such things could take place in the context of what was originally an MOTR church.
Other books which helped at this time were 'Harmful Religion' by Osborn and Walker, and 'Power and the Church' and 'Words, Wonders and Power', by Martyn Percy. These were somewhat more theological and academic which put my own thought and the themes of Tomlinson's book into theological language and context.
Sometimes it is good to wrestle with thought and feelings to create your own theology which is then given credence by academic language, rather than the other way around.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
I recognise that I'm writing from a particular perspective as someone from 'inside' the new churches but I think I've known enough leaders in various churches to say that the overwhelming majority of them are ordinary people with a genuine heart to serve God and serve those in their church. They are not out to dominate. Yes there has been the occeasional case of leaders going off the rails and acting inappropriately but there also has been in most groups of churches.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Fair enough, Jeff, but books don't tend to get written about 'nice' people, just the same as newspapers are not often full of 'nice' news. Even if only a small minority of church leaders are, or have been, manipulative the potential damage can run to several thousand people, who presumably are the target audience of the books. If the books didn't speak to people they wouldn't sell, so one can only assume that something in them strikes a chord with some people's experience.
(I agree with you that the majority of church leaders have good intentions and would not harm their congregations).
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
I recognise that I'm writing from a particular perspective as someone from 'inside' the new churches but I think I've known enough leaders in various churches to say that the overwhelming majority of them are ordinary people with a genuine heart to serve God and serve those in their church. They are not out to dominate. Yes there has been the occasional case of leaders going off the rails and acting inappropriately but there also has been in most groups of churches.
Yes, but have they publicly admitted their mistakes (and I'm not talking about the "scandals" that have occasionally AFAIK happened)? Dave Tom has publicly admitted that the idea of man being boss over woman was a mistake he carried out within his own marriage, and he has publicly apologised for that. I think that some of the gender domination and control in the New Churches is still going on.
There are great things within the New Churches, but the control thing and the "right" and "wrong" thing are two of the reasons I am glad to have left. These are some of the issues Dave Tom raises in his book.
Leaders can have a good heart and still be mixed up - and this is not just evangelicals, New Church leaders, or whatever. Probably plenty of messed up bishops as well as apostles around.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave the Bass
Shipmate
# 155
|
Posted
The good news is that Dave Tomlinson is writing a follow-up to The Post-Evangelical. The bad news is that he's been doing this for the last six or seven years! However, the last I heard, it was fairly near completion, so it might be out in the not to distant future - though I wouldn't recommend holding your breath.
I think that the most important effect the The Post-Evangelical had was to tell disaffected evangelicals (of whom there were many) that it was OK to doubt and question, that uncertainty was part of faith, and that there is more to the Christian faith than evangelicalism - all of which was news to many in the evangelical churches of the 80's.
I agree with Starbelly and others that nowadays evangelicals seem more ready to accept other traditions and to deal with mystery and doubt - in fact, as I have suggested before on these boards, there has been a blurring of the boundaries of evangelicalism. Perhaps this too has been a result of Dave's book?
Posts: 2162 | From: In a forest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaveC:
nowadays evangelicals seem more ready to accept other traditions and to deal with mystery and doubt - in fact, as I have suggested before on these boards, there has been a blurring of the boundaries of evangelicalism. Perhaps this too has been a result of Dave's book?
Though it's true what you say about evangelicals, it was also my experience of evangelicals as I came to faith in the early to mid 80s (a mixed bunch of Anglicans, Baptists and a few house churches). I think it's always been there, maybe Dave Tomlinson let people in Evangelical traditions without this depth see it, and embrace it. The book has certainly resulted in a lot of talking ... which is, I guess, pretty much what Tomlinson wanted.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There were threads about R1, R2 and some of the personalities involved in the house-church/restorationist movement before Jeff came aboard ... perhaps someone with more techie knowledge than I've got could assist.
I don't doubt Jeff's account or judgement.
I was involved with one of Bryn Jones's churches for 18 years. But like Daisy May I'm glad to be out of the restorationist scene now. Having been out of it for about three years now and broadened considerably in my sympathies (to the extent that some of my friends regard me as a postie) that I couldn't even entertain going back - even to it's more acceptable face, New Frontiers.
NFI is fine for some people but it wouldn't do for me anymore.
I'll be interested to see what Dave Tom' writes next. I don't believe he was catalytic so much as capturing a 'zeitgeist' - daring to utter things that most people at the evo end of the Baptists and Anglicans and other older Protestant groupings had been confronting and dealing with for years.
I wouldn't so much say that full relationships have been restored, Jeff, and that R1 and R2 are firing on all cylinders just fine and dandy. In fact what was R2 no longer exists and R1 is only really represented by NFI and the remnants of Bryn's orbit. I'm not saying that the restorationist scene has completely shot its bolt either ... NFI will run for a good few years yet, I'm sure but I anticipate problems among some of the other branches of the movement.
