I have been having some ongoing social media debates with people about the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. There have been points when I have wanted to give up on this conversation only to find my passion revived by scenes of more children being harmed.

Most, all though not all, of those arguing against my position are from what might be called the conservative evangelical end of the church. I have continually maintained that we are primarily neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestinian but pro-peace: and as such have tried to condemn violence whenever I see it. It seems that many of those who find offence at my words keep misreading them and presume me to be anti-Israel.

My main point is that as followers of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we cannot stay silent whilst we see people being oppressed and killed.

The main arguments I have received in response could be categorised as follows:

1) Israel is God’s chosen nation therefore we should support them. The reasoning seems to be that what is taking place is part of an end time scenario and that to criticise Israel we are siding with Satan who wants to see them destroyed.

2) Israel is only protecting their borders and have the right to do so.

3) Hamas are causing the violence – even using children to protect their missiles.

4) Israel give plenty of warning to the Palestinians before bombing their homes and hospitals.

5) The land was stolen from the Jews 1878 years ago and so is rightfully theirs.

Now there are many responses I could give here but I want to offer a point that I feel is often missed in dealing with such a complicated situation, namely: the direction of the criticism.

It is not difficult to see a theme running through the bible suggesting that those in positions of power have greater responsibility than those being oppressed. The people might have rebelled against God but it was Moses who was not allowed to enter the promised land. Time and again we see the prophets warning the nation about their attitudes to the needy. Jesus’ response to the scribes and Pharisees displays a different approach to his compassion for the crowds and individuals caught in sin and the mess of life.

Related: A Small Step Towards Peace in Israel-Palestine

Church leaders might be worthy of double honour but there is greater call for them to live in ways that reflect the holiness of Christ.

In this we get a sense that the judgements we make are linked to the position held by those choose to critique.

Now added to this is a continuing confusion that the evangelical church has between our understanding of sin and the nature of evil. It has probably served evangelistic campaigns well to suggest that cheating on a high school exam leads to the same level of damnation as would the destruction of a whole people group. This is both a misunderstanding and a dangerous mistake.

Sin is essentially a moment of , or a path towards, missing the mark or standard that is set by a particular ideology. For the Christian it would be anything that would not be in keeping with being a disciple of Christ. Some of these things will be universal for all Christians and some might be at a personal level and linked to our own daily walk of faith.

It needs to be said that sin is undoubtably the fuel that produces evil but these two things should not be too easily conflated. We see that the bible speaks of some things as being more detestable than others. Jesus indicates such when he suggest that it would be preferable to have a millstone around ones neck than to cause a child to stumble. The one-size fits all model of soteriology does not always easily translate when discussing the nature of evil and the need for judgement.

This is important because when it comes to critiquing acts of violence it is all too easy to fall into a similar ‘one-size fits all’ mentality. We need to see, however, that the aggressive violence of an oppressor is not the same as the reactive violence of a vulnerable person.

As followers of Christ we can offer a critique to both in the context of our theological musings but the reality is that it is the oppressor that is more overtly involved in an act of evil not necessarily the oppressed.

With regard to the nature of the Israeli-Palestine conflict we can see a similar pattern appearing. The Palestinian people have been repeatedly oppressed by Israeli occupation. In fact it would be unusual if some of this community didn’t respond in a violent way. The Israelis and their supporters (in particular my own government here in the UK) continually speak in tones that suggest they are simply defending their borders. The truth is more sinister. Evil is at play and it didn’t just start with the evil of a Hamas rocket. It began with the oppressive culture imposed upon a people by a nation that would do well to hear the echoes of its own people’s history and know better.

So will I condemn the rockets being fired from Gaza: Yes. Will I consider that some of the more militant Palestinians might be guilty of treating some of their people as commodities toward their own political ends; Possibly. But will I speak of the Palestinians as being equally as guilty of evil as the Israeli government: No.

As Christ followers we have a responsibility to be salt and light in offering an alternative way of peace in every place we find ourselves. We must not, however, allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that situations like the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict are a level playing field.

Those in positions of greater power have the resources to make the greatest steps forward towards peace. When they do not chose to do so they are worthy of a greater criticism than those who are subject to oppression. Our voices need to be louder in speaking out against the powerful. The ‘first shall be last’ model of the kingdom of God demands that we do not stay silent: in fact it may even suggest that at times we deliberately side with the subjugated in opposition to those who have the resources to work for peace but refuse to do so.

So if you want to tell me to be quiet because Israel is God’s chosen nation I will ask you what it is he has chosen them to do and remind you of Isaiah 49:6 that says: ‘I will give you as a light to the nations that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’

If you want to show me examples of Hamas committing atrocities I will join you in condemning them as acts of evil but I will ask you to consider who created the culture that allowed such people to be radicalized.

Also by Alan: Could Your Evangelical Church Be Called a Cult?

Or if you want to tell me that the land was stolen from the Jews 1878 years ago I will ask you to offer that same principle to the people of the USA and suggest they give it back to the native Americans or that the Australians should return ownership to the aborigines. Indeed the British Isles would not belong to Norman stock like my own family. See how far you get with that idea.

Those with much power have much responsibility. When they use their power for ill the church needs to hold them to account and not suggest that they are only as guilty as those they oppress.

Try and convince me that that the nation of Israel is acting as a light to the nations in killing Palestinian children and I will suggest you might have misunderstood both the nature of evil and the holiness of light.

Photo Credit: ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

Having been involved in church leadership for the best part of three decades my wife (Bev) and I have seen our fair share of debate and controversy. Not too long ago such discussions took place in colleges, conferences, and the letters section of journals but now we have a greater level of access to the various opinions on offer.

