Something I am often saying is that we (Western Christians in respect of living Christianly in the Western world) are in a very difficult place because there is a tide of secularization sweeping our world and it makes our gospel work of witnessing to the Good News of Jesus Christ very difficult.
Secularization is the notion that one doesn't need God to live a blessed life, that society can operate more or less effectively without organised religion, and it has an ever increasing grip on the way we Westerners live.
So we see these days: few people want to hear our message; many people who have heard the message no longer identify as Christians, or if they do still identify as Christians are no longer active in the church; even if there is not outright hostility to the gospel, there is steadfast indifference to it; and generally, in a wonderful world of material plenty, longlife through good health and effective health systems, there seems, for many, no need of God in any sense, let alone the God of Jesus Christ. (Please remember that no matter how long the waiting lists for operations, or how many people need food from foodbanks, across the whole of Western societies we are way better off than our forbears ever were.)
Incidentally, secularization doesn't have much trouble coping with "spirituality" compared to "organised religion"; and it seems, in NZ, to be coping with karakia in public events (whether or not those karakia are thoroughly Trinitarianly Christian or not). What secularization doesn't cope with is that there might be another authority - indeed, the Authority of authorities - than "the state", "public opinion", "me."
Let's be honest: the secularization sweep across societies and cultures has absolutely enjoyed a boost from the many, now well reported failings of churches, especially in respect of sexual and spiritual abuse. failure to lift women into leadership and slowness to keep up with scientific discoveries.
Back to my key point which is this, we underestimate the tide of secularization at our ecclesial peril. We are in a situation where we must pray, be faithful to Jesus, bear testimony to Jesus, and hope hugely that God's power through the pervasive Holy Spirit in our world will find a way out of this current "dark age" into a new age of (true, gospel) enlightenment. Yes, let's do all we can with our courses and programmes, with improving our welcomes at the church door and what happens inside the church worship and teaching spaces: through such things people come to faith, people remain in the faith, and God is honoured. Yes, let's celebrate every church which is growing in numbers, especially because people are becoming Christians.
But let's do all we can with eyes wide open to the scale of what we face as census declarations of Christian identity wane, as church attendance (across all churches) declines (either in sheer numbers or in proportion to a growing population or both), and as we face closures of churches, parish mergers and so forth.
What prompts me to write thus and so this week?
A recent post by John Sandeman at The Other Cheek alerts us to this:
"... Nexus, a conference attended by evangelical ministers mostly of the Sydney Anglican variety. ...
From all accounts, they were examining responses to the attendance drop in Sydney Anglicanism, frankly facing up to their problems. For a overview of the stats a good place to start is the passionate speech by Dominic Steele complete with graphs that slope down, down that he gave at the Sydney Synod (church parliament) – he happens to host the Nexus conference at the Annadale Village church he leads."
(As an aside, the post linked to above is actually about some interesting observations made by a Presbyterian at the conference.)
What did Dominic Steele have to say?
"Steele began with this graph, which shows a steady attendance until 2017, then a decline which is projected through the Covid years of 2020 and 2021 and a bounce back in 2023. Steele noted: “Sydney Anglican adult attendance declined 6.7% between 2013 and 2023, or 14 percent against population.”"
Now, in the Anglican world of the West, Sydney is "the" diocese which stands staunch on certain fundamentals of the "orthodox" Anglican faith, stands true as "conservative" on the spectrum of theological positions held by Anglicans, and stands out in its contribution to leadership of and within GAFCON. When the jibe is made (often by certain pundits of my acquaintance) that the only growing churches in the Anglican Communion are the conservative, orthodox ones, I can only presume that such generalisation includes the Diocese of Sydney ... even as it is meant to exclude, oh, I don't know, my own diocese [smile].
But the evidence is not supportive of this generalisation that the staunchly orthodox grow. Church growth through conversions is hard in our secular world. If any diocese in the Western world should grow on the basis that one particular approach to gospel ministry is destined to succeed, then it should be Sydney. But like all of us, it too is finding it difficult to counter the tide of secularization.