If anything, it's mostly all been absorbed back into wider independent evangelicalism, a form of Christianity which has its plus and minus points just like any other.
Our greatest strength is our greatest weakness.
Hence Orthodoxy's great strength is its tradition and longevity, but this can militate against it shedding the petty nationalisms that so often bedevil it.
Equally the 'new churches' were/are strong on action but weak on theological reflection. Most abuses that occurred weren't the result of wicked and evil leaders cynically conspiring to rip people off or oppress them ... no, it was more the frog in the pan of water syndrome. By the time the water had reached boiling point it'd got used to the heat and didn't notice.
Believe me, I was there.
Some of the stuff I'm hearing from what remains of some of the original R1 ambit makes my blood boil and my eyebrows raise ... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) there really is some seriously skewed teaching out there and one wonders where it'll end.
Like I say, glad it's got nothing to do with me anymore and I'm glad that increasing numbers of my friends and relatives are voting with their feet and getting out of there before it's too late ... ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
watchergirl
Shipmate
# 5071
|
Posted
I found the book very helpful. It echoed and developed much of what I was thinking at the time that I read it, and helped me to consider new ideas and approaches. I agree with those who say that it is dated now, but when I read it several years ago it was just what I needed to hear. The very fact that it does seem a little bit dated suggests that there have been some changes in the church as a result of the debate that he initiated - but the fact that a friend of mine just read it and had similar reactions to mine suggests that the church has not changed nearly as much as it could have done. I also agree with Edward::Green that Gordon Lynch's book is an interesting modern alternative that's worth reading if you found Tomlinson useful.
I have never experienced ANY Biblical doctrine other than inerrancy in the evangelical church, until this year. I disagree that it is less clearly defined in the evangelical C of E, since that was where I met most of the Biblical inerrancy doctrine I was taught. So it's an issue that needed someone to raise it, but to go into more depth on it would have required a whole book on that subject alone.
As to whether you can buy into Tomlinsons argument and remain an evangelical... Well, I'm not one - I haven't been for many years, and don't want to be. Tomlinson's point seemed to be that we need to move on from evangelicalism. Personally, I have no problem with that.
Ken: Well, some of us didn't think it was obvious that others felt like this - even only five years ago. For people who have only really experienced fundamentalism, the discovery of other ways of thinking is revolutionary. We all need someone to point out that there are other ways of thinking.
--------------------
Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me
Posts: 96 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
So what is the difference between a post-evangelical and someone like me, who considers himself evangelical, just doesn't like the fundie bits?
Do you need to quit going to church, or instead go to an alt. worship group? Do you need to be angry at evangelicalism?
I'm not particularly angry at anything, and have no intention either of quitting church or spending my sunday service making things with plasticine while listening to Moby.
But as far as the theology is concerned, maybe I am a post-evangelical. But theologians like Pinnock, still within the Evo camp, seem to do a better job of articulating what I believe than Tomlinson.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't so much say that full relationships have been restored, Jeff, and that R1 and R2 are firing on all cylinders just fine and dandy. In fact what was R2 no longer exists and R1 is only really represented by NFI and the remnants of Bryn's orbit.
I've only really glanced at the book, but I thought R2 was Icthus, Pioneer and a whole bunch of other networks, which there are loads of.
Interestingly though, the last two charismatic churches to be planted in Edinburgh are R1 (one planted by a church that used to be under Bryn Jones, and has now gone for U.S Christian Television type theology, one NFI).
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Strictly speaking, 'Lurker', Ichthus was never really R2, but quite similar to it. Interestingly, the last time I encountered Ichthus I was told they'd ditched their daft spiritual warfare teaching. They are now disassembling themselves as a movement and each church is shifting for itself in terms of affiliation.
Pioneer were of course R2 and are still going and are said to have around 10,500 members - so my pronouncement that R2 had ceased to exist was probably premature. 'Rumours of my death were slightly exaggerated,' as Mark Twain said.
To all intents and purposes though, Andrew Walker contended that R2 had ceased to be restorationist in the original sense and had effectively been reabsorbed into the Spring Harvest/Evangelical Alliance mainstream of UK evangelicalism.
R2 was always broader, which is probably why you'll find more ex-R2 personnel than ex-R1 people in the historic churches and older Protestant denominations.
You're right too about Edinburgh. I'm familiar with the Scottish scene to some extent as I had relatives (neither Scottish) in the Glasgow ex-CMI church you mention. They've recently pulled out as it was becoming too US mega-churchish for their liking.