Even with these changes there is an aspect of debate that seems ever so familiar: when the discussion is in full flow it seems that some people are all too ready to suggest that the good that is done by a particular church, preacher, or ministry should somehow protect them from criticism; it seems that, for some, the ends justifies the means. This can take many forms but most recently Bev and I came across it when debating the relative merits of a particular mega church pastor’s teaching and it’s negative effective upon the lives of many people.

“But just look how big his church is” we were offered, followed by “but what about all of the people who have been saved through his ministry”

For most well meaning Christians it almost seems churlish to argue with such reasoning as if it reflects some well quoted passage from Corinthians. Perhaps such an idea, however, requires further scrutiny.

How much good needs to be done by said preacher for them to reach the point of being free from criticism. Is there a formula we can use to deduce that the correct level of positive outcome has been achieved thus rendering any damage done as no longer significant. If so what would such an equation look like; if more people are helped than hindered then should we just remain silent.

Perhaps:

(Number of people helped) divided by (Number of people hurt) multiplied by (the number of the preacher’s books we own)

Unfortunately I haven’t found anyone to offer such help when questioned further on the idea of the ends justifying the means. It seems that if good can be found, however anecdotally it is offered, then the rest of is should just remain silent for fear of rocking the boat.

Related: If it Weren’t for Jesus, I Might be Pro-Death Too

Professor John Kay said ‘the pursuit of our goals is inextricable from the mechanism by which we achieve.’

His comments were aimed at the business world in order to suggest that the pursuit of profit at all cost is not always productive. He goes on to suggest that it is more often the oblique approach that produces the best results.

So what does this mean for the church with regard to the way we both understand success and offer a critique of bad practice and theology.

The evangelical church has had a long history of being crucicentric almost to the exclusion of other parts of the gospel story. We have had to import ideas about the incarnation from other traditions in order to flesh out our understanding. Perhaps this narrowness of view has lead us towards the idea that the cross is more important than any other part of the work of Christ; as if everything else is incidental. In this regard we could be forgiven for thinking that the incarnation is little more than a convenient means to a soteriological end.

Theologically this cannot be the case. We see how purposeful God was, in Christ, in announcing and bringing in the kingdom. We must conclude that every encounter that Jesus had was more than an incidental sub story to the main narrative of the cross and the resurrection.

The teaching of Jesus confirms this idea when he speaks of leaving the ninety-nine in order to find the one. This imperative to search for the ‘one’ indicates a radical questioning of both the cultural values of first century Palestine and of our own highly corporatised world.

In this teaching Jesus shows his followers that not only is the ‘one’ highly esteemed but that any value the ninety-nine might ascribed to themselves is only of significance in relation to the ‘one’ who remains lost. In a sense the ‘lostness’ is transferred to them by the actions of the shepherd.

Now compare this to a notion that suggests we should not critique the shepherds because they have taken care of their own constituency of a metaphorical ninety-nine rather than looking out for the ‘one’. It just doesn’t hold together.

In the kingdom of God, where the cross sits like a jewel immovable from its setting in the incarnation, the ends can never justify the means. Even when we are forced into extreme measures in order to offer hope for the down trodden we can never allow the result to free us from the need to self reflect and analyse whether we may have crossed the line from defender to attacker.

Given a different set of circumstances and another context the preacher we choose to critique may so easily be one the one that we need to aid.

This, however, does not mean that our voices should be silent when we see those with the responsibility to look after the ‘one’ choose the safety of the applause that the ninety-nine might give.

In the teaching of Christ it seems the direction of his challenge is of vital importance. Towards those already downtrodden and vulnerable he offers grace and hope; to those who occupy the seats of power he reveals both their advantage and their responsibility to care for those who are lost.

After several decades in leadership I find this call to inhabit the place of tension between leading the crowd and leaving them an awesome challenge. If we don’t take seriously the call to offer a critique on behalf of those who are most hurt by the church we are possibly in danger of:

Allowing leaders to raise funds without any need to declare how the money is spent.

Letting churches and leaders cover up abuse in the name of church unity.

Leaving vulnerable people at the mercy of leaders who extract personal stories only to use them against those in most need.

Also by Alan: We are all Agnostic….We Just Don’t Have Enough Faith to Admit It

Making church members believe that leaving an unhealthy church is the same as disobeying God.

Supporting, by our silence, theology that dehumanises those who already treated as second class in society.

If you care to look you will soon realise that all of these things exist; sometimes in even the most successful looking churches and movements. We can chose to remain silent in the hope that the good done will outweigh the harm but please note that in the kingdom of God the ends can never justify the means.

When I was a teenager we had a preacher visit our church presenting a particular view of creation that was at odds with what I had been taught in my school science lessons. I was eager to engage with this subject because it seemed to me that it could be keen sticking point for many people.

I was somewhat surprised to find, however, that rather than starting with a scientific explanation of Genesis the speaker stated that if we didn’t believe the literal text of the creation narratives then we would undermine the whole of scripture including the gospel itself: we would even risk losing our own salvation.

You can imagine how the mainly Pentecostal audience took this news; after all what Christian in their right mind would want to stand against the whole bible, let alone the gospel. It seemed to me at the time that his overstated link between a particularly literal interpretation and accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour was somewhat tenuous. It felt as if he was manipulating a well intention group of people; perhaps hoping they would keep their doubts to themselves and nod in agreement with his anti-scientific language.

Related: Ken Ham v. Bill Nye…If Only Christians Were This Passionate About Helping the Poor 

It seems to me that people fed on the conflation of two apparently linked ideas can find it difficult to change their views when challenged. Especially when their allegiance to God might be questioned.

