An old friend of ours, William Crawley (right), has a blog here to which both Stephen and I contribute comments fairly frequently these days. I mention this because, as Libertarian Reason has been rather quiet and time hasn’t permitted Stephen or myself to blog as much as we’d like to, Will’s blog appears to be mushrooming into a very lively discussion forum (with the advantage of being plugged incessantly to all visitors of the BBC NI website!), and I think some of our regular readers here at Libertarian Reason may be interested in a visit.
Both Stephen and myself have known William for a long time. We met many years ago when Will was in his early twenties and I was in my teens. I remember much fun with religious controversy and the various nuances of conservative evangelicalism in action, even at a time in which I would have described myself as firmly evangelical. (Before you ask, I now use the word post-evangelical to describe my theological position.) At the time, Will was being educated and went on to attain a PhD at Princeton University in the 90’s - he has an aptitude for philosophy and a background in theology. Although Will had an interest in broadcasting and was a contributor to various programs at times, it was purely by accident that he stumbled upon a gig doing radio for the BBC in Northern Ireland, and he’s now a full-time journo at the Beeb.
It is rather odd that both William and myself have found ourselves in radio on opposite sides of the Atlantic these many years later, and that all three of us appear to be avid bloggers lately. Will’s blog is technically a ‘broadcasting diary’, however it is practically speaking an ideological marketplace due to the normal talking points he brings forward - they’ve tended to be based on some kind of religious current affairs due to Will’s part in Sunday Sequence, a loosely religion-based program - and the comments section that follows.
It is, therefore, appropriate that these worlds collide occasionally, and it is worthwhile recommending Will & Testament to our readers. I think there’ll be some guest blogging going on sporadically, for example, and I’ll post here my answer to Will’s challenge (which is to write, in 272 words or less - the length of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address - what I believe); lots of fun, and I’ll reveal the topic I’ll be dealing with - like it’s a surprise - CAPITALISM. Let’s see how that goes down!
John Wright
11 responses so far ↓
1 S Quinney // Dec 13, 2006 at 8:28 am
Interesting blog! Is Will a libertarian or does he subscribe to some other brand of politics?
2 John Wright // Dec 13, 2006 at 9:58 am
Well there’s an impartiality clause at the Beeb, but last time we talked I’d say William is somewhere left-of-center or centrist politically, depending on the issue. To be honest, when I see him very occasionally now, we don’t get a chance to get into political debate! For the most part he does a good job of neutrality, though there are commentators on his blog that dispute that.
3 Christine // Dec 13, 2006 at 10:58 am
This is a BBC blog you’re linking to John? I thought you hate the BBC? I’ve read several rants on here about the BBC that certainly weren’t in glowing terms!
4 John Wright // Dec 13, 2006 at 11:27 am
I’ve never said I hated the BBC… only the way it is funded. The Licence Fee is a deplorable idea that belongs to communism, not a free democracy. I take issue with the BBC at times also for the pretence of impartiality, but that can be subjective too and it’s never been my main criticism. But each and every argument supporting the Licence Fee is without merit, and the Charter Review took a typically pussyfooted approach to the whole issue.
I like and appreciate the BBC, but it would be better off unshackled from this idea of “public service broadcasting”.
5 Rosalita Paglia // Dec 14, 2006 at 8:47 am
Thanks for the link John
6 Jennifer // Dec 14, 2006 at 9:28 am
Here’s another good blog, http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/
7 PB // Dec 31, 2006 at 6:53 pm
dont worry JW
Im not making a habit of writing here but wanted to touch base with you..
..a theologian in my church was discussing post-evangelicals with me yesterday and said they have no problem with the idea of a biblical canon (he seemed to be quoting the book on the subject you recommended).
And - get this - he said the church we both attend ticks most of the post-evangelical boxes.
So who is the real post-evangelical JW, you or me???
By the way, do you attend a church - post evangelical or otherwise?
