Cross-posted at Shreds and Patches.

Those of us who have reached a certain age were brought up to think of the town in which we lived as being largely Christian. The population divided itself up into denominations, largely based on family loyalty. We were Episcopalians because our parents were. Of course some became Episcopalians through marriage. A few joined from other denominations for one reason or another.

There were enough Episcopalians around to let us “do church.” By tradition we attracted at least a few wealthy people who gave generously. Our clergy spent most of their time looking after us, as we met for worship, or attended guilds and groups.

The thought of evangelism rarely crossed our consciousness. Who would we evangelize? Most everyone went to church. There were a few who didn’t, but they seemed hopeless cases. At Epiphanytide, if we thought about evangelism at all it was in terms of foreign missionaries working overseas. Perhaps we sent some extra money to African missionaries and felt rather good about it.

We could largely live to ourselves as churches, just as our ancestors had. True there were some churches around who seemed to want to convert everyone, but as most people were Christians we presumed they continually reconverted each other.

It is hard for us to adjust to the new reality. Most people in our communities are not practicing Christians. The old loyalty to one’s “denomination” has largely evaporated. People “shop” for church, and make their choice often on the basis on the “program” a church offers, its youth activities, singles’ club, or contemporary worship. There are a good number who don’t look for a church. They can’t see how what Christians do has any relevance to the life they live and the problems they face. Many churches in our area are barely surviving, living off endowments, and peopled by aging parishioners who cling to the old way of doing things to please those who attend and particularly those who have attended the longest!

Yet the Feast of the Epiphany reminds us of our calling to be communities with The Message. Jesus didn’t tell us to construct local Upper Rooms, where we could huddle “for fear.” Instead he told us to “Go Tell” about Him. If evangelism is about recruitment, it is about recruiting people who will join us in using the local building as base camp from which we reach out into the community. Talking about a church “home” is really rather bad. Homes are comfortable places. They exist for us. The church exists for others.

It is really rather a waste of time concentrating on how we may make the church more efficient at drawing people in, or making the church more “attractive.” Rather we need to concentrate on learning the skills of apostleship. An apostle is a person chosen and given power of attorney to represent Jesus. This is our calling. That is why the Sunday after Epiphany takes us to Jesus’ baptism; His commitment to service.

We can’t take on our real calling as a church until we stop trying to cling onto the old ways, doing what we have always done for us, in smaller and smaller numbers until the light goes out. No one out there needs our church. They need our Lord.
View the original post

Thanks Tony.

We can’t take on our real calling as a church until we stop trying to cling onto the old ways, doing what we have always done for us, in smaller and smaller numbers until the light goes out. No one out there needs our church. They need our Lord.

Two comments and some reflections.

1 It is NOT about the Church but about Jesus Christ as Savior of the world and Lord.  I vividly remember a small meeting that you and I attended some years ago in Indiana where a person in introducing themselves said (loose quote) “I don’t care about Jesus, all I care about is the Church.”  Sadly IMHO, we have made an idol of the Church in the same way that ancient Israel made an idol of the Law, to the exclusion of God.  The sooner we (the Church) get on with preaching Christ and Him crucified the better.

2 One of the reasons that I have delighted, all my life, to visit beyond the C of E is that I have learned so much from different ways of being the Church.  I am talking of local tradition becoming more important than anything else.  A writing in stone of local customs and traditions that does in fact inhibit spiritual growth and vitality.  This happens at a variety of levels - examples being young people encountering resistance among the older members, the power of “gatekeepers” to keep out any one different from the pews (I am thinking in part of Charles Simeon’s ministry in Cambridge and the resistance there.  The same can be said of the resistance to the Wesley brothers.)  I realize that resistance to things different and new can open the door to advocating things new that are counter to established doctrine and that is currently part of our Anglican difficulties.
I have been enormously refreshed by encountering the Church in foreign lands - including the US and Canada in years past and recently in Africa and South/Central America.  They do things differently that are not by being different, wrong.  On the other hand I do believe that what has happened in TEC in recent years is wrong with its doctrinal error as well as its tearing of the fabric of the Communion.

Meanwhile back to Evangelism.
It was in the seventies that PECUSA developed a number of new licenses and one of these was to be an evangelist.  Sadly nothing came of this initiative.  When in Kenya a few years ago I encountered parish evangelists and indeed at one point was privileged to train and work with some.  Their role has been vital in the expansion of the Kingdom in that country.  When accompanying a medical mission in Northern Kenya it was the evangelists who had prepared the way for us.  When preaching to a Swahili or tribal language service it was the evangelists who were the most effective interpreters.  A dear friend has moved to Madagascar as an Anglican bishop and missionary and he uses and trains evangelists for the preaching of the Gospel and the spreading of the Kingdom.  Here is Peru we are developing a curriculum and training program from which we hope will come “parish Evangelists,” who will work under the bishop and with local congregations. 