In this construct denying the literal six day creation teaching of a particular church is to deny God and his word. So what choice do we have but to take a stand for ‘truth’ and ignore the scientific evidence: who would want to let God down by not having enough faith to believe that the whole scientific community is part of some giant conspiracy.

The ministry of conflation, however, is not limited to the conflict between the reading of ancient documents and the study of even more ancient dinosaur bones. The continuing debates on the nature of sexuality and the perceived teaching of scripture falls victim.

Well-meaning church members don’t seem to be presented with the basic arguments about the few verses that deal with male homosexuality (lesbianism not seemingly worthy of being mentioned). The difficult verses in Roman, 1 Corinthians, and Timothy are discussed in the environment of fear that seems to be a big part of the evangelical scene at present. Consider the way that some have adopted the position of victims when it comes to being challenged if they refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings or provide holiday accommodation for same sex couples. In addition is the growing campaign from some church leaders to suggest that they are being persecuted for standing for traditional marriage.

More inclusive evangelicals are presented as those who no longer believe the bible. If one believes that a particular Greek phrase might be written in a context that means its prohibition doesn’t include same sex faithful relationships your are told that you have stopped being faithful to scripture.

Now consider this: if our congregations are continually told that to re-interpret these verses is akin to being unfaithful to the bible how can any sensible conversation be had.

Also by Alan: Could Your Evangelical Church be Called a Cult?

If recognising that the New Testament says very little about homosexuality and that we might have got it wrong is conflated with undermining the gospel how could most evangelicals feel at ease with considering a broader, more inclusive, reading of the bible.

The ministry of conflation is powerful; it’s just not one mentioned in Ephesians 4 for building up the church.

If you were an external observer of the regular debates seen on the internet between religious people and atheists you would be forgiven for presuming that these two positions were the only places to stand. Antithetical arguments tend to use extremes as their currency and over simplification as their oxygen.

At the risk of being over-simplistic myself it sometimes seems as if Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson share a common gene when it comes to absolutism.

Now I recognise that they are working from different models and they have conflicting world views but I often meet atheists who seem as equally embarrassed at some of the positions held by their leading scientific voice as I do about Rev Robertson, the Bishop of Broadcasting.

The media in general has a tendency to add to this antithetical positioning. Whenever they want to run a debate on any given subject they seemingly choose a crazy from the right and sit them down against a loose cannon from the left and ask them to argue; occasionally poking them with a stick-like question to make sure that the audience is entertained.

This gives the impression to the viewer that they can simply choose between either position A or stand B when they are asked to complete the electronic survey. At the end of the show the broadcaster then informs us that 86% of viewers who could operate a mobile phone or a mouse support a particular view: the presumption is of course that consensus makes it true.

Related: Ken Ham v. Bill Nye, If Only Christians Were This Passionate About Helping the Poor

The problem is that it doesn’t: and somewhere deep in the hard drive that we call a soul we know it. This style of debate, however, is now part of our conditioning and we (me included) are highly influenced by its charms and its simplicity.

This has several effects upon the way we debate on the internet and in general.

It has a tendency to make us prejudge the other person according to the group to which they belong. Atheists, after all, are part of a group that do not believe in the God that we Christians worship each week in our churches. In this regard surely their views are already wrong before they even express them. Indeed the neo-Calvinist might suggest that there is no imago dei present in them at all.

The Atheist in turn is more likely to be driven to dismiss the voice of ‘all’ Christians as intellectually challenged because they have seen a documentary about snake handling Pentecostals.

So we see the fuel that drives our need to engage in antithetical debate with the ‘other’.

The Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie speaks in her TED talk about the danger of creating such single stories. As she travels the globe she is often struck by the over-simplistic view of her country held by the rest of the world, in particular the west. The recent abduction of over two-hundred school girls has received a similar treatment in the western media.

As shocking as the incident is, the media has presented a view that the Nigerian government has been primitively negligent in its slow response: this has a distasteful quality about it. As much as I would support the need to campaign for a better response you could almost be forgiven for thinking that Nigeria is somehow backward in their response compared to the forward thinking way that USA, UK, and European governments tend to act.

It doesn’t take long, however, to find shameful examples of our own shortcomings when it comes to the kind of behaviour we would demand of other countries. For example it wasn’t until 1991 that a man could be charged with the rape of his own wife in the UK; now which country seems backward. I will leave you to consider the frailties of your own nation in this regard.

This danger of creating a single story is all too influential when we come to entering moments of debate. We think we know what the other is like: as if the other is a single entity that can so easily be described. As if the other is so very different than we are.

At a distance these caricatures feel comfortable and allow us to offer soundbite responses that massage our own sense of belonging. I have often found myself doing this.

When you get closer to the ‘other’, in this case an atheist, you often find that they are not so different after all. I, as a fully signed up ‘believer’, have moments of doubt; in that sense I am sometimes agnostic.

On the other hand it is not unusual to hear an atheist confess to having moments of wonder and awe; sometimes using almost ‘spiritual’ language to describe them; they are perhaps agnostic too.

When we revert back to our debate we find ourselves settling into our predefined positions of theist and atheist, suggesting again that these are the only two places to stand.

In reality I am an agnostic who has intense moments of believing in God. This belief is not rooted in the emotionalism I associate with my pentecostal heritage but with a decision I made on May 18, 1975 to become a follower of Jesus Christ. I have come to learn that the promise is an anchor for the soul not certainty for the mind. It often depends upon the circumstances, and my state of mind, as to whether I see myself as an ‘agnostic who believes’ or a ‘believer who doubts’. I am grateful to the work of Pete Rollins for his work on this subject.