To be very clear: this post is not having a go at Sydney re its particular character. That might or might not be a post for another day. It could be that the statistics of church attendance are such that Sydney is doing, so to speak, "least worst" of all dioceses in the Western world, that is, it is the best of all of us.
The question remains, I suggest, that there are no easy answers to the matter of "what then should we do?" as gospel Anglicans eager to see people come to faith, for the church to grow in numbers as well as in depth.
There are, however, some straightforward things we should do simply because we love the Lord Jesus Christ: pray, bear witness to the love of God in Jesus Christ, through word and deed, give praise to God, and break bread together. The Holy Spirit is in charge!
"What secularization doesn't cope with is that there might be another authority - indeed, the Authority of authorities - than "the state", "public opinion", "me." " (Peter, above)
ReplyDeleteSurely the Spirit is in this. Surely the Spirit has been blowing us past such images of divinity - as "Authority of authorities" - for quite sometime.
Jesus called the Sovereign Creator God 'Daddy', and called his followers 'friends' (rather than followers, servants, or students etc).
I told a colleague down from Auckland that I was creating a blog. She is from a completely non-church, non-religious background, but was very excited, to my embarrassment and surprise, that the blog was going to be on Christianity (and not psychotherapy etc.).
Within the secular age, there has been a shift in recent years, in my lifetime. Non-Christian people I meet (friends, clients) generally don't seem very hostile to religion or Christianity anymore. Quite often they are very interested now. And yes, absolutely, they are also not interested by and large in church as we've been doing it (whether in conservative or liberal guise). 'Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church'...
But Jesus did what Daddy wanted always, even at the cost of his life. Isn’t that being under authority, though the authority of love?
ReplyDeleteYes but it seems rather formal and distant to characterize that surrenderof Christ to the Father and being under 'the Authority of authorities.' I'm not even sure "obedience" is very helpful, especially if one thinks in a trinitarian way.
ReplyDeletePlus - and I know you'll love this point, Moya! - we have but the flawed words of Christ's flawed followers trying to make sense of this comet of a life!
I certainly don't experience God as asking me to be 'under His Authority '. That sounds more like a boot camp - or an abusive traditional marriage - than an invitation to love. I guess I'm a child of the secular generation, and we are *very* sensitive to such language! Rightly so of course!
[Peter, above] The question remains, I suggest, that there are no easy answers to the matter of "what then should we do?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a great Q to think about. My personal response is.. we show up, we tell the truth. (That means taking great care in discerning the truth for a start).
I've read an OP this morning that begins with this quote:
“Engage in speaking the truth, so that we do not mislead anyone by our silence.” — Book of Common Prayer
The OP's in the Baptist News by Catherine Meeks, an Episcopalian. I can see Bishop Budde's sermon is bearing fruit! A link from the article took me to Christ the King Episcopal Church in Georgia and it's worth having a look at their website especially the Civil Rights Mural page. I've decided to learn more about Catherine Meeks.. somehow she hasn't been on my radar!
https://baptistnews.com/article/heres-one-way-to-do-something-and-not-remain-silent/
https://christthekingvaldosta.org/index.php/civil-rights-mural-2/
Huge topic +Peter…. I saw a brief TV half an hour of the clash of Kingdoms between Rome and the Jews/Jerusalem, and perhaps in a very metaphorical sense this is where we are at again…. Albeit we may not see secularism as a kingdom, it might just be - who or what rules it? It does seem Christianity is not the bees knees at the moment, certainly many people are nominally accepting of church as good for a community and many are not. In the ‘I can do what is right for me’ attitude of modern society I can see it is driven by and underlying reluctance to have to answer to anything or anyone in the doing.
ReplyDeleteI was filled with hopeful optimism when I learnt that Britain was only 5% Christian at the time of the Wesley brothers transformation into preachers and teachers…. I do think Liz that simply or not so simply speaking up and being willing to talk in all sorts of situations about our faith to others or discuss issues of faith is definitely a place to start. I know I have to challenge myself to do it when the opportunity arises as it is so easy to let it pass. However, as you say +Peter no easy answer!!