In all of this it is about the Lord and NOT simply about the Church - the Church is the vehicle that, God willing, is the messenger as well as the effective “lifeboat.”  If the Church does not find again its vocation then indeed it is redundant.  The lights will go out.  God will have to raise up other “children” from the stones (sorry John Baptist for mutilating your message a tad!)

Speaking about evangelism to people who have not, like the disciples, spent time with Jesus is to lay intolerable burdens on their backs.

How in the world can people go out into the world and tell their “stories about Jesus” when they have never met him?

I wholeheartedly agree that people need Jesus, not our church. But it is also true that we cannot do the task of evangelism alone. We need to be in a community that supports and encourages its members to share their lives (and so also their faith). A lone ranger evangelist ends up sharing an individualistic gospel, which is not the Gospel.

Very true. If the church becomes the local company of those called out and sent out, then it fulfills its purpose.

Interesting and clearly true Tony.  One of the reasons that I am nervous whenever we are called the community of the Baptized is that it is such a loaded term.  While it clearly should include the role of evangelism and making disciples it has now come to mean something rather different as it is used with its “justice” over tones as well as its being used with a sense of entitlement as to the Kingdom without any corresponding transformation in Christ.  I have used now for years the term a community of disciples.
Blessings - Ian

Charlie,
This is one of the reasons why I so delight to work in the Diocese of Peru which is a missionary/Gospel focused community.  The “Parish Evangelist” project will be precisely based in congregations with a heart for Jesus and the spreading of the gospel - communities/churches that will nurture and grow disciples of Jesus.
Blessings - Ian

Indeed. Baptism has become a symbol of acceptance and of one’s right to be recognized, often divorced from its missional aspect. Israel failed not simply because it went after other Gods but also because it came to look upon “chosenness” as an exclusive right.

AMEN

Fr. Tony Clavier - 09 January 2010 01:37 PM

Indeed. Baptism has become a symbol of acceptance and of one’s right to be recognized, often divorced from its missional aspect. Israel failed not simply because it went after other Gods but also because it came to look upon “chosenness” as an exclusive right.

Off topic: Have we run off all the progressives from Covenant?

I do hope not.

Charlie Clauss - 09 January 2010 05:18 PM

Off topic: Have we run off all the progressives from Covenant?

Nope. But there is little point to even attempt further discourse with settled minds that expose more than one impasse which cannot be bridged with discourse. Please note that the previous sentence applies to me as well. “Covenant” has an orthodoxy peculiar to itself (largely subservient to the ACI line) and that is fine, but there is just no point in arguing with any vigor.

Michael, perhaps we could begin by naming some of the impasses, without necessarily hoping to bridge them?  That alone could be an interesting exercise.  We might all agree to avoid talking about the sex stuff, that will keep us from disagreeing more than necessary, and simply agree here that we have divergent views of how God wishes us to live sexually, acknowledging that each of us wishes for all a full, enjoyable life in accordance with God’s will, which He in His infinite love also passionately desires for us.

Fr. Tony,

I enjoyed your post. I would be interested in your opinion concerning the following below. Why do you think the percentage is so poor?

• Only 2% of Christian churchgoers share their faith with others.

• 62% of Americans claim to have “a relationship with Jesus Christ that is meaningful to them”. Yet only 10% of those people are involved in practical Christianity and are absolutely committed to prayer.

James Coder - 10 January 2010 10:07 PM

Michael, perhaps we could begin by naming some of the impasses, without necessarily hoping to bridge them?  That alone could be an interesting exercise.  We might all agree to avoid talking about the sex stuff, that will keep us from disagreeing more than necessary, and simply agree here that we have divergent views of how God wishes us to live sexually, acknowledging that each of us wishes for all a full, enjoyable life in accordance with God’s will, which He in His infinite love also passionately desires for us.

Dear James,

    Over the months I have posted here I think I have identified a goodly number of impasses.  Although it is not late on Sunday evening, I will not make you read all my stuff to find them, but name a few.

1) Things essential for salvation and things indifferent.  I believe the conservative realm expands unhelpfully the range of beliefs necessary for salvation. I would posit, with Hooker a minimalist list of things necessary for salvation,,, not much more than proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior.  Read Hooker’s Learned Discourse on Justification.

2) The interpretation and authority of scripture.  With Hooker I argue that scripture is perfect in teaching those things necessary for salvation, but less authoritative in things not necessary.  Anglicanism always rejected the claim that scripture is authoritative in all things simply.  In fact Hooker has harsh words for those who expand the realm of scripture’s authority and thus bring discredit upon it: think creation science for example.