I wonder whether many of our atheists friends have similar thoughts. Perhaps they consider themselves to be agnostics who sometimes have intense thoughts about the possibility of there being a bigger story. Then they see examples of Christians behaving in strange ways and return to the safety of their atheism. Indeed it may be me that they look at; we all have the potential to seem odd to others.

Also by Alan: Exclusion is a Powerful Way to Silence Dissenting Voices, Steve Chalke & the Evangelical Alliance

Antithetical arguments tend to make us stand far apart from our perceived ‘opposition’ and often leave us with little opportunity for constructive learning.

If, however, we looked to find our commonality, perhaps in us both being at times agnostic, we might find a way of expressing what is most dear to us. If we Christians were more willing to confess our doubts then I wonder whether our atheist friends would be more able to admit their moments of wonder.

Do we Christians have enough faith to believe that God might meet us in the agnostic moments we share with others?

It seems that the UK evangelical church has got itself into a bit of a tizzy. Baptist mover and shaker the Rev Steve Chalke, who leads the much respected Oasis Trust, followed up his 2003 perceived faux pas, with author Alan Mann, where they questioned some dearly held views about the cross of Christ, with some recent comments questioning the evangelical stand against same sex marriage.

This didn’t go down too well in some quarters although, somewhat surprisingly, it wasn’t without support. In addition there were a good number of key evangelical voices that remained quiet; perhaps preferring to stay under the radar on this emotive issue.

Then a few days ago the Evangelical Alliance (EA) chose to remove the Oasis Trust from its membership list referencing Chalke’s recent comments as being influential in its decision.

Now on their website this the largest of UK Evangelical groupings says that it represents ‘the UK’s 2 million evangelical Christians’ seemingly adding weight to its decision to exclude this wayward group.  But let’s back the church minibus up a moment and check this rather bold claim.

Related: Steve Chalke Raises Deep Questions to ‘Restore Confidence in the Bible’

Indeed Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the EA, said in his submission to the Merits Committee on Marriages and Civil Partnerships of the British Parliament in 2011 that the EA represents ‘the majority of the UK’s 2 million+ evangelical Christians’.

Furthermore it’s website description says that it works ‘across 79 denominations, 3, 500 churches, 750 organisations and thousands of individual members’. It is worth noting that it appears that the number of individual members comes in at twenty-thousand.

Given that the average British church congregations stands at 84 people it’s hard to see how they have reached their figure of representing 2 million. The most generous number I can offer them, using their own figures, is around 400k – it could be as low as 200k.

So how do they feel comfortable claiming to represent ‘the’ or ‘the majority of the’ 2 million UK evangelicals.  I have asked them for comment but so far have only received two emails indicating that the recipients are not in a position to comment.

The problems, however, don’t end there. Back in 2010 the EA conducted a survey at key evangelical events including New Wine and Spring Harvest. In it they asked around 15000 people to decide whether they agreed with the statement: ‘Homosexual actions are always wrong’.  They found that whilst 16% actively disagreed, 11% were unsure; giving a total of 27% of event goers failing to actively affirm the generally accepted position on this subject.

Given this survey, and the questions about their membership roll, are they honestly suggesting that they represent ‘all’ of UK evangelicals when making their decision to eject dissenting voices? I am not so sure. Given this even their claim to represent the ‘majority’, made to the parliamentary committee, should be questioned.

So what does it mean when a group like the Evangelical Alliance ejects a member for looking to question the perceived position on human sexuality? In terms of their day to day running I hope it doesn’t affect the Oasis Trust in any significant way. It does however send a signal to all the other potential ‘naughty boys and girls’ to keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to difficult issues or face the possibility that you too may be given the right hand of disfellowship.

Also by Alan: How a Few Good Evangelical Men Allowed Mark Driscoll to be Called a Bully

The Rev Simon Nicholls makes this comment ‘The EA want to be broad enough to include all evangelicals’ (even if we are not members – my note) he continues ‘yet narrow enough to exclude those who want to have a more open conversation’.

Are Chalke and the Oasis Trust any less evangelical for being excluded? I would suggest not. Are they less able to do the excellent work they do in helping thousands of people in the UK? I would suggest not.

Have they asked awkward questions? Well possibly, but I for one have always preferred the company of people like this rather than those of a more religious disposition. I suspect that the very Jesus the EA look to represent did too.

Following the much publicised statements made by UK evangelical leader Rev Steve Chalke revealing that he could no longer support the exclusion of gay people from the church, he himself has been excluded by the Evangelical Alliance (EA).

The reasons offered centre around a perception that the Oasis Trust, pioneered by Chalke, has been on a mission to change the Church’s historic view on human sexuality. (Read the EA statement: http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/media/press-releases/oasis-trust-membership.cfm)

Oasis Trust responded by saying they had ‘no corporate view on this matter’ but this was seen as dodging the issue by this group of Evangelicals whose strap line is ‘better together’.

Now firstly let me say that the EA tells us on their website that they represent ‘the UK’s two million evangelical Christians’. That’s right; they represent all of us: presumably even if we have not asked for them to do so.

Related: Steve Chalke Drops the Bomb in Support of Committed, Faithful, Same-sex Relationships

Not withstanding the fact that I know of many Evangelical Churches that are not members, this statement serves to give the impression that these 2 million Christians are of one voice on a variety of issues including human sexuality.

My internet friend Mark Hewerdine tells me that the EA conducted extensive research back in 2011 into what “21st century evangelicals” believe and do. In response to the statement “Homosexual actions are always wrong” (we can deconstruct the problems with the statement another time maybe…) 27% of those asked were either unsure or disagreed with the statement. So over a quarter of their sample of “21st century evangelicals” – it’s reasonable to assume – might at least quibble with the EA’s exclusion of an organisation for not opposing same-sex relationships.

