David Tomlinson and the Post Evangelical

 "Firstly you must understand that I don't come as a safe pair of hands!"

The March edition of Christianity Magazine holds an article on “Post Evangelical” Christian David Tomlinson. In the article Tomlinson tells something of his story: He was brought up in the Brethren Church, but eventually moved into Charismatic Restorationism where he had a spiritual experience. But falling foul of the growing patriarchy and authoritarianism of its leaders Tomlinson soured of Restorationism (and also evangelicalism as a whole it seems) and left to become the Church of England’s postmodern rebel vicar that he is today.

For me Tomlinson’s name goes right back to 1982 when I was prompted to study the charismatic Restoration movement. I had got interested because I had already investigated various Christian sects and the Restorationists of that time looked as though they were Christian evangelicals simply reinventing the familiar trappings of the sect complex; e.g. spiritual elitism, leaders with authority, tight knit exclusive communities, Gnosticism, overrating their own importance etc; above all such groups have some kind of rationale, often bound up with their "end times" theology, as to why they have made a sudden appearance amidst what they consider to be the otherwise run-down or semi-apostate state of the Christian culture that surrounds them. For example, JWs and Mormons both have stories they tell that justify their late appears. But in the case in point the rationale is implicit in the term "Restoration"; this group believed they were God's kingdom restored to its proper New Testament glory (Another term I have heard used in a similar way is the word "Recovery", a word used by the Witness Lee Brotherhood). Fortunately they never really went quite as far as becoming an exclusive sect, but at the time it looked a close-run-thing to me.

And so as I studied the Restoration magazines of ‘79 and ‘80 up popped Tomlinson’s name. In those days he was a leader in a Restoration community run by big-man “apostle” Bryn Jones. Jones' authority “covered” a particular brand of Restorationism that had communities across the land and this included a church in my city who called themselves Norwich Christian Fellowship. The claim to covering authority was, and always is, bogus in as much as no Western religious leader can in principle impose his will on another: The leaders of Christian communities have neither economic nor coercive control of the Christians in their fellowships; after all, the people under “covering authority” can in theory simply walk out. But of course the practice is far more insidious: For religious authority to work in the Western church it must engage in serious (self) deceptions about its legitimacy to authoritatively dispense knowledge of God’s will when guiding followers. Unfortunately this deception often works well especially if the “advice” from leaders is backed up by threats of divine displeasure if it isn't followed. Moreover, the best deceivers are those leaders who really believe their own deceptions and this is almost always true of those religious leaders who rank themselves as having "covering authority" over believers.

However, back to the story of David Tomlinson. Tomlinson was interviewed in the May/June 1979 edition of Restoration Magazine. As one of the leaders of the community under Bryn Jones covering authority he had recently visited a church in Argentina in order to spread the word about the Christian Restoration. In the magazine article Tomlinson was asked questions about his visit. In the light of Tomlinson’s subsequent history this interview is in my opinion very telling as it hints at his eventual change of heart. The Restoration magazines in my possession were borrowed and so I had to write out sections of text from these magazines which I did in blue ink and then added my own comments in red ink.  Here then is the typescript taken from my notes:  See if you too can sense that for Tomlinson the goal posts where moving. But as you read these notes remember that at this juncture Tomlinson is still at the stage where he needed to play to the restorationist gallery by affirming their message; namely,  that churches should get under a covering system of apostles and prophets:

Title of article “HELLO ARGENTINA”: An interview with David Tomlinson.

My comment in 1982: Tomlinson gives some general comments on the spiritual state of the church in Argentina. So far there is not much hint of the specific restorationist message until he is asked:

Question: What were you able to share that would help make further progress (Editor’s note: progress re. Restorationism)

Tomlinson: I’ve already alluded to their different starting place. They have developed out of an emphasis on Christ’s authority and a strong concept of a pastoral ministry; hence their emphasis on making disciples etc. Over here (i.e. in the UK) church renewal has stemmed out of a more charismatic approach; that is gifts and ministries of the Spirit. They were appreciative of our open and practical teaching on the relevance of apostles and prophecy in the church today as those bringing over-sight, vision and guidance to churches under their care. Hopefully we were not only able to bring teaching on the subject, but also to help “push the boat out of the harbor”

(Editor’s note: Tomlinson has just played to the Restorationist leadership gallery to keep them happy. But then there is this)

My Comment in 1982: Seemingly the Buenos Aires church had no “structural emphasis” on apostles and prophets. This may well have abashed Tomlinson as he now follows up with an answer to this question:

Question: I know that you were blessed in giving to them. What do you feel your received?