Mark I may have thought along the same lines as you at one time. Now submitting or surrendering to God through Christ contains a very personal element for me. Perhaps it is the aspect of free will, for in my heart it is not an Authority forced upon but one as Moya says of love, as chosen. Like the biblically illustration of the servant set free who then chooses to get his ear pierced that bonds him to His master for life… a response to love rather than power. For love is safe… and God’s love and authority safer even than my own reasoning and definitely more so than following the foibles of humanity at large. I need as Jesus described Himself to be, a plumb-line other than myself and higher than the justice of man to follow.
Russell Moore's lesson today (<13min), "Three Little Birds" addresses reality of human fear and failure; the grace in which we're held; and reawakening/new life. Expressed via the story of Peter's denial and restoration, with reference to Raven, Rooster and Dove. I found it a delightful and helpful resource alongside +Peter's post and the subsequent comments.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a bit slow at the start? but well worth staying with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDzVJzA3X6s
Thanks for the Three Birds link, Liz. So true! Look for the coming of the Dove, wherever…
ReplyDeleteAs I’ve mentioned here before, I would argue that the biggest drivers away from religion and Christianity are the actions of religious people themselves. When influential people wear their religion on their sleeves while pushing cruel and ridiculous public policies, looking the other way when it comes to sexual abuse, and promoting ideas that have no basis in reality, it’s no wonder so many people around the world come to the conclusion that there’s no value in those beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThey’re not even considering whether the faith is right or wrong, but rather considering the real-world implications of those beliefs and realising that no amount of rationalising justifies what people are doing in the name of God.
Regards Thomas
Hi Thomas are you referring to religious people overseas? I am interested in how you formed your perspective. I can relate to your comments if I think of the U.S. but in NZ I don’t see too many influential people wearing religion on their sleeves let alone Christianity, if anything most tend to shy away from it. The sexual abuse issue and the hiding of it of course exists everywhere in terms of countries, and in those countries in the church, many organisations and the family unit etc
ReplyDeleteHi Jean
ReplyDeleteSurely you have heard of Brian Houston, Peter Mortlock, Brian Tamaki, Hopeful Christian et al!
Regards, Thomas
I thank Thomas for prompting me to search online (I'd forgotten who Peter Mortlock is) which resulted in me finding a NZ article, from back when Auckland was experiencing Covid restrictions, and Brian Tamaki and Peter Mortlock were organising protest rallies.
ReplyDeleteThe article by this Māori Baptist youth pastor is so good...
https://christiantoday.com.au/news/crazy-conspiracy-christians-are-giving-me-a-headache.html
e.g. this paragraph: "Brian Tamaki, Peter Mortlock, and many other Christian leaders are adamant that apocalyptic persecution is occurring right now for churches and society, rather than a necessary societal response to a once-in-a-century pandemic."
At the end, the author observes: "To be frank, they did not portray Christ and His Spirit."
In the article, he'd already called for more discernment:
"Think. Discern. Use wisdom."
Amen (and stay alert). ~Liz
Brian Tamaki I have heard of : ) and I know Brian Houston founded Hillsong in Aussie…. Hopeful Christian I don’t think of, or Gloriavale as more of a cult than a church. Peter Mortlock no.
ReplyDeleteYour initial comment led me more to reflecting on those people I think of as being influential within the New Zealand landscape at large - which I guess was largely politicians (as you mentioned policy) or those with celebrity status or sporting achievements or those with well-known reputations such as say Dame Kiri Te Kanawa (just to pull one out of the hat!)…
I can recognise Brian Tamaki definitely has a large influence over his flock albeit he does seem to create a rather ‘oh no’ response from the majority of Christian communities, in terms of how his actions and words can at times give a mis-leading impression - because of the media attention he attracts - regarding how the majority of Christian’s practice and live out their faith.