Hewerdine says ‘EA’s own research suggests that by this decision to expel Oasis they are disregarding at best and silencing at worst the views of a significant number of evangelicals’

Now I ask you: when Steve Chalke raised his challenged did the EA return to ask its members for their opinions on such matters? No, they chose to represent them without knowing what they might feel. Did they look to the rest of the UK evangelical community for support. No, they gathered as a board and decided the subject was too hot to handle.

Also by Alan: Could Your Evangelical Church be Called a Cult?

If they had looked for consensus before choosing to exclude Rev Chalke’s organisation they may have achieved something near a level of honesty that might be useful. Unfortunately they have now given a clear signal that honesty is not welcome amongst UK evangelicals.

So all of those evangelicals that disagree are encouraged to remain silent or face being put out of the group.

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck then it is probably a duck: or so the saying goes.

I have been part of the evangelical culture since 1975 when as a teenager I attended a small church in the east side of Manchester, England. At the time I was impressed by the community and the clarity with which they presented their ideas.

Over the years, however, I have seen my fair share of dysfunctionality; some of which was my own. There does seem to be a pattern in some of these moments that I believe is worthy of consideration.

First of all let me say that I am committed to remaining within the evangelical community, even though some of my views have been met with the kinds of reaction that suggests others might not agree.

Having said that I am not of a mind to stay silent about important issues just to be seen to tow the party line; it never ceases to amaze me how often people call for silence in the name of unity without recognising how this can have a tendency to enable unhealthy cultures.

Related: How Conservative Evangelicals Misunderstand Millennials

Some time ago I came across some work done by Dr. Robert J. Lifton called ‘Criteria for Thought Reform’ in which he highlights some key indicators that suggest whether an organisation might be seen as a cult. Condensed they look like this:

1) MILIEU CONTROL – Essentially controlling what people read and with whom they relate. Creating an ‘us’ against ‘them’ scenario.

2) MYSTICAL MANIPULATION – (Planned spontaneity) Assigning supernatural significance to things that happen even if they might be explained in normal ways.

3) THE DEMAND FOR PURITY – Binary response to what ‘in’ looks like; or what is deemed as acceptable behaviour.

4) CONFESSION – Creates control by devaluing the person. Revealing mistakes and sins makes the individual vulnerable to manipulation.

5) SACRED SCIENCE – The ideology is given special/sacred status and cannot be critiqued.

6) LOADING THE LANGUAGE – The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliche.

7) DOCTRINE OVER PERSON – The ideology is more important than the the person.

8) DISPENSING OF EXISTENCE – Value is now attributed the individuals relationship to the group: are they valuable to the aims and objectives.

Now it needs to be pointed out that Dr Lifton’s theory was developed in response to his studies of North Korean brainwashing techniques in the 1950’s. So at first they may not seem completely transferable to an evangelical context. I think, however, that they are worthy of further thought.

When you consider your own local evangelical church you might think it a far cry from the manipulative techniques of North Korea but take a look at the following thoughts that bring together Dr Lifton’s ideas and and a few of my own.

Firstly, the persistent need for evangelical churches to so tightly define the core beliefs is a worry for several reasons. Now here it is worth noting that I am not suggesting theological debate is not crucial but that the way beliefs are used to prescribe inclusion creates an unhealthy culture.

Honesty has to be an essential component of any healthy culture. As soon as thoughts are limited to those deemed as acceptable by the group we perhaps enter the area of mind control suggested by Dr Lifton.

Now in more moderate evangelical churches this may not seem so overt but ask your self the question ‘how would I be treated if I admitted that some of the Old Testament offended me’. In truth most people who have read it cannot escape some of the stories of genocide, infanticide, and tribalism that seem to be offered as a holy standard for life. I understand that there are exegetical methods for dealing with such things but for most people in church some of this stuff is problematic. This is compounded by the fact that we are not encouraged to admit such thoughts.

Secondly, is the use of conversation stopping statements that create a link between adherence and commitment to God. How often have you heard things like ‘you cannot out give God’ or ‘God always answers prayer, sometimes he says no’.

These might seem like innocuous sayings but think about how they both control behaviour and suggest a view of God that is distinctly unbiblical. Firstly the very idea of martyrdom suggest that, in this life at least, it is possible to out give God. When you add to this the fact that this saying is most often used when people are being urged to give more to the church it is easy to see the level of control at work.

Regarding God answering prayer we only have to look at Jesus’ cry from the cross to realise that the dark night of the soul is not easily lightened by such flippancy.

Either way it is less likely that congregation members will feel able to speak honestly about their true feelings and beliefs.

Thirdly, we often see how people are considered valuable when they are useful to the vision of the church. If you can give, serve, live right, believe right, speak in the correct way, then you are counted as a true adherent to the church. Those who fail in any of these areas are often consider as dissenters, mischievous, flawed, problematic, or sometimes even dangerous.

The headline narrative of the church suggests that everyone is valuable to God but in truth the church operates by an unspoken principle that considers adherence as being equal to value.

Also by Alan: How a Few Good Evangelical Men Allowed Mark Driscoll to be Called a Bully

Fourthly, how people are treated as they leave a church is a key indicator of the true beliefs of a church. The headline narrative may suggest that every person is of equal value but this has to be brought into question when we consider how people are often treated as they leave a church.

One concern for the leader is that those who leave are more likely to speak openly about the concerns they have. It is not unusual for leaders to look to counteract this by offering an alternative narrative so that their remaining congregation can stay committed. Sometimes this is done with a simple hint: ‘there is more to this than I can tell you’ suggests other issues are at play without the need to specify.

Now as you look at your church I would suggest you consider Dr Lifton’s seven points and decide how many seem to be an accurate description. Add to this the four observations that I have offered.

