Principales explicaciones para crear instituciones autónomas

.. .diversity is something that strikes me and thrills me because I am aware that different people find different entry points into the church.” (Roger Simpson)

“St M ike’s is a bit liberalfor me... ”

When I first interviewed him, James had been attending St Michael’s for several years. Initially only attending to accompany his wife, he had since been employed by the church in a pastoral role, his primary responsibility being the extensive home group network. James is 25, has a university degree in sports science and is trained as a school teacher. He comes from what he describes as a “conservative evangelical” background. As a Christian, he places most emphasis upon the authority of the Bible and measures all other things against this. Correspondingly, he objects to Christians who reject aspects of scripture that do not match cultural convention. He does not believe in infant baptism and is unconcerned with denominational identity, affirming a strong belief in salvation by faith alone as expressed in a mature and considered confession of Christian commitment. James believes that women should not occupy positions of headship in the church or in the household as they are “designed emotionally [and] physically for different roles” and, more importantly, because this is what the scriptures teach. He also claims that moral evil has its origins in the Garden of Eden, and believes in the devil as a fallen angel who functions as a force of evil in today's world. He is personally uncomfortable with the use of charismatic gifts in church, but puts this down to a matter of individual spiritual style. As he stresses, “I see God through understanding His word.”

conservatism that we might expect to find in an ‘evangelical’ church. He veers towards a conservative evangelical rather than charismatic evangelical stance, but does not perceive any serious theological divergence between the two. However, I was surprised to discover that James actually considered St Michael’s to be excessively liberal. He sees the congregation as expressing a significant diversity of values, and views this as a problem. He would rather see the church commit to a more narrowly defined theological agenda. He has also been surprised and disappointed with how liberal many of the home group leaders are. In his opinion, they follow their ‘feelings’ rather than the scriptures. He has encouraged the leadership to compose a ‘mission statement’ that church members would be asked to sign up to, but implies that he is fighting a losing battle. He sees himself as a radical on the periphery of the church - not alone, but certainly in the minority. James also sees Roger Simpson’s style of leadership as far too consensual, claiming that he is trying to please everybody. He would prefer a far more uncompromising and directional headship. He even goes as far as to question the ‘evangelical’ identity of the church. “What I see is not evangelical”, he says, referring to what he sees as an insufficiently Biblical approach to the faith. He rather sees St Michael’s as “liberal charismatic”, adding with some humour, that he would “probably get shot for that!”

The Liberalisation Question

James’s comments alerted me to a number of important features of congregational life. In spite of the claims of the new vicar, spiritual diversity is not affirmed as a positive feature by everyone in St Michael’s, and for a significant number it signals a loss of direction. There is a discernible, though not destructive, tension between parishioners who embrace a broad vision of evangelical spirituality, and those who

115

favour a more defined, less compromising approach. This very much reflects differences of opinion about the styles of former leaders, summarised in the previous chapter. Those of the more ‘narrow’ persuasion lament the loss of David White, while others welcome the more inclusive embrace of diversity advocated by Graham Cray and currently by Roger Simpson.

The adjective ‘evangelical’ is clearly understood in different ways by different members of the congregation. The theological perspectives that James sees as overly “liberal”, and “insufficiently Biblical” to be counted as ‘evangelical’, are embraced by others as core features of an authentically evangelical faith, especially in so far as ‘evangelical’ is taken to mean ‘alive’ and therefore ‘culturally engaged’. From an objective viewpoint, the very diversity signalled by such patterns of usage suggests that the congregation is indeed ‘liberalised’ to a considerable degree. In other words, this lack of agreement on matters of belief and doctrine implies either an erosion in the number of congregants prepared to conform to an authoritative body of ideas, or else the general absence of an authoritative body of ideas altogether. Either way, James’s comments are indicative of the broadening, ‘softening’ and diversifying of the evangelical belief system that Hunter (1987) associates with a general accommodation to the norms of secular modernity. This chapter attempts to map this process more precisely by gauging patterns of belief and degrees of diversity within the St Michael’s congregation.

Measuring Liberalisation

‘Liberal’ is a difficult concept, conveying numerous meanings. It has always carried notions of freedom, developed positively as generosity and negatively as lack of

restraint. The political sense emerged from the early 19th century, focussing upon the freedoms of individuals, and in the USA it continues to carry overtones of the progressive or radical, serving as the foil to political and religious conservatives (Williams, 1976: 179-181). Within evangelical rhetoric, it has long been a dirty word, carrying connotations of compromise and capitulation to secular values (Noll, 1994; Tomlinson, 1995). In theology, it stands for a positive engagement with the norms of modem knowledge (Grenz and Olson, 1992: 51-62). Amongst sociologists, uses have been similar, though more neutral, suggesting an effort to engage with and adapt to an often changing culture (Bruce, 1984: 90). As this inevitably involves a broadening in orientation, liberalisation might be defined as a move from a narrow to a more open position. In Hunter’s terms, it is to re-draw the boundaries of a social group in a way that leaves them less narrowly circumscribed (Hunter, 1987: 19f.).

