Recently I have had access to the Australian Church Record, specifically the [Sydney] Synod 2024 issue.
On pp. 3ff is an article "Attendance Decline Report."
It discusses a report going to the Diocese of Sydney Synod which addresses the matter of a decline in attendance across Sydney Anglican churches, summarised thus:
"The report itself is clear in its major findings. Across the 436 Church Centres that existed within the Diocese between 2013 to 2023, the overall adult attendance declined in raw percentage numbers by 6.7%, or by 14.4% when you consider population growth."
In part the article proposes the Synod is honest about the statistics. In part the article notes that statistics always need some delving into. In another part the article encourages ministry leaders to be faithful - God measures our faithfulness and not our attendance statistics. Amen. Amen. Amen.
But something the article does not reflect on is this. The Sydney Anglican diocese has good form, whether through its leadership boycotting Lambeth Conferences and the like, or leading individuals who tell the rest of the Anglican world whether it is "faithful" to the Gospel or not, "orthodox" or not, and truly "biblical" or not. Implied in such claims, of course, is that on the side of such claims is impressive attendance statistics: look, we're right and have the numbers to prove it; you're wrong and your attendance figures show what a lost (liberal/progressive/whatever) cause you are (mistakenly) following.
Now, it is very true that Sydney Anglicans have very impressive attendance figures relative to other Australian Anglican dioceses. It is also very true that there are forms of Christianity which are not cutting the attendance mustard in the modern or post-modern Western world: genuinely "liberal" or "progressive" congregations are hurting with falling numbers.
But this decline in Sydney Anglican attendances suggests a bit of reflection, beyond what the article envisages, as to what the nature of the Gospel is in the ever changing face of Western society. If the Sydney version is not growing the church, if its best claim is (say) that it is declining less rapidly than other dioceses hereabouts, then is there not a question whether we (Sydney as well as the rest of us) are all missing an acute, adept, adapted understanding of the Gospel which will win a hearing and secure a growing church in the 21st century?
Might we, further, continue our common quest to find what the Gospel is for this day and age without the rancour of lobbing claims about (un)faithful, (un)orthodox, (un)biblical, etc at each other. Instead of lobbing theological grenades, might we humbly continue dialogue within ourselves and, indeed, dialogue with our Western society as to the meaning of the Gospel for today?
Evangelism is hard in the Western world. The Sydney stats bear this out - they undergird what other dioceses know only too well. It is tough out there to share the Gospel in a post-Christian world - a world which operates on the basis that Christianity has come, produced mixed results in society, and thankfully is on its way out. (That same post-Christian world has not come up with anything which much improves on the Christian gospel as a basis for a just, kind and grace-filled society!)
Amidst all the turmoil in Western Christianity (e.g. how have we become so confused that we think Trump is a saviour and eschewing vaccines is cutting edge discipleship?) we need - as faithful, orthodox, biblical Christians - to continue working on what the Gospel is for our world.
In the first century, the earliest Christians managed to:
- change the Aramaic preaching of Jesus into four differing Gospel narratives written in Greek
- shift gear from agrarian Galilee oriented parables to engagement with Hellenistic philosophy (e.g. 1 Corinthians, Hebrews)
- reflect on what the Jewish Jesus's gospel's common ground with contemporary Judaism(s) was and what was distinctive about it as Jews and Jewish Christians worked through the meaning of Jesus Christ's teaching, life, death and resurrection (e.g. Romans, Galatians)
- rework Jewish apocalyptic literature such as Daniel, resisting the encroachment of Hellenism as a culture and Hellenistic imperialism as anti-Israel's God, into Revelation which resisted the encroachment of Roman imperialism in both economic domination and idolatrous practices by proclaiming the kingdom of God and Christ.
In the second and third centuries, the next generations of Christians took the engagement with and, as appropriate, adaptation of Hellenistic philosophy several steps further in the quest to spread the Gospel message.
Naturally there were many intra Christian disputes and dramas along the way of that working out of the meaning of the Gospel for the ancient world of the Mediterranean region (e.g. Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, the writings of (e.g.) Tertullian and Origen express such disputes). We are having disputes and dramas today. But, just maybe, recognising that we Anglicans are all struggling re attendances, we could turn the dial down a bit and work on dialogue as a way forward rather than dispute?
20 comments:
Might ADU readers be interested in an example of dialogue across difference? If so, this could be posted. TEC Bishop of Atlanta, Bishop Rob Wright, found himself at the same lunch table as ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach (Georgia; grew up in Atlanta) at an event to plan a celebration of Bishop Tutu. Being together at the table led to them doing this lively discussion (12 Aug 2022 podcast).
"The episode lays bare the differences between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America in an honest dialogue of the major differences of the denominations. But in today’s all-or-nothing world where differences usually result in anger, recrimination, and withdrawal, Beach and Wright show Christian maturity in discussing the ordination of women and our LGTQB+ siblings."