My critique is not suggesting that leaders are disingenuous or manipulative on purpose but that the markers of a successful church drive the culture in a particular direction.

You may be reluctant to consider that your church is a cult: but if it talks like a cult and walks like a cult…….

It is probably no coincidence that A Few Good Men is one of my favourite movies. I think the twin competing narratives of legal justice and moral choices make it somewhat compelling.

In the film two marines fulfil an order to enact a Code Red on a substandard colleague in order to provide him with discipline. The marine dies and so the two participants are taken through the court Marshall process.

It is important to note that Code Reds are not an official navy practice and had been discouraged by the highest offices. In practice though the base commander sees them as an important tool in keeping order.

Even though the film is over twenty years old I have no wish to spoil the end for anyone who has not watched it yet (what have you been doing with your life), needless to say that the story presents the complexity of both moral/ethical issues and the nature of community hierarchies.

The issues portrayed in the film are not just relevant to the armed forces but have the potential to be found in all organisations: including the church.

Related: Mark Driscoll’s Plagiarism Witch Hunt

The recent Mark Driscoll episode in which he has been accused of pastoral bullying by former members and leaders at Mars Hill reminded me somewhat of the storyline of the film. In essence the key leader is the culture maker and often rightly seen as the main protagonist but is supported by a whole cast of ‘enablers’.

I am not unsympathetic towards these people; I too have been part of church cultures where my support for leadership could be seen as enabling. I wonder whether the following categories might be helpful in determining whether we might be part of the problem:

1) The Enabling Leaders
As we have seen several ex-leaders of Mars Hill have offered apologies for the part they played in members being hurt. I am sure that it could be true that they themselves did not perpetrate the acts of bullying but they more than likely looked the other way when such incidents happened. Sometimes it is easier to believe the prevailing rhetoric than to take a stand.

We need to remember that bad leaders do not work in isolation. I wonder whether the often found kindness of the second in command acts as a smoothing device against the abrasiveness of the key leader, thus encouraging people to work through the hurt they feel for periods longer than would be healthy. It only takes a few good men to do nothing for a problematic leader to create an unhealthy culture.

2) The Enabling Staff
In larger churches not all staff are considered leaders in an ecclesiological sense. They may be technicians or have administrative functions. I am aware of churches where staff operate in a culture of fear: where they are reprimanded (even shouted at) for the smallest of errors.

Part of the problem here is that so much is wrapped up together for someone employed by the church that it becomes almost impossible for them to take a stand. For these people there lively hood, friendships, spiritual life, and social standing can be so intertwined that it is difficult to see where one ends and another starts.

3) The Enabling Enthusiast
These people so want to believe in the vision, the church, and the senior leader, that they are willing to overlook all manner of issues. Often they have been vocal in their communities and families; inviting others to attend church. After such support it is very difficult for this group to accept that the church is unhealthy.

4) The Enabling Peer-group
Everybody has a constituency and church leaders are particularly susceptible to the need of remaining ‘in’ the prevailing group. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it seems for other church leaders to remain silent on some of these important issues. Their silence is their complicity in the unhealthy nature of such churches. It is all the more shocking when you consider that many of these same leaders are very vocal when it comes to critiquing those in other groups.

5) The Enabling Peace Proclaimers
These people seem to pop up in every debate I have had on issues worth engaging with. They often sound very spiritual as they call for unity rather than division. They use phrases like ‘it is more important to be for something than against something’. These conversation stopping statements sound like wisdom but are nothing more than out of context demands for people to support the status quo. Part of the problem is that the logic is flawed because the binary position they suggest does not exist. In fact as soon as you speak in favour of a particular position your are by implication standing against its opposite. In addition the gospel demands that we are to take a stand against some things. Where would we be if people had listened to such voices with issues of race and gender. They cry peace peace when there is no peace!

Also by Alan: The Emergent Conversation has failed…or has it?

Now having said all of that I warmly welcome the self reflection and apologies made by the former leaders of Mars Hill. My reason for writing is that the above categories are not confined to the very distinct cases of mega church bullying. This can happen in any community. It can happen anytime good people do nothing when they see bad things happen.

It might be that a few good men can allow for churches to become unhealthy but it only takes a few brave women and men to call people into account for their behaviour.

Can you handle the truth?

According to twitter it seems that the emergent church is dead; or at the very least terminally ill. It’s not unusual to see commentators describe it as ‘the failed emergent experiment’ as if a few of us tried to do things differently and had no perceivable effect.

Recently during a facebook debate with the charismatic church elder statesman Gerald Coates on the LGBT issue he told me that the ‘liberal’ church was on the decline. The context of the debate, where some of us emergent evangelicals challenged his stand against marriage equality, reveals that he wasn’t taking about good old fashioned liberals here but this new brand of progressives and inclusivists that are no longer willing to tow the party line.

So is the emergent church a ‘failed experiment’? Are liberal evangelical voices on the decline?

Here are just a few thoughts:

1) It is important to note here how new movements tend to see themselves within the context of the general culture that they are trying to critique. In addition we need to see how the prevailing seats of power respond to these voices.

The recently deceased British politician Tony Benn spoke of how new ideas are treated by the established power base:

“It’s the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then they say you’re mad, then dangerous, then there’s a pause and then you can’t find anyone who disagrees with you.”

Although his remarks were made about the general political and social scene there does seem to be something of a familiar ring to them.

During the early 70’s the Charismatic Movement in Britain was fighting for its place in the wider church by suggesting that every new ‘wave’ of God is resisted by the previous one. In support of this argument they showed how Methodists rejected Salvationist, who rejected Pentecostals who were (at that point) rejecting the Charismatic Movement.