3) The polity of American Anglicanism.  There is a great deal of fiction spun on this site out of the wishful thinking of the ACI about how we are structured.  It is novel and innovative, but not supported by the actual experience and documentation over time.  This also spills over into rather dismissive discussions of lay involvement in making theological decisions in General convention while at the same time upholding vestries and diocesan conventions in somehow being more likely to be competent in this manner.

4)  The nature of discourse.  On this site it is free fire on the PB, GC, and the vast bulk of Episcopalians.  I find the tone insulting and contemptuous of good and faithful people.  At the same time when I push back with some “sturdy” assertions of my own, particularly about the intent and manners of the ACI, I am characterized as hateful and bitter.  Fine and dandy there.

5)  Conflict resolution.  The constant position here is that TEC should repent its choices and heed whatever “mind” of the Communion people believe to exist, and if not then TEC must be punished.  Buff it up however you like, but this is what it boils down too.  I am of the opinion that TEC has done nothing more than be honest and transparent and that if you insist on being punitive, you should expect a fight.  Fights are ugly and unless you are willing to take as well as you give, you should not fight.  In my estimation the conservatives are by en large a group of whingers, cowardly lions, who roar when they think they have the advantage and whine when their nose is smacked.  I think this is an important impasse and could be solved in part by reading Jeffrey Sachs’ essay “Generous tit for tat.”  Not once have the reasserters moved off the actions or positions they have taken, which means that negotiation is senseless. 

So there is much of it in a nutshell.

Michael Russell - 11 January 2010 02:53 AM

James Coder - 10 January 2010 10:07 PM

Michael, perhaps we could begin by naming some of the impasses, without necessarily hoping to bridge them?  That alone could be an interesting exercise.  We might all agree to avoid talking about the sex stuff, that will keep us from disagreeing more than necessary, and simply agree here that we have divergent views of how God wishes us to live sexually, acknowledging that each of us wishes for all a full, enjoyable life in accordance with God’s will, which He in His infinite love also passionately desires for us.

(snip)
5)  Conflict resolution.  The constant position here is that TEC should repent its choices and heed whatever “mind” of the Communion people believe to exist, and if not then TEC must be punished.  Buff it up however you like, but this is what it boils down too.  I am of the opinion that TEC has done nothing more than be honest and transparent and that if you insist on being punitive, you should expect a fight.  Fights are ugly and unless you are willing to take as well as you give, you should not fight.  In my estimation the conservatives are by en large a group of whingers, cowardly lions, who roar when they think they have the advantage and whine when their nose is smacked.  I think this is an important impasse and could be solved in part by reading Jeffrey Sachs’ essay “Generous tit for tat.”  Not once have the reasserters moved off the actions or positions they have taken, which means that negotiation is senseless.  (snip)

I don’t think this description is quite accurate. While I do believe TEC is in the wrong, both doctrinally and in how it has acted in the current conflict, what I advocate is not punishment but that TEC stop claiming to value the Communion while simultaneously rejecting the mind of the Communion expressed in Lambeth resolutions, requests from the ABC, proposals from the Primates, etc. It would not be “punishment” for the Communion to conclude (if indeed it does so conclude) that TEC’s actions speak louder than its words, and that those actions indicate a desire to be something other than what the Communion has agreed within its own councils to be.

I would also add an impasse #6, Ownership of church properties. Who is the rightful owners of the buildings and grounds of parishes or dioceses, and how should disputes over ownership be settled?

A quick step back to the earlier part of this discussion, if I may…  There are cases in which I have felt myself to be more a chaplain to a group of good folks who prefer not to be challenged too much, as that is very risky and they need a sense of security and continuity in a changing world.  In fact, I know my calling to be otherwise, as a pastor, priest, evangelist, redeemed sinner, and fellow-pilgrim.  I am wary of abandoning people or congregations too quickly if they seem unclear about the presence of Christ in their lives, just as I am wary of pressing the professional jargon (religious language) without careful translation and interpretation.  A very wise priest and supervisor once told me, “if you walk with people in their darkness, they will lead you to the light,” and he has proven to be quite right, at least in my experience.  Thus, I see evangelism as preaching “Christ and Him crucified” not only in word, but in deed, and sometimes the deeds need to come first for the words to make any real sense.  Being human, I had to come to know God’s love for me before I could love Him and my neighbor more deeply.  That awareness sometimes comes as a flash of insight, while at other times it is gradual and only dawns on me well after the fact.  I don’t think other folks are really so different in this respect.