Both ex-CMI churches and NFI are continuing to plant churches. NFI are probably the biggest church planters in the UK at the moment. They've gradually worked their way up country from their original heartlands in the South East ... hoovering up a lot of people who used to be with Bryn Jones it has to be said ...
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by .Lurker.:
So what is the difference between a post-evangelical and someone like me, who considers himself evangelical, just doesn't like the fundie bits?
Very intrigued by the comment. What does evangelicalism without the fundie bits look like?
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
What does evangelicalism without the fundie bits look like?
I suppose it depends on what is meant by "the fundie bits".
But, for me, it would be hold a view of the primacy of Scripture as supreme authority, rather than the more "fundie" tendancy towards exclusivity of Scripture as supreme authority. This would mean that Reason and Tradition are taken as important sources of authority (still subject to Scripture for evangelicals). It would mean a rejection of Inerrancy applied to history, science etc recorded in Scripture, a much greater emphasis on scholarly studies of Scripture and so on.
There would also be a greater openess to alteratives to (penal) Substitutionary Atonement, eternal damnation, dogmatic views on the second coming ... that kind of thing. As well as a greater variety in worship, and a greater appreciation that there is value in other worship styles even if they themselves prefer a more stereotypical "happy clappy" evangelical worship style.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
isnt that v.similar to post-evangelical alan?
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It may be similar to post-evangelical, but it's the evangelicalism I was brought to Christ through and always cherished. I've known other versions, similar to some of what Tomlinson described in his book, but that's always been me.
Perhaps "post-evangelical" may include moving to another expression of evangelical belief?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
What does evangelicalism without the fundie bits look like?
I suppose it depends on what is meant by "the fundie bits".
But, for me, it would be hold a view of the primacy of Scripture as supreme authority, rather than the more "fundie" tendancy towards exclusivity of Scripture as supreme authority. This would mean that Reason and Tradition are taken as important sources of authority (still subject to Scripture for evangelicals). It would mean a rejection of Inerrancy applied to history, science etc recorded in Scripture, a much greater emphasis on scholarly studies of Scripture and so on.
There would also be a greater openess to alteratives to (penal) Substitutionary Atonement, eternal damnation, dogmatic views on the second coming ... that kind of thing. As well as a greater variety in worship, and a greater appreciation that there is value in other worship styles even if they themselves prefer a more stereotypical "happy clappy" evangelical worship style.
But I'd suggest that most evangelcials (in the UK at least) would accept that God can speak through many sources, including Tradition and many aspects of wider life (with, as you highlight, the proviso that Scripture has to be the objective gold standard of truth). They would also accept that there are many ways to worship God. There is also a high value put on scholarly, well-considered approaches to scripture and wider theology. So I don't feel that what you describe in that regard is very different to what is generally regarded as evangelicalism.
In terms of the issues you highlight on 'greater openess to alternatives re: (penal) Substitutionary Atonement, eternal damnation, dogmatic views on the second coming' etc. I think it depends what you mean by greater openess to alternatives. These are all areas where there is wide and genuine debate between evangelicals on scripture actually teaches. However if you mean that 'non-fundie' evangelcials should adopt posiitons which cannot be supported by scripture then that is a very different proposition and I would question whether that would (now or in the past) amount to evanagelicalism.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It may be similar to post-evangelical, but it's the evangelicalism I was brought to Christ through and always cherished. I've known other versions, similar to some of what Tomlinson described in his book, but that's always been me.
Me too. That was why I got myself in trouble - always questioning and wanting to have "reason" brought into the ideas...
"Perhaps "post-evangelical" may include moving to another expression of evangelical belief?"
I think that's probably what many people have done. Once I was out of Harvestime and had read "Post-Evangelical" I was being worried about and dissed a bit by people (CofE and methodist charismatic!!!) who were calling themselves "evangelical" because I wouldn't accept any labels at all. I know now that my foundation is from the Reasoning side of protestant evangelicalism.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
quote:
Originally posted by .Lurker.:
So what is the difference between a post-evangelical and someone like me, who considers himself evangelical, just doesn't like the fundie bits?
Very intrigued by the comment. What does evangelicalism without the fundie bits look like?
What Alan said, basically.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by .Lurker.:
So what is the difference between a post-evangelical and someone like me, who considers himself evangelical, just doesn't like the fundie bits?
Do you need to quit going to church, or instead go to an alt. worship group? Do you need to be angry at evangelicalism?
I'm not particularly angry at anything, and have no intention either of quitting church or spending my sunday service making things with plasticine while listening to Moby.
This just about describes where I'm at too. I think "post-evangelical" is a helpful concept which can help you to engage constructively with evangelicalism rather than lose your rag with it (of course you don't have to be a paid-up PE to do that, there are loads of evangelicals who don't consider themselves "posties" who are more than capable of engaging constructively and critically, but for me at any rate I found the concept a helpful one).