Related: Emergent Christian Cliches to Avoid

I would suggest that Benn’s statement could be somewhat true at each of these stages. At first the charismatic churches were ignored, then called crazy. They were soon declared as evil only to find themselves within a few years as key players within British evangelicalism. (To be fair this does not quite equate with acceptance by everybody as Benn suggests but I think the wider point is valid)

Yet here we are all this time later and key establishment figures like Gerald (at the time of writing his facebook status declares that he has just been invited to Downing Street for talks with the Prime Minister) are re-enacting something of the very scene that they experienced all those years ago; this time against progressive/liberal evangelicals (often known as emergent).

I haven’t seen any evidence that Gerald and other critical voices have acknowledged this example of history repeating itself.

2) At the moment very few liberal/progressive/inclusive evangelical commentators are self identifying as ’emergent’. I suspect it is because, as often happens with labels, the word has lost some of its original meaning. After all there was a point when the self proclaimed defender of ‘real’ marriage Mark Driscoll was described as emergent.

In the earlier days of the conversation many people gathered around the idea of deconstruction (sometimes demolishing) the perceived norms found within the traditional evangelical places of safety. Of course being drawn together by an agreed dissatisfaction with the status quo does not mean that everyone will agree on where one should land after the conversations have been had.

Some have revised there positions to remain within the structures that they critiqued. Some have used terms such as missional to offer an understanding of how the methods might change whilst the trajectory remains the same. Others have cut loose from the pain of rejection and found a home in other parts of the church more traditional understood as liberal. There are some of course who have wandered away from a formal expressions of church completely.

Now I don’t completely hold with the narrowness of the old charismatic argument that suggests that the new wave is always resisted by the previous one. I think it has something interesting to say but it tends to suggest that God is only working in one way at any given moment. It think this was a little presumptuous back in the 70’s and is still so now.

I do think however that what many are seeing as the ‘failure’ of the emergent movement could be what Benn describes as the ‘Pause’. After all we have been ignored, we have been described as both mad and dangerous.

3) I also think that part of the DNA of the emergent disquiet with the status quo was to redefine the markers of ecclesiological success.

When someone who sees church success as being primarily, but not exclusively, large numbers, a visible presence, a seat at societies debating table, looks at the emergent church they will no doubt feel justified in declaring it a failure.

Although I cannot speak for everyone I do know that some of us have come to the conclusion that our goal is, in keeping with an incarnational motif, more about hiddenness rather than notoriety.

During Jesus’ lifetime the majority of people on the planet were unaware of either his existence or his teaching. Even within his own culture the significance of his presence was not fully understood.

In stark contrast to this are the usual markers of church success in a charismatic, Pentecostal, evangelical context. The goal seems to be distinction, size, excellence, and popular fashion. Churches are counted as successful if they are growing numerically and produce presentational excellence; with large screens, pa systems, and lights. Added to this is the regular challenge for individuals to be distinct from the world around.

This may not be true of all, or even most of the charismatic and pentecostal churches but when one considers the influence of larger churches upon the rest we would do well to recognise the aspirational nature of this context. The language, markers, models, processes, and visions of the larger churches are presented as the gold standard in many quarters.

So the pressure on many church leaders is to produce an alternative to the culture within which they work. Church youth clubs are funded rather than supporting existing local community venture. Departments and programs become feeds leading toward the centre; the church congregation.

In contrast to this I would like to suggest that the incarnation is more about emersion within the community rather than separation from it. Perhaps building bridges rather than walls represents the way of Christ.

Also by Alan: The Three Phases of Church Engagement

The gospel message in the usual context sounds like an invitation for those ‘outside’ to come ‘inside’ and become like us. An incarnational message is more about a journey taken by the church towards the community.

Conclusion

So if you judge the emergent church by whether it is being noticed, or by the use of the label, or by whether it has produced large vocal churches you might well conclude that it has indeed failed.

You would do well to consider, however, that the questions that we have raised and the conclusions we have drawn are out there. They are in the minds of many of the people who fill more traditional evangelical, charismatic, and pentecostal churches. They might not vocalise it because to do so might be too much of a risk. You might think that they all agree with your stated evangelical set of beliefs but I am not too sure.

So have we failed? I am not so sure we have! We might just be in the ‘pause’, described by Tony Benn, waiting for whatever comes next. You might be surprised by the revolution that has already taken place.

“Without a vision the people perish” so goes the oft quoted biblical proverb. In our church experience it has been used by leaders to suggest that ‘the’ vision of the church leader(s), and therefore the church, is worth fighting for; it is possibly even more important than the hopes, dreams, and lives of the individual church members.

Paul Scanlon, who for many years headed up the Abundant Life Church in Bradford, England, wrote in his book Crossing Over about his vision of moving from their existing building to a larger complex built on their campus site. He spoke in a sermon about those who left the church during this period and used the phrase ‘we lost them in the car park’.

Paul isn’t alone in finding it preferable to overlook the stories of those who seem resist to change. There are countless times that my wife and I have been at leaders meetings and felt the surge of power invested in the delegates to return to their pulpits and join Isaiah in setting their faces ‘like flint’ in ignoring the dissenting voices in our congregations in order to fulfill our destiny: the metaphors and narratives might change but the meanings don’t.

Over time we became increasingly weary of such teaching as we realised that it didn’t really resonate with the picture we see in Jesus who would not only ‘lay down his life’ for his sheep but would willingly leave the ninety-nine in order to find the individual who had become lost.

On considering both our own experiences and the stories told to us by others we have begun to see several patterns emerge in many of the scenarios where the vision has been held up as the highest reference point for success.

