A.: ¿Cuál ha sido, en general, el grado de autonomía que tuvo en sus intervenciones?

Dialogue with evangelical theology and ethics

Having explored the relationship between the empirical data and Wells’ three strands of Christian ethics, we now go on to consider how charismatic-evangelical urban practice relates to more formal evangelical perspectives on the relationship between evangelism and social action. Although (social) activism is one of the four historic characteristics of UK evangelicalism (Bebbington, 1989), the story of evangelical social involvement has been an “on-off relationship” (Smith D. W., 2009, p. 246).

There is not space here to provide a full account of the twentieth century loss and recovery of the evangelical social conscience,⁸³ so here we will be particularly focusing on developments associated with the Lausanne Movement (1974; 2011).

The 1974 International Congress on World Evangelisation at Lausanne represented a key watershed moment in the development of evangelical perspectives on social action. The resulting Lausanne Covenant expressed penitence for “having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive” and went on to affirm that “evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty” (Lausanne Movement, 1974). However, it is also important to stress

82 This quotation is taken from Walker’s series preface on an unnumbered page at the beginning of Remembering Our Future (Walker & Bretherton, 2007)

83 On this, see Chester (1993) and Smith (1998).

97

that the Lausanne Congress and Covenant both reflected an essentially ‘two mandate’ approach that conceived of mission as ‘evangelism plus social responsibility’ and upheld the primacy of evangelism (Bosch, 1991, p. 405).⁸⁴ Subsequent evangelical consultations over the following years went on to challenge the ‘two mandate’ approach (which was considered guilty of driving a wedge between evangelism and social concern) through the vocabulary of ‘integral mission’. Bosch therefore points to the emergence, from the early 1980s onwards, of a new spirit in mainstream evangelicalism that sought to overcome the old dichotomies between evangelism and social action (Bosch, 1991, pp. 407-408). More recently, similar sentiments were expressed in the Lausanne Movement’s Cape Town Commitment. This articulated an understanding of “mission in all its dimensions”, encompassing a variety of evangelistic, social and political concerns (Lausanne Movement, 2011). In more popular contemporary evangelical literature, however, the relationship between evangelism and social action remains contested. At what might be termed the more ‘conservative’ end of the evangelical spectrum, writers like Tim Chester and Steve Timmis stress that “the greatest need of the poor, as for us all, is to be reconciled with God and escape his wrath” (Chester & Timmis, 2007). Meanwhile towards what might be seen as the more ‘progressive’ end, writers like Steve Chalke place much greater emphasis on the validity, and indeed necessity, of socio-political involvement in its own right (Chalke, 1996; 2001).

So how does the experience of the charismatic-evangelical churches studied relate to more formal evangelical pronouncements on the relationship between evangelism and social action? Firstly, it is significant to note that within most of the churches studied, the vocabulary of ‘social action’ was conspicuous by its absence. Secondly, however, our preceding discussion around the meaning of ‘demonstrating God’s love’ (ethnographic study) and the relationship between spiritual and socio-economic intentions (focus groups) has considerable resonance with historical and contemporary debates within evangelicalism concerning the relationship between evangelism and social action. Thirdly, while much formal evangelical theology on

84 While the Lausanne Congress is sometimes credited with having decisively clarified the relationship between evangelism and social action, even at the time it provoked contrasting reactions from prominent evangelical leaders. Some like Carl Henry felt it did not go far enough in promoting political liberation. Others like Peter Wagner expressed concern about attempts to confuse evangelism with social action (Ruble, 2012, pp. 142-143)

98

evangelism and social action has tended to see evangelism and social action as two discrete (yet mutually interdependent) strands that need to be coordinated (Tinker, 2009, p. 147), the relationship between them in practice is far more complex.

Fourthly, however, we have also observed something of an emerging spectrum of approaches among the four churches concerning the relationship between spiritual-evangelistic and socio-economic intentions.

A further area that I now want to explore concerns the way the Bible informs charismatic-evangelical churches’ community outreach activity. Comparing participants’ responses to Question 5 of the focus group schedule⁸⁵ with more formal evangelical perspectives on social responsibility (Grant & Hughes, 2009) and missional ethics (Draycott & Rowe, 2012) reveals significant differences in the way the Bible is handled. While the various (mainly evangelical) contributors to these volumes often adopt an approach of beginning with biblical exegesis and then applying it to contemporary situations, the treatment of the Bible by focus group participants appeared far less systematic and more anecdotal or imaginative. Such differences are obviously in part a reflection of varying contexts (writing a chapter for a book is quite different from answering a question in a focus group) and the different types of people involved (academic theologians and theological educators as opposed to church members). However, these differences may also reveal something quite significant about the contrast between charismatic and (traditional) Evangelical approaches to the Bible.

As Tidball (2005, pp. 260-261) observes, recent articles in the Journal of Pentecostal Theology have debated the distinctive way in which charismatic-evangelical Christians read and interpret the Bible. In contrast with other evangelical groupings, charismatic-evangelical approaches give greater credence to the role of the Holy Spirit as interpreter. For charismatic-evangelical Christians, therefore, reading the Bible is a more dynamic experience that involves the emotions as well as the mind.⁸⁶ Tidball argues that the contrast between charismatic-evangelical and older evangelical approaches here is mostly “only a difference of degree” (2005, p. 261).

85 This question was: ‘Are there biblical stories, characters or themes that you feel particularly inform what you’re doing in this community?’

86 This description finds resonance with parts of the focus group transcripts and my observation of approaches to the Bible at Oakfield Christian Fellowship.

99

Other scholarly perspectives, however, suggest that the charismatic and Pentecostal emphasis on experience exposes more fundamental tensions within contemporary evangelicalism. Not only does this distinguish charismatic and Pentecostal approaches from conservative or rationalistic forms of evangelical theology (Smith J.

K., 2003, p. 110), it also reveals that Pentecostalism shares unexpected common ground with other more liberal theological traditions (Yong, 2010, p. 89). To the extent that charismatic-evangelicalism is a hybrid between Pentecostal and traditional Evangelical influences, UK charismatic-evangelical churches might therefore be conceived as a site in which the tension between rationalist and experiential approaches becomes particularly apparent. In the next section, we begin to consider how a practical charismatic-evangelical urban social ethic might respond to this and the other tensions we have identified.

100

4.3 Towards a Practical Charismatic-Evangelical Urban Social Ethic

The first section of this chapter compared the descriptive conclusions from the previous chapter with the findings of other relevant studies. The second section then went on to construct a series of facilitated dialogues between charismatic-evangelical urban practice and key voices from Christian social ethics and evangelical theology.

We are now in a position to begin to consider how charismatic-evangelical urban churches might respond to the preceding analysis. This will take the form of an attempt to construct a practical charismatic-evangelical (PCE) urban social ethic. In seeking to respond creatively to our six tensions, this will root charismatic-evangelical urban practice in a wider social ethic that is appreciative of other traditions yet consistent with charismatic-evangelical convictions.⁸⁷ It will also be informed by my own reflection on personal and professional practice. With this in mind, the section begins with a description of my standpoint and position with relation to each tension. This will then lead on to an attempt to sketch out the conceptual components of a PCE urban social ethic, before concluding the chapter with an assessment of this model.