In his book on the changing values of American evangelicals (Hunter, 1987), James Davison Hunter finds a relaxation of the boundaries of evangelical religion. He argues for a move away from an understanding of the Bible and evangelical tradition as external, non-negotiable authorities. Instead, evangelicals are becoming more tolerant of non-Christians, less rigid in their readings of the scriptures and more open to possibilities of change within the evangelical worldview.

Hunter’s argument is that the boundaries of evangelical tradition are suffering from a gradual erosion in the face of modernity. Moreover, he claims that evangelicalism is incapable of reinforcing these boundaries, for three reasons. First, an ‘ethic of civility’ has pervaded the evangelical subculture. Originating in the political sphere, there has, over the course of this century, emerged a code of civility that, while acknowledging

117

radical differences of opinion, also encourages the acceptance of the right of others to hold opinions that diverge from one’s own. This has passed into the religious sphere, so that evangelicals are compelled to be not only tolerant of others’ beliefs, but also

tolerable to others. “Anything that hints of moral or religious absolutism and

intolerance is underplayed.” (Hunter, 1987: 183) In this sense, the open public affirmation of firm boundaries of belief is implicitly discouraged.

Second, a decreasing number of evangelicals actually believe in the sanctity of these boundaries. This is especially the case with respect to scripture, no longer perceived as issuing demands that are objective and binding, but rather as offering guidelines, the meaning of which is generally apprehended as symbolic and subjective. Third, there is no longer any binding consensus on what these boundaries actually are. As Hunter puts it,

“From all indications the pluralism o f opinion over theological, moral, familial, and political issues in Evangelicalism (already wide-ranging) is expanding and not coalescing into a new consensus.” (Hunter, 1987: 185)

In many respects, Hunter’s case echoes H. Richard Niebuhr’s famous argument that, as religious groups grow, they experience a transition from sect into denomination, the latter characterised by a greater accommodation to external forces. Niebuhr (1962) isolates three main pressures which drive this process: younger generations become less committed as they inherit rather than choose religious identity; increasing wealth and status makes worldly accommodation more likely; and the necessary development of a more formal leadership and organisational structure “subverts the initial radical impetus” (Bruce, 2002: 24). These pressures may, with some qualification, be mapped onto the development of St Michael-le-Belfrey, charted in chapter three. A moribund church was revitalised by a charismatic leader who attracted many new members. He

introduced a charismatic evangelical model of faith and encouraged strong community ties which may be characterised as sectarian. Teaching was conservative and stressed the boundaries between saved and unsaved. Participation was regular and extended outside Sunday worship and the congregation was close-knit and inter-dependent. Subsequent years have seen a greater influx of middle class members, a high turnover of members and several changes in leadership. St Michael’s has increasingly engaged in dialogue with external agencies: ecumenical dialogue, university links, local social aid projects and creative evangelism. The 1980s marked a peak in what members refer to as a great spiritual diversity, a “cord made of many strands”: charismatic spirituality, the contemplative tradition, evangelical Biblicism and social justice. The deep-seated entrenchment of this ‘liberal’ agenda was made apparent through the more conservative reforms of the early 1990s, which provoked dissonance throughout the congregation. Within the present life of the congregation, correlations can be made with developments across the national movement, discussed in chapter two in terms of a broadening of horizons.

Participation in Broader Developments

In chapter two, I argued that the wider evangelical movement in Britain had initiated a process of internal liberalisation through three main developments that began in the 1960s. The first was a broadening of ecclesiology, accompanied by a drive for ecumenism. The second was a return to social action as an evangelical priority, and the conflation of social action with evangelism. The third was the widespread embrace of popular culture and the arts in worship and outreach projects. Their combined effect was a broadening of the cultural spheres with which evangelicals had regular contact, and a consequent expansion of the boundaries of evangelical acceptability.

In many ways St Michael’s has been embroiled in these wider changes. All of its clergy have been keen to stress the faith-based notion of salvation which overrides denominational difference. St Michael’s has maintained numerous links with other local churches over the years, both Anglican and non-conformist. Indeed, for a period during my fieldwork, the St Michael’s mid-week service was held jointly with the local Central Methodist Fellowship. However, connections with other churches have been limited, and St Michael’s is seen by some locals as rather insular and pre­ occupied with itself. Its comparative success has spawned jealousy and accusations of ‘poaching’ from other local churches, and this has done little to strengthen relations among respective parishioners.

In terms of its professed outlook, St Michael’s is thoroughly ecumenical in so far as it emphasises the unity of Christians through faith and de-emphasises the importance of denominational difference. Many members are unconcerned with the Anglican identity of the church, preferring to focus upon Biblicism and mission rather than traditional survivals superfluous to the evangelical life. In chapter two I described how John Stott has consistently called for a balance of institutional and individual responsibility among evangelicals, in contrast with the US emphasis upon individual responsibilities. There is evidence of this balance in St Michael’s, although the ‘institution’ is most frequently conceived as the St Michael’s community, rather than the local area, Anglican communion or broader church.

