Saturday, 3 May 2014

Chalke and the Oasis Trust.....Daring to be Daniels?


" But......we do still find ourselves in situations where we have to ask ourselves are we ready to be like Daniel and stand alone?  Are we ready to have a purpose and let it be known? Are we ready to take the real costs which might be involved?"
That paragraph from the short sermon I gave last Sunday evening seems very apt in light of the statements from the Evangelical Alliance (EA) and the Oasis Trust yesterday outlining the way in which the Oasis Trust have had their membership cancelled by the EA. The reason for the cancellation of membership as detailed in this statement is the refusal of Oasis Trust to give equal weight to both sides of the same sex debate on their website. The question is though which is the Daniel?

My guess is both would regard themselves as the ones being ready to stand alone, having a purpose and letting it be known as the old Sunday School song which inspired Tony Benn says. In this post I want to unpack this a little further and explain why I think that the Oasis Trust are the Daniels in this situation and what our response needs to be as a result.
Before I get there though I want to outline the case for EA being the Daniels. The argument that would come from them I guess is they are acting with integrity, keeping true to what they believe the correct biblical interpretation to be. Their stance on the issue is briefly outlined in this document.

I now want to examine the Oasis Trust position. As I do so though we need to realise there are actually a range of positions in the Oasis Trust and on their board. The EA statement acknowledges that the Oasis Trust council "have no corporate view on the matter". There is a clear view from the organisations founder Rev Steve Chalke, however. Chalke has talked of how his study of scripture had led him to believe he that faithful, monogamous, loving same sex relationships are ok in this Christianity magazine article published in January 2013. He has also talked of how Oasis, as the managers of a chain of Academies amongst other activities, have a responsibility to ensure that all their young people are supported and that messages aren't transmitted which may lead to the suffering of LGBandT youth in those schools.
In November Chalke was the key note speaker at a Two:23 event and both the Q&A with him and talk itself can be accessed on their website. He spoke of the financial cost which Oasis have suffered and the way in which partner organisations have also suffered as a result of their association with Oasis, as funding has been withdrawn by some supporters. Oasis is not alone in finding that those who disagree with same sex relationships have chosen to stop their charitable giving to organisations if they publicly speak out or indeed adopt inclusive policies. World Vision in the US tragically dropped their bar on hiring people in same sex marriages and then reinstated it two days later as a result of calls from some Evangelical leaders to withdraw funding from the organisation, as this Church Times story reports.

Into this situation come the EA with their request for the Oasis Trust to "adjust the content of their website/resources and social media output to equally profile the traditional Christian view". This is something which the Oasis Trust have said they have sought to do.
I want to pause here and reflect on the Daniel story because I want to make it clear that I don't believe parallels can be drawn to the first part of the story, where a deliberate plan was put in place. I hope and believe that this initial request to alter their website and social media was a genuine request not an attempt to trap the Oasis Trust.

As we have seen the Oasis Trust did seek to comply, (another difference to the Daniel story). I would add, having looked at the site, the unfortunate impact of the changes made is it is slightly harder to find the excellent resources available which are seeking to support churches in moving on with discussion on these issues of inclusion and human sexuality.
However, the EA have indicated that what the Oasis Trust have done is not enough for them. The notes at the bottom of the statement are interesting in this regard because they say:

 "Organisation and Church membership of the Evangelical Alliance involves not only an affirmation of the basis of faith but a willingness to abide by the guidelines of the relational commitments with a specific reference to good fellowship with other evangelicals."
I am not sure whether anything, short of removing the resources or distancing themselves from Chalke would have been satisfactory for some of the "other evangelicals" referred to in terms of enabling Oasis Trust to keep "good fellowship".

This is what brings us to the point where I believe we can find the parallels with the Daniel story. As I indicated in my previous post I really do believe that something significant is happening with regards to the LGBandT evangelical community in this country and a growing focus on discipleship, (and that is something I believe applies to both the affirming and non-affirming groups). What I believe happened yesterday is that the Oasis Trust were sanctioned by the EA for standing up for what they believe faith requires of them; i.e. working towards an inclusive society where everybody is valued. The Faithworks Charter outlines the values by which the Oasis Trust works, as a result of their faith and understanding of scripture.

Steve Chalke and the Oasis Trust have dared to stand alone in many ways. Chalke in particular has dared to stand by the principles of faith in which he believes and not be coerced, threatened or bullied into actions which would have gone against this or into a continued silence on the matter. In particular after careful consideration he did not let the threat of the withdrawal of financial support from the organisation keep him silent.  
Returning to last Sunday evenings sermon I concluded it by saying:

 "There was no sudden miracle which stopped Daniel facing the worst, where the miracle came was in the mist of the situation itself. God protected Daniel in the lions den. He sent an angel to be in there with Daniel at the worst possible time ensuring that no harm came to him.
I think God still can send angels and does but more often he uses other human beings to come alongside people in the really difficult times. He doesn't leave any of us truly alone, even though it can sometimes feel like that.

My final thought is that sometimes I think we are called to be the angels and the stand we are called to take is following Gods call to come alongside others who are going through difficult and lonely times, helping protect them."
I want to reiterate that point in this blog post. I believe those of us who think what the Oasis Trust have done is right need to stand alongside them now. I believe we can support them to ensure that this action, which could result in further withdrawal of donations doesn't negatively impact the organisation financially. I think we need to consider if our way of standing alongside the Oasis Trust and Chalke at this time may involve financial giving or getting involved in some other way. We can be the angels who protect Oasis Trust from the lions.

Final note for those who are wondering if it ethically right to support an organisation which is running academies and engaging with the dismantlement of the welfare state it is worth listening to what Chalke said at Greenbelt last year. He talked about the need to engage with what's happening even if you don't agree with it, (note you do need pay to listen to the whole talk, but it is worth it if you are interested in thinking about the ethics of involvement).

4 comments:

  1. My beef with EA is that they drew a line in the sand and created a litmus test around a disputable and non-essential matter (as far as Orthodoxy goes). In doing so they're acting like bullies and painting themselves in a corner informed by bigotry and animus - they may not think that's what they're doing but that's how the culture perceives it. By throwing their hissy-fit, they do damage to the very purpose they purport to follow. The Good News ain't so good when it's blemished by this kind of behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Totally agree Mark. Thanks for comment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the very nature of an organisation like the EA having a "statement of faith" that member organisations must subscribe to and accept and live by they have always by nature, to quote Mark, "drawn a line in the sand". I'm not saying I agree with the line by the way, but it it's interesting where this leaves organisations that do have a line in the sand.

    By having a statement of faith (with it's practices etc) at their conception they were clearly formed to hold an exclusivist position on any number of issues. By holding to the pre-existing line in the sand they are (potentially quite rightly) seen as being reactionary.

    But it must be remembered that when Oasis joined the EA they were making an equally reactionary statement against the beliefs and practices of other faith groups / churches / theologies. By joining something like the EA (and this isn't a critique of them either), Oasis themselves were making a statement.

    We might discuss whether the EA should change its stance and the historic line it has drawn, as might the CofE, and other organisations, but that's probably a slightly different (but very important) conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for comment Tim. The whole issue of the statements of faith is interesting for a whole host of reasons, but as you say Tim that's a different discussion. The line in the sand here is interesting in part because in this case there appears to have been negotiation on the basis of different members of the council of Oasis being on different sides of the line.

    ReplyDelete