Church abuse scandals certainly don't help, but I don't think that's the main reason why churches are struggling for numbers.
ReplyDeleteI think Peter's larger point is right: secularization is a huge, huge trend. Churches can't beat it back or flip it overnight. And that goes for all churches, even conservative, strongly affiliative congregations.
Iain McGilchrist's thesis on 'the divided brain' and 'the making of the modern western mind' offers another take on all this, from the perspective of neuroscience and the history of ideas...
See the lovely, user-friendly TedX summary posted on my new blog (shameless self promotion) for more details)...
https://www.tumblingages.co.nz/blog-2/faith-is-bilateral
Following McGilchrist, we might call secularization 'the age of left brain dominance'. We can see how fraught this is - for churches, new atheists, and society in general - though it's very hard to see how it turns around anytime soon.
Mark
www.tumblingages.co.nz
Look, I'm just going to say this as a general comment...
ReplyDeletewhen Thomas says:
"As I’ve mentioned here before, I would argue that the biggest drivers away from religion and Christianity are the actions of religious people themselves."
I agree with him. And what's the point of trying to pin down the relative importance of this bad thing or that bad thing, and decide what the main thing is? Clearly there's multiple factors that ALL need to be considered.
But it has to be said that a lot of females have been driven from "the church" (general sense) by horrible attitudes toward them (and/or their kids), from men, whether sexual abuse or not. And when females aren't coming, it's likely their kids aren't either.
Thomas specifically refers to "looking the other way when it comes to sexual abuse". I appreciate his clarity. The issue must be faced and many Christian men who aren't personally abusive would still seem to much prefer turning a blind eye to the myriad of ways in which females are treated as being "lesser"; this is just another form of "looking the other way".
E.g. the CofE and it's special clause for women bishops where the women are *still* required to allow "alternative oversight" for those male clergy who object to being overseen by a woman bishop. Does the church think we females don't notice such appeasement?
I think about these things when, on the odd occasion, I mull over if I'd like to participate in ACANZP. ACANZP is part of the Anglican Communion and therefore has a special relationship with the CofE.. do I want to be involved with something associated with the CofE? I think not.
Liz, I completely agree on the injustice of the English situation, as do many member of the CofE. It's awful.
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from, Liz, but I suspect that in the traditional churches women far outweigh the men, apart from the hierarchy. Though that is probably changing with many more women at least being ordained, than used to happen.
ReplyDeleteBut I don’t see any lack of young women in the type of church that attracts people by more upbeat means.They are full of youth and young families. Even they are not reversing the downward trend of church attendance though.
So there are other factors at play, maybe including Mark’s comment about left brain dominance in Western culture. People who still think science is antithetical to faith are probably still in the majority.
Thanks for responses. I was just thinking.. even if numbers decrease but those who remain are committed to truth, love and justice, and willing to confront lies and deception.. that would be thrilling! Not a 'fail', just the opposite. I still feel really encouraged by Bishop Budde's sermon and TEC backing her; that level of commitment sends a powerful message.
ReplyDeleteHi Liz again and Moya,
ReplyDeleteI do like the phrase/principle: *Ecclesia semper reformanda* - "the church must always be reformed"
People who long for change of certain aspects of the church - be it the CofE, or the Roman Catholic Church, or a local Quaker meeting, or the Anglican Church in NZ, Polynesia, and Aotearoa, or my local St Someone of Somewhere - face a dilemma as to whether stay and work for change somehow, although it maybe be difficult and costly, or bugger them all and leave, depleting said church of further energy to change.
I'm almost always in this group and have gone both ways at different points (left, stayed away, stayed and try to change things).
It seems grossly unjust that a vicar in England can choose to not recognize the authority of their local bishop, just because their local bishop is female. It is somewhat reassuring to know that many in the CofE feel this way too. It is also reassuring to know that this has never been the position of the Anglican Church here, which is both fully independent of the CofE and never went down the path of parallel dioceses or episcopal apartheid when it made the decision to ordain women.