Ed: Despite the confusion of terms, which seems to emanate from the legal representatives, Elaine Storkey's case for religious discrimination being brought against the Bishop of Liverpool as chairman of the council of Wycliffe Hall seems to rest on the argument that there are two clearly distinguishable 'brands' of Anglican evangelicalism, one 'conservative', the other (her own) 'liberal'. One wonders if this is quite the characterization 'Open Evangelicals' would want applied to their movement as a whole.
[...]Following the resolution of the unfair dismissal claim, Charles Crow, representing Storkey, turned to the remaining matter.
"Within Christian evangelism there are two determinate strands; conservative evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism," he said.
"Those are open and definable strands and as an open and clear proponent of one of those strands, she [Storkey] has been discriminated against."
However, Bruce Carr, representing the college trustees, attacked that argument, claiming Storkey could not allege discrimination against people of the same faith as her.
He said: "She is not saying 'I'm a Christian and I'm being discriminated against because of my Christianity'.
"She is saying 'I have a particular type of Christian evangelism, which stands distinct from conservative evangelism'.
"To paraphrase, she is the wrong type of evangelical." Read more
No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.
Tuesday 8 January 2008
Storkey case rests on 'two kinds of evangel(ical)ism'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I'm absolutely sure that most Open Evangelicals would not self identify themselves as liberal evangelicals.
I'm not sure that Elaine Storkey would either, and I would not presume that Charles Crow, who can mistake evangelicalism and evangelism, can be understood as knowing why the difference between 'open' and 'liberal' might be important.
Is there any reason why your link to Fulcrum is described as 'liberal evangelical'?
I'm sure it is right that "most Open Evangelicals would not self identify" as liberal evangelicals.
However, Elaine Storkey's case seems to rest on distinguishing 'two kinds of evangelicalism', and her legal counsel seems to believe that these are represented by a 'conservative' and a 'liberal' outlook. The question becomes, therefore, what distinguishes the two.
We will have to await the case going to the industrial tribunal to find out exactly how this distinction will be expressed. Meanwhile, I note that the chairman of that tribunal is advising an 'out of court' settlement - wisely, in my own view!
The question about Fulcrum being labelled Liberal is a moot point, although as editor of this blog I take full responsibility for it. Recently I respond to someone else who raised the same point as follows:
"I rather take the same view as Oliver Barclay does in his Evangelicalism in Britain 1935-1995, where he identifies two strands of 'open evangelicalism'. One is essentially conservative but open to changing evangelical traditions. The other is starting from an evangelical position (one might say an evangelical tradition) but is moving into liberalism. He specifically identifies treating [attitudes to] the apostolic teaching on, for example, the roles of men and women in home and church and, more recently (!), homosexuality, as areas where this movement is taking place.
There are certainly open evangelicals of the first sort around. Indeed, I would perhaps identify myself as one of them in other circumstances. However, where Fulcrum stands, and particularly where Fulcrum is going, seem to be more in the liberal direction than the open-conservative. Where Fulcrum is, the theological traffic is one way as regards conservatism. I don't see, for example, an 'openness' to not having women incumbents or, more importantly, to people who won't have women incumbents. Indeed, on the Fulcrum website there is a lot of personalizing of differences and I found the atmosphere so hostile I gave up posting there. It is interesting, by contrast, to see who is 'comfortable' posting there these days!
So - I think Fulcrum is essentially liberal evangelical (though it doubtless attracts some open evangelicals). Incidentally, I also think Adrian 'Pluralist' is right, and that in the end Fulcrum people will jump one way (like Simon Butler over homosexuality) or the other."
I'm afraid hostility among evangelicals, however they adjectivise (spelling?), is on the increase, which is a great pity. I self identify absolutely as an open evangelical, according to the definition on the Ridley Hall website, and as such find the name calling unpleasant and unwarranted.
As far as the Wycliffe Hall case goes, it seems that Elaine Storkey was right to take her case as far as she has done, however I have to agree with you in praying that she stops where she is. I'm not sure that there is anything to be gained by going in front of a secular court to decide a theological argument.
