Recent reading

In an attempt to read as much as I can around the subject of leaving church, I have read a couple of books recently that have been very disappointing. I will (eventually) put these up on my site www.boredwithchurch.info, but I wanted to explore a little more here why these have been problematic books, why I would not recommend them to others in my position.

The first book was Leaving the Fold by Marlene Winell. Her approach to the problem of those who leave church and/or faith is from the perspective of a psychologist and counselor. I suspect this is the problem, because she sees broken people, and seeks to help them from outside the church.

There are two issues I have with her book, however, that may be related. The first one is pure laziness, because she explains at the start that she is talking about the conservative evangelical church (in the States, which does give some context), and yet refers to it as Christianity, the Church, Evangelicals etc, as if the problems were across the whole spectrum of the Christian faith or even the evangelical wing of the faith. I say this is lazy because she is a medically qualified practitioner, she has a PhD, so she must know how to be rigorous in her writing, but she seems to want to slander the whole of Christianity based on the extremist positions taken by some groups - although, admittedly, a vociferous and dangerous group.

The second issue is that she seems to see the only resolution for those within the extreme conservative ends of the church is to leave their faith entirely. All of her talk is about having lost faith entirely, not about what I have experienced, which is a rejection of those parts which I cannot accept, but an acceptance of those parts which I still believe in. I think this issue is the really dangerous one. There is something really powerful in being able to think about your faith, change your views and position, reconsider what you accept and what you don't. If you can learn how to explore your faith, change your mind without it crushing the whole edifice, that gives you more confidence to rethink other areas, other issues.

The danger of Winells approach is that if you have to reject the entire Christian faith just because one expression of it is damaging and abusive, what happens when you find other beliefs are broken, are flawed? What happens when you realise that your idea of a "perfect family" doesn't work, because a family involves people, who are flawed? What happens when you realise that your politicians are flawed? Or your chosen profession? There has to be a way of accepting the flaws, while not rejecting the entire system. There has to be a way of saying "this aspect of the church sucks big time, but I can adjust my faith to cope with this". That seems like a good life skill to have.

The second book is Kissing Fish by Roger Wolsey. In truth, it is hard to know where to start with this book, because it is quite fundamentally flawed from where I stand. I suppose there are three main concerns I have:

1. What Wolsey promotes as "Progressive Christianity" is a version of liberal Christianity - exactly what I have heard form liberals for years. While I have no problem with liberals - although I don't agree with them - to posit this as the only viable and valid alternative to evangelical (again, because this book is American, a broadly conservative evangelical perspective) Christianity is exactly what kept me in the damaging positions for a long time. As an evangelical, I do not want to be told that if I reject the Official Church Teaching the only alternative is to be a liberal. I have found a different way - being an evangelical, maintaining all of the core principles of my faith, but rejecting the church and the rigid approach they had to acceptable faith.

2. Wolsey presents "Progressive Christianity" in a very authoritarian way. there are constant references to "progressive Christians believe ..." which sound to me very like the "Evangelical Christians believe..." that I have heard a lot of (although the wording does differ). I don't need another form of Christianity that has a large set of beliefs that I am expected to adhere to. Now I suspect Wolsey does not mean it like this, but to anyone coming from the more conservative end of the spectrum, this could be very off-putting. Of course, it could also be very freeing - going from one rule-driven version of faith to another - just not very helpful. It doesn't help people think through their own faith, it gives then a different set of rules to follow.

3. It is very "academic-lite". Now, I should point out that I don't mind if a book is academic or if it is trying to be light and easy to read, but trying to be both fails. It uses the proper theological words, and explains them for those who are not academically minded. But it doesn't follow rigorous academic approaches to issues. In fact, he uses the proof-texting and "Progressive Christians Believe" approach that is not uncommon in evangelical texts, and is just as meaningless. The problem is, stating a belief is simply that - stating what you believe to be the truth, not an argument for why this is valid and reasonable. Proof-texting has the same problem, because it tells you what a particular passage from the bible says, presumably one that seems to support your position. It does not tell you what the bible actually teaches on the subject, which would take a whole lot more work and exploration, and probably come up with significantly less clear answers.