Related: 6 Things I Wish Christians Would Stop Doing

Firstly, church engagement is not a single entity; it is certainly not an upward journey of increased adherence. This is, of course, true of all human organisations, I use the same model when I train business leaders, but it has particular resonance for our church context. I would like to suggest that there exists an organisational entropy when it comes to a person’s engagement to a group, community, or vision.  Most of the models that I have seen explaining how to secure human engagement tend to paint a picture of an onward and upward journey toward increased adherence. I am not sure that this is either possible, or even perhaps desirable.

I would want to suggest a three-phase journey experienced within a community:

1) Enthusiastic
2) Realistic
3) Apathetic

Each of these phases have particular narratives, drivers, and feelings associated with them.

1) Enthusiastic

In this phase the church members tend to believe in the vision expressed by the leaders. They are immune to, or choose to ignore, many of the ways that leaders act that cause disengagement in those in the other phases.

When leaders speak in hyperbole they choose to nod in agreement and repeat the messages to new people. When they are asked ‘what’s not to like about this?’ they cannot think of anything but a positive response.

In churches that have a tendency to be highly driven by vision there is often little room for doubt to be expressed. Sermons often contain conversation halting statements like ‘you cannot out give God’. In this context any questions raised about the church tithing policy are painted as representing a lack of faith.

In addition membership, or commitment to the church vision, is conflated with faithfulness to God and so it is not rare to hear statements like ‘if you are not in church you are not in the will of God’. Again this stops honesty and further discussion by placing a heavy weight on disagreement. Now you are not just disagreeing with the church you are disagreeing with God. (See Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s Criteria for Thought Reform for more on this)

There are several possible reasons why those in phase 1 find it easy to ignore what seems obvious to others. Sometimes it is because of the promise of perceived benefits to be found within churches that adopt an aspirational model. It likely will be suggested that adherence to the vision will result in the possibility of the individual’s personal vision or goal being fulfilled; leading a team, speaking from a platform, playing in the worship band or the like. The model often fails because it tends to adopt the same numbers game model used by TV talent shows. That is; promise enough people personal fulfillment and a few will have the talent or gifts to make the dream a reality. These then become the trophies of success that encourage others to believe in the process.

In addition to this are other motivational factors such as the need to belong or the desire to be part of something successful. It is hard to resist the comparison with pyramid selling schemes at this point.

Whilst the individual’s journey is progressing towards the aspirational goal it will be relatively easy to ignore what those in other phases find difficulty with.

This enthusiasm and adherence is fuelled because leaders will encourage those who appear to be in phase 1 by including in them in conversations, valuing their input, and involving them in what appears to be an inner circle; at least at a surface level.

2) Realistic

I would suggest that it is almost impossible to remain in phase 1 for an extended period of time. In fact most leaders do not reside in the Enthusiastic phase even if they appear to do so. Pete Rollins speaks of this when he highlights the presence of twin, competing narratives within organisations. The headline narrative of a church, he says, might be ‘God heals’ but the unspoken or hidden narrative that most people, including the leaders, really live by is ‘God heals: but if you are really sick go to the hospital’.

In the realistic stage there is a greater influence upon the individual from this unspoken narrative. The dissonance between the message from the platform and what people see in practice becomes harder to ignore. The outward behaviour of people in this phase may at times still look like that of the inhabitants of phase 1 but internally questions are being raised and the process of disengagement has begun.

Even so people in this stage will still likely stay in the church. This is driven by a variety of factors.

It might be that the fear of being rejected might hold them to the group. This in turn is fuelled by the leadership’s well-defined descriptions of what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’. Added to this are the oft-pejorative descriptions of what the ‘other’ looks like. The implication is that other churches are not where the real blessing is to be found.

Sometimes people stay because of the possible effects upon other family members or because they may well be on church staff and so are tied financially to the vision.

Leaders, if they perceive this is happening, will tend to treat this group differently that those in the previous phase. Rather than people feeling included they will have a sense of being used to fulfill the vision. Their value is therefore linked with their usefulness to the ultimate goal.

Any hints of dissension will be tolerated because it is likely to be hinted at rather than overtly stated. Behaviour that does not fit with the standard set as the norm will be challenged from the platform.  We were in a large church some while ago and the senior leader announced from the platform that 161 people had arrived at least 2 minutes late for church that morning. The congregation was then ‘encouraged’ to give their full commitment to God; in essence conflating church attendance with obedience to God.

3) Apathetic

With an increasing sense of awareness of the narrative dissonance described above it is almost certain that people will find the need to disconnect emotionally from the central vision of the church.

People will have a greater awareness of feeling like a commodity in the process of moving towards the vision. Seeing others being ‘lost in the car park’ tends to make those who remain feel used too. How you treat those who leave has a direct effect upon those who stay.

Also by Alan: From ‘farewell Rob Bell’ to ‘You’re fanatic Charismatics’

Leaders will often ignore or even demonise those who are in phase 3 in an attempt to create a narrative that undermines any complaints that they might raise. Once someone is painted in a bad light it is easier to ignore their voice.

Eventually, if employed, they will be dismissed. If a lay member they will be discouraged from having a voice thus making it almost impossible for them to stay. In a sense this is like the ecclesiological version of constructive dismissal.

The only two choices they are left with is to either remain silent but internally disconnected or to leave the church altogether.

In the above I am not suggesting that the motives of the leaders are always in question. My wife and I have been both hurt by the construct and been part of the group doing the building. I think the wider culture of theological training, denominational fervour, and leadership teaching encourages the behaviour described.

Whether fair motives or foul, however, the result is that individuals and families are sometimes sacrificed on the alter of achieving the vision: even if we just call it losing them in the car park.

Top Photo Credit: Natursports / Shutterstock.com