Friday, April 17, 2009
Movements, Institutions, Corruption
Adrian Warnock recently wondered about the meaning of the term "evangelical."
There are two points that come to mind when I read Adrian's cogent analysis. First is the inevitability of corruption and the second is the inevitability of politics, and these are related things.
By definition everyone will want to join in something successful. This means that any successful institution or movement will attract those that do not necessarily buy into the core concerns that garnered the success to begin with. Some of the people will come to co-opt the successful thing to their own ends, and some will come simply because they are attracted by success. Regardless, success in a populous movement of any sort breeds its own dilution.
If the dilution of purity of cause is inevitable in the face of success (this would be an early form of corruption) then political intrigue becomes likewise inevitable for the non-true-believers will eventually want to vie for power. The dilution and political battles cannot be avoided.
The question is how to survive them and remain true. I would argue that Evangelicalism, becasue it has never institutionalized, simply cannot survive. Institutions are the only instrument, frustrating though they may be, that can stem the tide of these inevitable forces. Institutions too will eventual crumble before these inevitabilities, but they serve to slow the process by formalizing and holding tight to the core on which the movement was founded.
There is purpose and worth in our denominations and institutions. It may indeed be time to found news ones, I don;t know for sure on that, but one thing I do know. If Evangelicalism as we have known it intends to survive it needs to find a way to institutionalize. This is somewhat oxymoronic for Evangelicalism, but necessary. It has already been severely compromised, preferable to compromise in this area, than in many where it is compromising.
Technorati Tags:evangelicalism, corruption, politics, institutionalization
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
The word "evangelical" , however, seems to rapidly be becoming less clear. It was once used as a clear alternative to "liberal". I remember meeting people in years gone by who were dismissive of us "evangelicals" and much happier to use the label "liberal" of themselves. Liberals were seen as more culturally relevant, as thinkers, as modern, and as somehow "fairer" and less "bigotted".Great perspective that shows the unique parallels between the British and American societies and churches - we are far more alike than we are different.
[...]
Now, however, a new insidious tendency has arisen within this broad family. It seems to have really begun only in the last few years. Within the camp people are challenging doctrines we once all held dear and assumed were part of the definition of being evangelical. Interestingly most of the time these people only challenge one such aspect, and are very reluctant to accept the label "liberal". I call them the neo-liberals, because at root I do not see any difference between their thinking and that of the old liberals.
There are two points that come to mind when I read Adrian's cogent analysis. First is the inevitability of corruption and the second is the inevitability of politics, and these are related things.
By definition everyone will want to join in something successful. This means that any successful institution or movement will attract those that do not necessarily buy into the core concerns that garnered the success to begin with. Some of the people will come to co-opt the successful thing to their own ends, and some will come simply because they are attracted by success. Regardless, success in a populous movement of any sort breeds its own dilution.
If the dilution of purity of cause is inevitable in the face of success (this would be an early form of corruption) then political intrigue becomes likewise inevitable for the non-true-believers will eventually want to vie for power. The dilution and political battles cannot be avoided.
The question is how to survive them and remain true. I would argue that Evangelicalism, becasue it has never institutionalized, simply cannot survive. Institutions are the only instrument, frustrating though they may be, that can stem the tide of these inevitable forces. Institutions too will eventual crumble before these inevitabilities, but they serve to slow the process by formalizing and holding tight to the core on which the movement was founded.
There is purpose and worth in our denominations and institutions. It may indeed be time to found news ones, I don;t know for sure on that, but one thing I do know. If Evangelicalism as we have known it intends to survive it needs to find a way to institutionalize. This is somewhat oxymoronic for Evangelicalism, but necessary. It has already been severely compromised, preferable to compromise in this area, than in many where it is compromising.
Technorati Tags:evangelicalism, corruption, politics, institutionalization
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