In the end, I think these books are poor, and failing to address some of the crucial issues. That is not to say that some people will not find them valuable and useful - I am sure they will. I just could not recommend them to anyone seeking to rethink their faith and retain it in a different form. I do believe that there is a way for evangelical Christianity to progress in the UK at least (I realise that the term is far more loaded in the US, potentially beyond redemption) that does not involve reverting to liberal theology or rejecting faith all together. There is a place for tolerant, accepting evangelical faith, that may well reject the churches, the meta-organisations, the traditional approaches, but is honest and rigorous.

Maybe I should call it Greenbelt Evangelicalism....

The new divide in theology

For many years, there has been an accepted division of theological perspectives into three groups: Evangelical, Liberal and Traditionalist. Irrespective of what your denomination or belief structure consists of, these positions will reflect presentations of belief, and everyone will, by the way they state their beliefs, fit into one or other of these groups.

However, over the last 15-20 years, I have come to realise that this division is actually not that helpful. The reason it has become less than helpful is that the critical aspects of faith are now ones that divide these groups, rather than bind them. What is more, I find that I have a whole lot more in common with some people across these theological divides that within my own group of "evangelical".

The thing is, the real divide in theological position today is not between evangelicals, liberals and traditionalists, it is between the fundamentalist aspects of these grouping, and the more open or tolerant aspects.This impacts me, because I could feel that divider arriving. I was nearly on the other side of it.

I used to be a far more conservative evangelical. I changed for all sorts of reasons, but not least because I insisted on thinking through what I believed. I did a theology degree, through which I became more convinced about my evangelicalism, about what and how I believed. I still believed that I was merely on a continuum with where I had started - but that is being severed.

What strikes me as interesting is that the evangelical belief in the Bible as paramount should mean that more study, more exploration, more critique of ideas is welcomed. Within the part of evangelicalism I am now in, it most certainly is - without losing the authority that it has. But in truth, in the more conservative forms, the principle seems to be "the Bible is the authority, and this is what it says", which is (of course) a denigration of the authority of the Bible, and using it to support the leaders own views.

That sucks. That is why I can no longer support that form of my faith. But it is not limited to the evangelical wing - there are those in the radical liberal wing who seem to argue that their position is the only valid and tenable one. There are those who argue that their own interpretation of the traditional teachings of the church are the only valid and reasonable ones.

That also sucks.

So here's the thing - I am an evangelical, but I share a whole lot more in common with the open liberals and open traditionalists than I do with some who claim to be evangelical. That is not selling out, it is an acknowledgement that I have part of the truth, an interpretation of the truth, and that if I don't allow that to be challenged, I am not being honest to my faith.

One other aspect that I have been made aware of about this divide is that the more conservative end of the spectrum tend to have a stronger need for the church system and structures. The divide may be being driven by the collapse of the church system, and the conservative ends of the spectra are circling the wagons. If that is the case, then maybe I should just be glad that I am in a different place.

The problem is that there are many good people who are trapped on one side of a divide, and they are told that to leave the fold is a sin, is a rejecting of true faith.

Let me say this clearly. It isn't. Exploring your faith is what it is about.

Why I am not an "Evangelical"

This post is the other side of my post on why I do call myself an evangelical. I am aware that for some people the term is perceived very negatively, so I want to put the balance in here by exploring why I don't necessarily fit into what others would use this term for.

The problem is that in some areas, especially the US, the term "evangelical" is a synonym for "fundamentalist", and that terms itself is becoming more and more extreme. So for some, to call myself an evangelical is to be associated with the more extreme aspects of Christianity, something that I reject repeatedly. I know that anyone who reads what I write will realise where I actually stand, but many do not get past the label.

