2011/01/09

here I stand? reflection

I'm in the middle of a series trying to set out where I've reached in my thinking about how to describe my faith today.  The previous parts are these:

here I stand ? the introduction
here I stand? part 5: spiritual formation

This post is just a reflective aside.

In writing this blog - and particularly this series - I'm often painfully aware that I'm not a theologian.  I'm reasonably well-read; I have a reasonable mind-map of the relevant topics, but I'm not well acquainted with how to contribute in a way that meets the norms of the discipline.  That much will be evident to the reader.

That's a curious tension: I've always distrusted professional theology because it seems to take the faith which belongs to all believers and turn it in to an academic discourse in which only the best-educated can participate.  And yet, trust it or not, I am aware afresh how hard it is to join in.

I have lots of questions.  This little "here I stand" series reflects that.  Though there are some things I just don't believe any more (and there are a few new things that I believe perhaps) far more of this is about how I believe rather than what I believe.  Asking questions seems a fair thing to do: but I realise that the more I question the less I am in the middle of the mainstream.

This series was prompted by a question from James encouraging me nail what my issues and problems are.  Am I still an Evangelical?  Well of all I have read so far, I have most sympathy for - indeed, tend to agree with - McLaren, Jones, and Tomlinson.  They have done more than ruffle a few feathers in the Evangelical world, so if they are exiting that label, then so, I guess, am I.  And they're more eloquent than me, too.

2 comments:

americanRuth said...

I don't think you need to be so self-effacing, LE. I have enjoyed reading this series, and look forward to future posts.

I guess one thing I wonder (gently) is, were you ever in the middle of the mainstream? Or is part of the point that evangelicals and non-conformists feel a certain solidarity together about not being in the mainstream, which, when you're solidly within that, is itself a sort of mainstream. (What was that about not being eloquent? ;) )

Andrew said...

Hi @AmericanRuth,

Thank you :)

Well, I suppose the mainstream is a big place. And it depends on your perspective whether you're in the mainstream: I guess that in the US, the term has more overtones and more distance from evangelicalism. I don't think that quite works in the UK.

I think I used to see a big broad group of fellow-travellers, and I was somewhere in the middle of the gang. Now, I'm far from sure that we're all going in the same direction, and am quite convinced that I want to distance myself from quite a lot of these people.