I found learning about Abp Foley's faith journey made him more relatable than, say, my perception from some of his past public statements!
https://forpeople.buzzsprout.com/952672/episodes/11122609-a-conversation-with-archbishop-foley-beach
You're really testing me Liz with Foley Beach!
Well yes, Mark.. I know. It's a good listen though! :)
A "re-flowering" of Christ within our desert culture? A long listen but worth it (I don't agree with everything here, but)...Paul Kingsnorth and Martin Shaw on their unlikely 'conversions' to Christianity:
https://youtu.be/uqq9jEJpaww?si=ZOkfgp82IIEjgjC8
Paul Kingsnorth: "The wilderness tradition in the Christian faith"; search for holy places, holy wells....this has especially missionary potential, shall we say, for NZ men.
Thanks for the YouTube link Mark. I've watched nearly an hour, finding I connect wonderfully well with the discussion, particularly about journey, experience and transformation. I've spent some time in Cornwall/Devon too so another layer of connection.
Martin Shaw touched on something I felt related directly to +Peter's thoughts about declining attendance stats and what we're missing, i.e. what "will win a hearing and secure a growing church in the 21st century?" I picked up on this via Martin Shaw:
"I think we are in a growth fixated culture and depth actually is what we long for"
Paul Kingsnorth later says, "If you don't go on the journey there's probably a danger of there not being enough depth to what you find or to what you do".
I was a late starter in such a journey, what these guys discuss rings true of the walk I've been on for ~7yrs of (slow) progress; it's great listening to them!
Thanks Liz. That was a really interesting conversation and very relevant to +Peter's post. In many ways, Bishop Rob and Archbishop Foley are so alike. Bishop Rob's point around ACNA creating more "elasticity" around woman's ordination as analogous to sexual diversity in the Anglican Communion ("two integrities" in NZ) was the sharpest part of the conversation for me.
I think this conversation takes me back to what *dialogue* is, which is part of +Peter's point/plea. I practice a form of psychotherapy that uses the Jewish philiosopher/theologian Martin Buber's concept of dialogue as foundational. For Buber, dialogue is contrasted with monologue. Specifically, Buber talked about true dialogue as both empathic and robust and marked by four qualities: *presence* (both parties are genuinely themselves and present in the moment with each other - "I and Thou in the here-and-now"), *inclusion* (we listen to and feel the other side without giving up our ground), *confirmation" (our separateness, validity, and common humanity is confirmed for both parties), and *unreserved communication*.
Rob - and Foley - both modelled the non-aggressive forthright communication with each other that is so refreshing. I like the two integrities approach in NZ as it seems honest of our differences and confirming of our separateness and value, yet I also am still waiting to see it accepted in practice by both sides.
Liz,
Those are great quotes you have extracted from the Kingsnorth-Shaw conversation. Thank you. Very relevant for this thread.
There are so many riches in this dialogue: the (largely lost) wilderness tradition in Christianity: wilderness, initiation, and male spiritual vitality, the urgency of ecology in an age of planetary extinction, the wildness of God (beyond our rational, tidy, wordy experiences) numerous etc. I wished there were people like Paul and Martin around to guide me when I was younger and the church and culture offered basically nothing.
I do wonder about the tendency of formal churches to ignore all this, for this vital spiritual life and reawakening to happen on the side, as and in "para-church". I also feel suspicious about the modernism vs (premodern) Christianity that Paul and Martin espouse and their alliance with unreformed, premodern orthodoxy.
I'd love for churches to be bold and creative, like they were in times of great crisis - e.g. the reformation. To treat climate catastrophe and our alienation from the sensuous, "natural" world as occasions to be truly bold. A few suggestions: include a reading from the oldest Christian scripture, the book of creation (11.7 billion years before the Bible) at the beginning of all services (before the Bible and communion), revive the tradition of holy wells and get each parish to adopt a nearby 'holy water ', declare nature the eighth (or third) sacrament and form appropriate sacramental rites and liturgy around this.
I was reading in 1 Thessalonians this morning that Paul preached the gospel amid great opposition, and it bore fruit . What most Western countries have is not opposition but indifference. Changing what happens in a service is not going to cut it, it seems to me.
Some are indifferent. Others are far, far from that - especially around issues that break open our indifference, our "armouring". The natural world - its beauty, its perilous condition, its wild god-filled presence - is potentially one of those spiritual ice-breakers.
Making nature the eighth (third) sacrament isn't a minor change :)
But, yes, I don't expect formal churches to be bold around this. This energy will probably go elsewhere.
"Amidst all the turmoil in Western Christianity (e.g. how have we become so confused that we think Trump is a saviour and eschewing vaccines is cutting edge discipleship?) we need - as faithful, orthodox, biblical Christians - to continue working on what the Gospel is for our world."