Happy new year anyway
PB
8 John Wright // Jan 1, 2007 at 10:11 am
Hi PB- Yes Dave Tomlinson (who wrote the book The Post-Evangelical) does subscribe to the idea of a canon of Scripture, just understanding it differently than evangelicals do. That’s one key area where Tomlinson falls short, in my opinion, though most postevangelicals would certainly agree with him. Like you’ve mentioned before, I’m hard to pin down! I read Tomlinson’s book without agreeing totally with him. Sounds like you have some great people to discuss these things with at church. What church do you go to? You can email me at johnwright@libertarianreason.com if you don’t want to say publicly. Happy New Year back!
9 PB // Jan 3, 2007 at 3:07 pm
John
Here is the Wikipedia checklist for Post-Evangelicals so have a look at how many of the boxes I ticked. To be honest there is nothing new under the sun. If you ever read any AW Tozer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiden_Wilson_Tozer
(called by many a 20th century prophet) he espoused most of these viewpoints in the 50s/60s. Bottom line is, I think that thinking Christians in any age will likely have seen most of these points and I would argue they are mostly evident in scripture itself. That is why I like the term “bible-believer”. It is timeless and nobody will use it who doesn’t.
My only reservation about post-evangelicalism is that the New Testament is a book which has no illusions about the corruption of the church (ie the corruption of us, ie me and you, ok, I really mean you ;-)) but the NT is full of God’s best soldiers who roll up their sleeves to keep it on track as best they can. Remember, in Revelation we have the marriage supper of the Bride of Christ and Christ. He is not coming back for isolationists.
I am not telling you my church as I value my privacy but it would not be unlike Paul Reid’s.
Lastly, that is the last time you call me an Evangelical and yourself a Post-Evangelical. Get yourself a new bed, I am kicking you out of this one! Only joking!
PB
PS. Some other time you can tell me about why you *really* binned the idea of a canon
PPS Do you attend any church? If so what is it like?
//////////////////////////////
A significant majority of the these have been through the evangelical and/or fundamentaist theological system and as result many prefer to attend ‘traditional church’ infrequently if at all, occasionally forming small house groups or meeting in local christian unions or informal family/friend groups. NO- BUT AM IN A HOME CELL GROUP WITH CHURCH
Wikipedia:
1) Post-evangelicals view the church as fundamentally flawed by human activity, yet still a divine institution. YES.
2) They still hold the same authoritative view of the Bible as do evangelicals, but reject bigoted interpretations which have caused denominationalism. YES
3)Post-evangelicals view their relationships with God and fellow humans as more important than their relationship to a particular church. YES
4)They prefer living Christianity throughout the week, rather than what they perceive to be often empty rituals once a week. YES
For instance, post-evangelicals often prefer to share communion in a home environment, and see the communion in a church building as less meaningful, because of its connection to church politics and power struggles. NO
5) Post-evangelicals reject what they see as a materialistic health-wealth, miracle-chasing gospel of Pentecostal evangelicalism, and the man-made legalism of “touch not, taste not” of conservative Protestant evangelicalism. YES
Post evangelicals reject both empty, meaningless preaching and overly legalistic preaching. YES
They prefer meaningful biblical content to excessive melodrama and empty content covered up by shouting and stage dramatics. YES
6) By and large, Post-evangelicalism rejects the institutionalism, politicized, bigoted, power struggles of the overly-structured church and is an attempt to rediscover the less structured Christianity of the early church.YES-ISH
7) It focuses more on individual responsibility to live Christianity and sees much of what occurs in churches as vain ritual without real meaning.YES-ISH
9) There is an abiding sense of pessimism and sorrow over ‘organized religion’ but a rediscovery of salvation, breaking out from command and control structures. EVENS
10) Strangely, this mini-exodus has brought many Post-Evangelicals into contact with Christian groups (mainstream and otherwise) with whom they would not formally have mixed. DOING IT ANYWAY
11) This has led to a broadening of theology and mutual understanding, while not necessarily requiring a need to formally re-integrate.
ENDS
10 John Wright // Jan 8, 2007 at 9:23 pm
PB- You are right in that what many others mean by postevangelicalism can be quite different to what I mean by it. There are often ways, for example, in which my positions are more liberal than those of postevangelicals. You may be interested in this Wikipedia entry provided by Michael N. Hull, much of which I concur with.
11 Anonymous // Jan 19, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Are you sure? I thought William’s PhD was awarded by Queen’s in Belfast?
Leave a Comment