IIRC, one of Dave Tomlinson's motivations for coining the phrase "post-evangelical" was from his concern that people leaving the confines of strict evangelicalism were not just leaving evangelicalism but leaving the Christian faith altogether. My understanding was that by using "post" rather than "ex" he was saying that it was possible to question (and explore) the underpinning assumptions of evangelicalism and (shock horror!) remain a Christian, perhaps even remaining within evangelicalism whilst holding such views.
In terms of my reaction to the book, I only read it just over a year ago and my main feeling was one of relief, and that I wished I'd read it a couple of years previously when I'd first started to get really uncomfortable with the brand of charismatic evangelicalism I was part of. Yes some of it seemed dated, although a lot of that I'm sure is to do with me reading it so long after it was published. But, even though it didn't say anything particularly new to me it was a relief to see that people did question the fundie-ness of evangelicalism and not only retained their faith but grew and matured. I'll await his follow-up with interest.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheGreenT:
isnt that v.similar to post-evangelical alan?
Which is why I'm saying, and I think Alan may be saying, that the term "post-evangelical" is unnecessary, as it describes positions within the Evangelical spectrum.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave the Bass
Shipmate
# 155
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker:
Which is why I'm saying, and I think Alan may be saying, that the term "post-evangelical" is unnecessary, as it describes positions within the Evangelical spectrum.
I don't agree that post-evangelicals can be seen as just another sort of evangelical. In his book, Dave Tomlinson uses a model of spiritual growth due to Scott Peck to describe what is going on, and it's quite clear that he sees post-evangelicalism as a stage that many people go through, but not necessarily as a final destination. While some post-evangelicals may find a home within evangelicalism, many would be more likely to describe themselves as liberals, and quite a few will be attracted to more ritualistic traditions such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
In any case, talking about the evangelical spectrum is not very helpful here since at the liberal end of the spectrum, boundaries have become so blurred as to be meaningless. I'm not sure that we can say for certain where evangelicalism stops and liberalism (or any other ism) starts, and post-evangelicals tend to occupy this mushy centre-ground.
Posts: 2162 | From: In a forest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 'Lurker':
Which is why I'm saying, and I think Alan may be saying, that the term "post-evangelical" is unnecessary, as it describes positions within the Evangelical spectrum.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying. "Post-evangelical" is a useful term for many people, and far from unnecessary. It is, as DaveC indicated, a broad term encompassing people who are to all intents and purposes still evangelical through to people who have definitively moved to other faith traditions, maybe even to no faith tradition, and a large number of people in the fuzzy area between the clear boundaries of different faith traditions.
What the term, and the eponymous book, has done is give people who are questioning and exploring their evangelical heritage a name for their experience and an assurance that such exploration is OK, whether or not it results in any major shift in theological position.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Black Labrador:
quote:
I certainly do not agree that biblical inerrancy is "the most crucial plank of evangelicalism" - many evangelicals don't agree with it (including me!)
I was surprised by this. I was pretty much under the impression that biblical inerrancy - in matters of faith and morals, if not in history and biology - was pretty much the raison d'etre of evangelicalism. I write as an ex-evangelical (from the charismatic house church tradition), and biblical inerrancy in faith and morals was pretty much the party line in my day. In fact my inabillity to believe this was one of the reasons I left.
If you say it's not definitive, then naturally I accept it - your experience of evangelicalism is rather more recent than mine. I would be interested to know what you think the crucial plank of evangelicalism is (avoid obvious joke here). I hesitate to evoke the spectre of an obviously dead horse, but the sound of rattles being flung out of prams in the Reading area earlier this year was related, was it not, to the issue of the authority of scripture? I'm sure that none of us wishes to reprise those particular arguments, but the evangelical position seemed to be that homosexuality genuinely couldn't be countenanced because scripture had definitively spoken on the issue.
I'm genuinely seeking enlightenment here, not having a go. What have I misunderstood?
Callan, if I had to pick on one thing which distinguishes evangelicalism from other traditions it would be the importnace of personal commitment/relationship. I think inerrancy means different things to different people - I would certainly agree with Alan´s comments about evangelicalism accepting the authority of scripture over tradition and reason, but that does not mean every single word should be taken literally.
Interesting comments on the New churches - I think this merits own thread.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
"Post-Evangelical" is useful because it allows for the fact that many people come through the stage of Scott Peck's second stage of spirituality- the lack of almost any spirituality at all is the first stage- which is the "rules and regulations" and "this way is the only right way" type of spirituality.
The third stage is the questioning, and looking, and taking into account other points of view.
The fourth stage is coming into either deeper beliefs or discarding them entirely.
So P-Es would be third or fourth stage, according to their progression.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
