Today, I received an email today from the Evangelical Alliance (to which I belong). Its main business was to promote their Christmas message, but it trailed other things, too. One was the latest snippet from their ‘21st Century Evangelicals‘ project. This was on political engagement. Here’s what it said:
The latest in the Alliance’s 21st Century Evangelicals research series looks at the question of how Christians are communicating as the world changes, bringing new technologies, new media and new ways in which we speak and listen to the world around us. The research shows that Christians are engaging in politics to a far greater degree than the average British citizen, and their weapon of choice is social media.
Clearly they’re pleased with evangelicals being more politically engaged than most citizens. That in principle is good. There’s just one problem. Did they mean to use the word ‘weapon’? Did that deliberately convey a confrontational approach to politics by evangelicals? Was it an unwitting testimony to the way many of us in the evangelical tradition campaign politically – as badly as the mainstream politicians we criticise? Was it just accidental, in that they happened upon the familiar phrase ‘weapon of choice’?
Let’s hope it was just an accident. Because ‘our fight is not against flesh and blood’.
I think they may well have meant ‘platform’ – in any case that’s maybe a more appropriate word. You’re right; our battle is spiritual and our weapons are not carnal.
Yes, I would prefer ‘platform’. The trouble is, some evangelical organisations do have a reputation for aggression. Not the EA itself, but some other groups.