Tomlinson: A deep challenge regarding the quality of life I saw leaders building into the people in their care. A couple of the jig-saw pieces fell into place in my own life, especially through my fellowship with brothers like Keith Bentson. Since I returned I have found my ministry directed strongly toward the individuals walk with God, in the conviction that this is where the strength of our churches lies. Modes of structure, leadership and ministries are all of them important (Editor’s note: That’s right, keep the gallery sweet!) but there can be no substitute for a close walk with God.

My Comment in 1982: Perhaps Tomlinson sensed that the Restorationist “structural emphasis” was rather lost in the real and uncontrived world of the Argentine churches. He also sensed that the real message of the Gospel is directed toward the restoration of the human system rather than the social system – that comes first and social systems are a product of it. In fact we have here a coupled pair:

Individual state ó social relations

It is at the level of the individual that the gospel beaks into this cycle. Like us all Tomlinson may have undergone the experience of seeing how God’s work easily breaks out of the categories we have formed.

….easily breaks out of the categories we have formed.  In 1982 it wasn’t yet clear how category breaking and iconoclastic Tomlinson was going to get! Somehow one senses that Tomlinson’s off the peg Restorationist message about structure and authority is a poor fit given the realities of this Argentinian church. And Tomlinson also senses it. But he is still endeavoring to keep the Restorationist gallery sweet by making sure he puts in all that sycophantic stuff about the importance of leaders.

I’m convinced that Tomlinson was feeling the beginnings of disaffection even in 1979 and was starting to shake himself free of the religious delusions of the restorationist community. So, I wasn’t at all surprised when Tomlinson’s name popped up again in a 1995 review of his book “The Post Evangelical”. By then he clearly had had enough of it all. And by then so had I! I had started out as a moderate evangelical myself in 1973. But by 1995 I had seen more than enough of the excesses of late 20th century evangelicalism: Viz: its weakness for fundamentalism, its Biblical literalism, its anti-science,  its commentators whose excuse for their mediocrity was that they were “in the spirit”, its gnosticism, its bizarre practices, its false prophecies, its authoritarianism, its conspiracy theories and sometimes its downright cultism. I had also seen my fair share of those whose mental problems were disguised by reinterpreting them as spiritual insight; “nutcases” to use the vernacular. To be fair we must acknowledge that many evangelicals eschew all this, but the fact was evangelicalism seemed to be too weak in its cognitive critical immune system to sift out bogus claims and so when those claims came along evangelicals were easy prey. So, given the context of this backdrop Tomlinson’s title “The Post Evangelical” struck a chord with me when I first heard it.

In March’s Christianity article Tomlinson says the following about the phrase “Post Evangelical”:

I see the phrase as a sort of pastoral device, rather than a new systematic theology. For a lot of people who would otherwise feel there was no place for them in church, suddenly this term was a symbol of hope. Obviously it connects with the wider term “postmodernity”. I was trying to contextualize this critical journey people were going on, in terms of their evangelical past, with what was happening in the wider cultural setting.

Tomlinson is probably too postmodern for me, but otherwise he hits the nail on the head. A pastoral device? A journey? Too right! When I first heard the title The Post Evangelical it alone seemed to sum up my feelings, position and connote a microcosm of critical analysis of evangelicalism. Somehow I knew just how Tomlinson felt! The fact is, however, I have never read Tomlinson’s book. But then perhaps I don’t I need to: As Tomlinson himself says in Christianity’s article, when he thought about the phrase Post Evangelical “it immediately felt that you know what it meant” And so it was with me: To a person who felt  there was no place for them in church Tomlinson’s pastoral phrase had done its work! ....