In the second part of a series exploring truth and grace, General Director Joel Edwards writes...
In the last issue, I set out a broad overview of how evangelicals might connect more effectively with a rapidly changing culture. Now I want to unpack the first element and explore the cultural landscape we find ourselves in - and what that means for our communication of the Gospel.
Where are we?
The times we live in are variously described as post-modem, post-Christian or even post-post-modern. Whatever this may mean - and nobody can quite agree - there is no doubt that we are in the middle of a time of profound cultural transition. We are moving away from the old certainties of the modern era of enlightenment.
Nobody is as convinced of human progress; institutions command less respect; and truth is often regarded as personal, the subjective result of a series of individual choices.
On the plus side this has exposed the absence of God or the idea of the Fall right at the heart of modernist philosophy. On the down side it has brought confusion, cynicism, the erosion of community and a loss of hope. Add in to this the fact that we are also in a multi-cultural, multi-faith era and we can see we are faced with a myriad of challenges.
So is that good or bad for Christianity?
It can actually be either. It all depends on how we respond. At the moment there are a variety of ways that we are dealing with this cultural challenge. Some I think are better than others.
How might we be getting it wrong?
We get it wrong when we respond with fear. Contemporary culture appears to threaten both our truth and our power and this has led to anxiety.
The writer Karen Armstrong points out that when religions feel under threat (from secularism or multi-culturalism) they have a tendency to retreat to fundamentalism. We fall into this trap at our peril.
There is a danger that we are so wedded to a modernist version of truth and culture - doctrinal statements, individualism, an obsession with personal morality - that our response to the new culture is to become obnoxiously defensive.
But we have to accept that modernity never actually had "truth" as worked out as it thought. The truth is secure, but our comprehension of it has often been more fluid than we might believe. For example, as a black Pentecostal in the 1930s and 1940s, I could not have been a member of the Evangelical Alliance, let alone led it. But our perspectives have changed and so too have our definitions of what a true evangelical is.
There is also anxiety about loss of power. Yes, we have lost influence and dominance in government and institutions. But instead of reacting with apocalyptic pronouncements about the state of the nation, we must see it as an opportunity to influence culture from the bottom up.
Jesus never sat on any steering groups, but He still managed to change world history. We must display a greater sense of security in the power of our Gospel to still be transformational in whatever cultural context it finds itself.
Should we just embrace the new culture?
That is the second way we can get it wrong. The whole pilgrim/emerging movement is great in that it is trying to find new ways of "doing church", and hats off to them. But there is the danger that it takes on everything this culture throws at it and loses any Christian distinctive. The cross is still an offence in whatever context it speaks. If it isn't, then there's a good chance that the culture is having more influence on the Church than the other way round.
So what's the good news for Christianity?
Life is not just about reason and proof, but experiences and relationships too
The best thing about these times is that they have exposed modernity as a sham. This has reminded people that life is not just about reason and proof, but experiences and relationships too. It has reminded us of pre-modern understandings of truth, which are richer and more complex than the purely rational Enlightenment view. And it has re-established the place of narrative as a tool for communication. This puts the Bible centre stage in our communication of Good News, not as series of proof texts but as a story of love, grace and redemption.
But surely this culture rejects our beliefs in absolute truth.
No, I think it rejects the modernist version of truth, but I don't think Christianity is that version. Our truth is Christ, a historical person. It's not a theory or set of statements or propositions. Our truth is a story and a relationship. In this age the bigger question is not, "Is it true?" but "Does it work?" And our Gospel works.
So what should a post-modern proclamation of the Gospel look like?
First, we can be bold: faith is fashionable. Second, we should be confident that we have something to offer.
The real downside of these times, for people yet to fully find Jesus, is that they throw up a host of questions about identity, meaning and community. We can offer answers: love in an age of fear, hope in an age of despair, identity and purpose in an age of confusion and pessimism, community in an age of isolation.
Bishop Lesslie Newbigin once said that the Church has a tendency to react to cultural change with either timidity (retreating to the Christian ghetto) or anxiety (fearfully criticising the culture). The times we find ourselves in offer us the chance of a third way: enthusiastic and passionate engagement.