Because of that, there are times when I do not use the label.

However, I am not prepared to leave the term to those who would abuse it. As I have explained here, I still consider myself, theologically, to be evangelical, and for those who come from this background, from a position where the centrality of the bible is critical, I want to identify a form of evangelicalism that does not reflect these more extreme positions.

I will not give up on the term, on calling myself an evangelical, because for some people, it still means something. It still represents the core beliefs that some people hold. I will not let go, because I will not let others define what they should believe. I am not saying that I have it all right, but I believe a Bible-centred, people-focused, open and tolerant Christian faith is as valid today as ever.

And the reason I am so passionate about this is that for many who identify as evangelical, but struggle with the direction and the identification that is associated with the term, they see two options:

1) To accept that other are right, and that this less tolerant approach is the only valid one.
2) Reject Christianity entirely.

I want to make it clear that there is another direction - to remain as an evangelical Christian, but reject the direction that too much of it is taken. That is a valid route, to remain a Christian, to retain the beliefs that you have, and yet find a new direction to take.

And those who seek to say what I should believe can take a hike.

Why I am still an evangelical

Ever since I have called myself a Christian, I have identified as an evangelical. However, this does not mean that I have not changed or modified my views over time - I have, quite significantly. The question is, how can I continue to identify as an evangelical, despite these changes?

The thing is, I take a number of labels, that others might not consider particularly compatible: Christian, Evangelical, Green, Anarchist, feminist. There are those who might object to me using these labels, mainly because they don't completely define me - none of them are complete, even all together , they are not a complete definition of me. Each provides insights into the others, where they differ, that is the point of growth and development.

So how do I still justify calling myself by the same label? The best definition I have found of Evangelicalism defines it by the four principles of Conversionism, Activism, Biblicism and Crucicentricity. I want to explore each of these, what they mean (I am aware that these are terms that need some explanation).

1. Conversionism. This means a belief in a conversion process, something that I still stand by. However, I am not and more so insistent that everyone must have a datable conversion experience. Actually, I probably never was, because for some people, the conversion process is a long and slow development. However I still think that for some people, this is sudden. And all people need to have a conversion - need to change from an old way of thinking to a new one. In most cases, this needs to be multiple times in their lives.

2. Activism. This is a belief that one part of Christianity is about doing something practical. It is not just about a spiritual way of life, but about putting this into action. This has changed in nature, but not in principle - I have always tried to be involved in activities or organisations outside the narrow definition of the church, and I am currently a member of the Green party, which is one part of my activism.

3. Biblicism. This is defined as "a strict following of the teachings of the bible". Now there is a loaded concept if ever I heard one: I still follow the teachings of the bible strictly, as I understand them. However, my understanding of what this means, of how the bible should be interpreted, of how the writings are properly understood, has changed significantly. It does not mean literalism - taking the words of a translated bible as the clear and defined words of God. Understanding and interpreting the meaning is a far more complex process, something that I have enjoyed exploring over the last 30 years. And through all of that, I still believe in doing my best to follow the teachings of the bible, as best I can.

4.Crucicentricity. This means that he cross - that is, the atoning act of Jesus on the cross - is at the centre of the our faith. Once again, the meaning of this act, the understanding of it, has changed and developed over time. I would at one time have accepted PSA as the only or core understanding of atonement.

PSA - Penal Substitutionary Atonement - is one theology of atonement. It has its points, and it has its problems. There are half a dozen other ways of understanding it, each of which has its own problems and positives, and some of them are contradictory. I do not believe that there is one simple answer or interpretation - all of them have some truth, none of them have all the truth.

So, I still hold to the core principles of evangelicalism. In fact, I would argue that these are even more important to me now than they were. But everything that I believe within these has changed - that is growth and development. the more I learn to understand the bible, the more I realise how big, diverse, complex and all-embracing is the Christian faith. If faith isn't growing, then it is probably dead.