St Michael’s is consistently initiating new social outreach events, both around the local area and further afield. Its vibrant youth work extends into local schools, in which lunchtime meetings are offered. At the time of fieldwork, youth leaders were

busy establishing ‘The Vibe’, an evening dance music venue designed as a ‘safe’ place for young people to gather and talk to other Christians. During my time at the church, I was astounded at the number of social aid and justice projects that were supported and publicly promoted. Each week, the church newsletter had more to offer, and sometimes parishioners would address the congregation from the front of the church in a bid for further support. Events were held in support of AIDS sufferers, special collections were made in aid of the victims of recent natural disasters, and on one occasion, the entire church spent time during an evening service writing letters to the Prime Minister as part of the Jubilee 2000 campaign. Although some o f these initiatives involved encouraging the conversion of others, they were seldom conceived as important for this reason alone. Indeed, most were promoted as extensions of Christian morality and as valuable in their own right.

As far as embracing the arts, St Michael’s has been a pioneering force in the evangelical world since the 1970s. It has spearheaded the use of drama, dance and banner-making as integral aspects of regular worship, and has overseen the emergence of a successful Christian theatre group. There has been a consistent effort to remain at the cutting edge of new worship music, and the congregation have embraced the popular Vineyard tradition since the 1980s (Miller, 1997: 86-7; Percy, 1996). At the current time, music at the evening service is by far the most up-beat and singers are backed by a full rock band, all of whom are amplified and play on stage at the front of church. Although the embrace of art and popular culture is by no means as radical here as it is among the Visions group, St Michael’s shares with ‘new paradigm’ churches a desire to be culturally current and engaged in wider social trends (Miller,

Cultural Relevance

A further comment must be made about the way that the people of St Michael’s feel their church deals with the outside world. Questionnaire returns suggest that being culturally relevant’ is a priority among congregants. 73% of the sample feel that thinking through the Gospel message in order to relate it to your own culture and personal situation’ is ‘very important’. This scored higher than ‘caring for the homeless’ (42%), ‘providing a moral example’ (67%) and even ‘telling others about Jesus’ (69%). The only task ranked more important was reading the Bible (82%).

However, despite its reputation as remaining at the cutting edge of the evangelical movement in terms of innovation and creativity, many members feel that St Michael’s falls short of its ideals. During interviews, I asked parishioners whether they thought the church as a whole relates well to culture. Every one of them responded in the negative, claiming that the church could, and should, do a whole lot more in its efforts to be ‘culturally relevant’. Only 37% feel that sermons in St Michael’s adequately deal with contemporary culture. There is a widespread view that, in order to be a successful church and grow, St Michael’s needs to change itself in order to meet the needs of the unchurched. As one parishioner put it,

“...there’s a hunger for spirituality out there but the church is not meeting it... and there are more and more people out there, and they’re not going to fit into church. We must get to the point where, you know, church has to fit them.”

Clearly, Dave Tomlinson’s (1995) argument that the church must adapt to its post­ modern context would carry some weight among the St Michael’s congregation. To be fair, this does not tend to generate a radical theology as ‘cultural relevance’ is embraced only in so far as it serves the more fundamental aims of evangelism and growth. The effectiveness of cultural dialogue is measured by the degree to which it attracts the unchurched, rather than the degree to which it offers meaning to those

122

already within the faith, or indeed, those at its margins.

St Michael s parishioners would not go as far as the post-evangelicals, but they generally recognise a need to adopt an orientation to modernity that is one of tempered accommodation and acclimatisation. The medium should change but not the essential message — in Biblical terms, being “in the world, but not of the world”. We might assume from this that, not only is St Michael’s demographically predisposed to a liberal evangelical outlook (see chapter two), it also embraces an outlook that encourages a degree of capitulation to the modem worldview that surrounds it.

St Michael’s does therefore stand as an exemplar - and in some cases an instigator - of major shifts in the wider evangelical movement. But what bearing do these developments have upon the religious values expressed by individual members of the congregation? What vision of Christianity is shaped and negotiated within it? Hunter’s (1987) analysis draws attention to the ways in which this sense o f spiritual diversity might be extended into a liberalisation of attitudes, characterised by tolerance, an openness to change and the weakening plausibility of old beliefs. The following section addresses the extent to which this has occurred within the St Michael’s congregation, drawing from questionnaire and interview data.

I do this in two stages: first, taking those issues on which the majority of members appear to agree, and which appear to conform to the version of evangelical piety akin to that instilled in the church during the 1960s. An impression of these ‘traditional’ values was gained through conversations with older members in conjunction with an exploration of the work of David Watson. Second, I take those issues which prompt a

123

diversity of responses or an overall support for a ‘liberal’ position. This way, we are able to detect which areas of belief have been most vulnerable to liberalisation, and which have been more resilient.

Signals o f Traditional Piety

Traditionalist perspectives in the congregation tend to centre on purely theological issues, i.e. matters of salvation, its meaning and process, and of Christian authority. If