As for who is comfortable posting at Fulcrum, I would like to see as much grace extended to those from a more conservative position as there is to those from a liberal place.
I guess at some point there is a circular argument where Open Evangelicals are accused of not being open to those from another tradition which would not wish to be open to those of another tradition. Which is kind of where we are at the minute.
As for those who are currently posting on the Fulcrum and Thinking Anglican boards, the same is also true of the Anglican Mainstream board - they all share the tribal guilt. If Christians are to listen constructively to each other, then someone has to take the first step. Whether that's Fulcrum posters debating constructively rather than argumentatively, or yourself removing the (mildly) provocative 'liberal evangelical' tag from your links, or Thinking Anglicans actually thinking rather than shouting, I guess the question is who can be graceful enough to start.
Maybe Elaine can get the ball rolling by stopping her religious discrimination case.
I cannot claim to have done it 'graciously', since I am neither convinced it is right nor hopeful in my heart of much change in attitudes. Nevertheless, I have reinstated the 'Open Evangelical' description to the Fulcrum link on the grounds that I would rather be one of the first to make a constructive move than the last.
John, thank you.
I pray that others follow your lead.
Well I think the lead was really yours.
Simon, I hope you might read this - and thanks to you (and George) regarding your comments on the vexed issue of 'Open/Liberal' labels.
On the Covenant website Craig Uffman, in commenting on an article of his own linked from the Fulcrum website, writes this: 'I think the Gospel preached by conservative evangelicals is too often distorted by an ontology of violence. It is insufficiently eschatological and therefore does not really believe that the birth of the Messiah meant that God was acting through an infant to effect an overcoming of hostility. They see the world as a field of warfare. As a result, the substance of encounters with others with whom they differ is what Milbank calls “the asymmetrical triumph of some power over another.”'
It is statements like this which make me despair of a rapprochement between the open and conservative positions, not only because of what is said but the spirit in which it is said.
You may note that I have commented on the same article, but I feel Craig's response is simply to duck the issues I have raised.
What are your thoughts on this?
Hi John
I read this more as a theological critique than an insult. This is how it can seem from this side of the divide, that kind of thing.
the conversation that Steve and I have on the fulcrum thread 'conversation across the divide' is of that essence. Steve is very good at saying 'this is what opens see as the problem and this is what cons see as the problem.'
besides I guess that it isn't too controversial to mention that Reform's conference title a few years back was 'This is war, not cricket!' is it? It can feel as if the means justifies the end...
Craig has simply given a theological voice to this, and it would be good for you to engage more with it on his site, it could be fruitful.
Jody Stowell
Maidenhead
ps. what happened to anglican mainstream's site?
Hi Jody
Thanks for your comment. I am sure Craig Uffman saw what he wrote as a theological critique. In my view, though, that was part of the problem - it was a critique which used extraordinary language. Of course, there is violence in Conservative theology. There is violence in the Bible and, dare I say it, much of it is carried out by God. He's a pretty violent person at times. What disturbed me was the allegation that Conservative, as distinct from Open, Evangelical theology was 'ontologically violent' in a 'distorted' way.
Though I am sure Craig would back this up, it did not bode well for dialogue. Nor was I reassured by what he said.
The problem, as I've said before is that if there are substantial differences of gospel, as Craig suggests, between Open and Conservative Evangelical views then, in the end, what divides them becomes more important than the label or heritage that unites them.
To paraphrase Dire Straits: "Two groups say they're Evangelical, one of them must be wrong."
I am, nevertheless, hopeful that the true, gospel, unity of Evangelicals (at least here in England) can be reasserted. To do that, however, some people are going to have to lower their guns, and it is no good everyone saying, "You first."
I don't pick the titles of Reform Conference (nor the themes) and I would agree that sometimes there's a little too much eau de jockstrap in the air.
As to engaging more on Craig's site (a) there really isn't much time and (b) Craig does write awfully long answers, not always to the questions (in my view).
Post a Comment