SO important and I thank you for the clarity of this statement, +Peter.
An OP I read this morning in 'The Washington Post' shines a light on sources of 'confusion' and offers deep thinking about how we respond to the formidable forces we face.
"Is there any way to drain the fever swamps so we can stand together on firmer, higher ground?"
Content warning - a range of sensitive issues: politics, religion, racism, violence, extreme language. Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton please don't let that stop you reading this article, I promise it's worth it! It's not all about her. She's engaging with interesting people, a complex context, and challenging issues.
OP | Hillary Clinton: To err is human, to empathize is superhuman.
~ GIFT link: https://wapo.st/3TFmQyF
I couldn't read the article, Liz, as I didn't want to sign up to another newsfeed etc., but I like the expression: 'drain the fever swamps'!
I'll add the normal link in case WP allows casual visitors a freebie: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/25/hillary-clinton-book-extremism-empathy/
And Mark, my apologies! They didn't used to do that. Thanks for telling me (and check your email inbox). ~Liz
"..how have we become so confused [etc]"
It surprised me today to learn that in 2010 Trump was already well-connected with evangelicals, he was guest of honour at a banquet for Pat Robertson.
"Virtually every evangelical luminary was there. When Robertson introduced his guest of honor, Donald J. Trump, I was shocked. In Bible college, my preaching instructor had suggested that the New York playboy was a perfect illustration for what it meant to not live as a Christian. I asked a friend of Pat’s why Trump was there. They both were “members of the billionaires’ club,” he explained. “Besides, he may make a good president someday.” Trump worked the room, filled with the biggest names on the religious right, garnering hearty applause." ~Rev Rob Schenck
Rob Schenck was an insider at the time, a leader who facilitated building close relationships with some Supreme Court justices.
He eventually left "the fold":
"When I arrived at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Trump’s nomination was a fait accompli. Sitting at a luncheon table with evangelical leaders, I expressed bewilderment over our support of him. Repeatedly, I was assured he would advance our cause. After Trump’s acceptance speech, I decided to leave the fold."
Evangelicals desire for a champion for their cause appears to have trumped other concerns.
(Rob Schenck regrets his involvement; he now does what he can to repair some of the harm done)
The quotes are from a recent article by Schenck (read it today for the 1st time, v.interesting):
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/rob-schenck-confessions-of-a-former-christian-nationalist/
Oh Liz, that’s horrifying… but thanks for insight into the campaigns.
Seriously, why are you surprised? America is a two-party system so it offers you a binary choice of the lesser of two evils; unlike little New Zealand, with its multitude of parties (Nats, Labour, ACT, NZF, Greens, Maori etc) and the horse trading that takes place after elections, so that you may not know for weeks who the new government will be. Democrats court the black churches, Republicans court the white churches. Obama did the same with the Rev Jeremiah Wright, and DA Fanni Willis invoked the Almighty in her 'prayer' in that Atlanta church (while carrying on her affair with Nathan Wade). It's all kabuki theatre. Democrats used to have the Catholic vote in their pocket, until they succumbed to the cultural revolution and went pro-abortion and pro-gay. Do you think Christians should abstain from the dirty business of politics? The Jehovah's Witnesses would agree with you.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
William, it may not be a two party system after the elections results in November. Republican policy resembles something out of the Handmaid’s Tale! “Under his eye” Regards Thomas
Of course, Christians must be involved in politics, but what disturbed me was the amount of money and power play in the process. It makes me wonder if they or we can ever get back to what +Peter said in the post: ‘we need - as faithful, orthodox, biblical Christians - to continue working on what the Gospel is for our world’.
"Seriously, why are you surprised?"
Because I knew Trump had connected with Paula White-Cain his spiritual advisor (and prosperity gospel tele-evangelist) as early as 2001-2002. I didn't know he'd also linked-up with traditional evangelicals by 2010, although I knew he'd enjoyed watching preaching (e.g. Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart).
"Do you think Christians should abstain from the dirty business of politics?"
I'm fine with Christian participation in politics but "dirty business" doesn't sit well with Jesus words to the Pharisee/Lawyer about the greatest and second-greatest commandments i.e. love of God and love of neighbour. I'd hope to see more grace! I'm not ok with Dominionism/Christian Nationalism.
Thinking about "the Gospel".....
Tonight, reading about Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, I pulled these quotes from the final paragraphs (he says to refocus on those who have been rejected):
"The Gospel, he insists, is about lifting up the poor." [...]
"There is no way to mend the flaws of the nation and be one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all unless the rejected are at the center. We can’t find our way out of the mess we’re in with a left focus or a right focus. We’ve got to refocus on those who have been rejected."
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/william-barber-gary-dorrien-moral-majority-social-gospel-mlk
Post a Comment