AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Mainstream political commentators have been talking like witnesses to some kind of miracle. A miracle that many of them - from Marr to Megalogenis - appear to have been praying for.
But as Guy Rundle - Crikey's global correspondent-at-large - captures in a brilliant metaphor. Watching a building dance only seems miraculous, if you don't recognize that there is actually an earthquake underneath.
The coup against Kevin Rudd was seen by all commentators to be a remarkable occurrence, as for example would a dancing building. It is only when you realise that there's an earthquake moving underneath it, that it starts to make sense.
And what is that earthquake? The GFC and the extraordinary impact it is having on the stability of the western body politic.
As Rundle points out, whether you are a North American, European or East Asian there is deep dissatisfication with the political leadership across the globe, but no consensus as to what they are doing wrong.
Australians are familiar with the growing stench around Obama. But this narrative is more widespread than the Anglosphere. As with Labor locally, in Japan and Sweden reformist opposition parties that swept to power just a few short years ago on the promise of change are already facing collapse. And that is without drawing breath on the financial calamities in the Iberian peninsula and Balkans and the flakey coalitions coming unstitched in the low countries (and inevitably the UK?).
What our largely myopic Australian political commentators have overlooked is that fundamentally Rudd is victim of the GFC. The political decisions that killed him - the overly speedy stimulus package , the delay in the ETS, the need to increase the tax base via the resource sector - are all linked to it.
Given that the leadership of the Sydney Diocese has been equally rocked by the Global Financial Crisis, it might be instructive to make three observations about these events that are relevant to our life as a church.
1. Leaders are rarely the main problem.
Internally the narrative of church stagnation/decline is nearly always framed as a failure of church leadership. But as we see with Rudd's fall, there are much larger social forces at play. And I don't mean some simplistic secularisation theory that equates modernity with the triumph of atheism. (Those who subscribe to such theories should note the report in the Sydney Morning Herald that suggests many Humanist societies are facing a crisis caused by the same greying as we see in many church pews.) Unions and political parties have also been grappling with the decline in membership. One of the darker consequences of the drop in party membership has been the rise of machine politics behind last week's 'palace coup'.
2. Punters hungry for change
We are entering a cultural period where people are hungry for change. This is translating directly into church life. NCLS Research released data last month showing that there is extraordinarily widespread desire for change amongst church-goers. Its June 2010 newsletter reports that more than nearly 3 in 4 attenders agree or strongly agree that "we need to develop new ways of doing church to reach non-church goers". There was widespread agreement that traditional established models of church life must change to better connect with the wider Australian community (66% strongly agreed or agree). A longitudinal study show that there is far greater engagement with new initiatives than ever before. There has been a significant decline in the perceived degree of mistrust of initiatives in the 15 years between 1991 and 2006 and between 2001 and 2006, every major denomination recorded an increase in the proportion who agreed that their congregation was always ready to try something new. But more importantly, the NCLS Research report shows that the majority of church attenders not only understand the need to innovate, but also claim to be motivated to support initiatives.
3. Over-promising change is dangerous
While church leaders must acknowledge the need for change, they shouldn't over-promise what can be realistically delivered. As in politics, if this desire for change isn't harnessed effectively, it will quickly turn to dissatisfaction. Just as it proved for Kevin Rudd, this can be as dangerous for church leaders. A targeted survey of Anglican and Protestant attenders within the 2006 National Church Life Survey identified that 37 percent of churchgoers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "While I remain a committed person of faith, I feel disgruntled with the established Church". Most were neutral or unsure. Only 15 percent disagreed.
MORE DEBATE: RAJ GUPTA has posted a reply here
I've been asked by a friend to explain this more fully.
I suspect (though I'm no insider) that the growth in power of "Sussex St" (ie NSW Labor HQ) is a consequence of declining vitality at a branch level.
The parallel to church life should be obvious. Across many Christian denominations we see the power of the centre growing as the vitality of local congregations decline. It is important that the mainline churches resist this trend.
And now Jeremy, it is time to please "explain this more fully" too. And which "centre' are you hinting at ?
It has never been particularly centralised, and in my view Synod did not move in that direction last year. From where I sit, while the parishes felt some pain, the cuts to diocesan organisations were far harsher. It could hardly be described as a move towards centralism.
The 'electoral college' process by which Anglican clergy and bishops are appointed, and the 'closed shop' processes of preferment trend towards a professionalisation of ministry that reflects the wider pattern of professions, trade unions, political parties etc.
Whether or not the church should adopt more open human management processes with limitation of tenure for all church leaders, not excluding the episcopacy merits consideration. This would hint at the need for clergy to have a second string to their employment bow and ways of compassionately managing what in other occupations is labelled 'voluntary redundancy.'
These are complex issues not likely to be resolved in any measurable time if we are to judge by the length and continuing controversies over women in the ordained ranks. The mills of God are a jetstream compared to our church.
We need a thorough and perhaps even iconoclastic review of the way the church as a whole 'does' theology so that it really relates to contemporary society. This issue underpins the queries about the way in which we "do church.' Our present management patterns reflect two thousand years of church life and are deeply entrenched. A revolution is, emphatically, unlikely.
Regarding Rudd, his personal qualities/poor inter personal skills had a grest deal to do with his demise.
Punters hungry for change
I really question this one. OK I know I belong to a small conservative denomination, but I'm far from convinced.
People are confused, people are critical. People want somebody to do something in order to .... (take your pick).
I'm not sure the public were clamouring for red maggie, it was the Party that was desperate.
To say, “we need to develop new ways of doing church to reach non-church goersâ€, is not necesarily a cry from the heart for change. It a simple acknowledgement (it maybe quite reluctant) that we might need to make changes to attract people to church. If we substitute to win them for Christ for to attract them to church, maybe it is not so much something new, but rather back to basics.
I can think of one of our churches in Melbourne which sunk 3 years ago to the point of a dozen women and two men, one of whom with his wife had 4,5 children - all godly people. We put a man in with the gift of evangelism, who used very old fashioned means to build the congregation today well in excess of 100: serious preaching (and a very plain Presbyterian service), door knocking, Christianity explained, evangelistic meetings. Some of those people are transferees, others have been converted.
I'm not convinced we need change if you mean new programmes, turning Sunday worship upside down.
Didn't mean that.
I'd accept that this may be a valid explanation.
What interested me most was the longitudinal change in the NCLS report. That the preparedness to change amongst churches/church-goers has *increased* since the 1990s.
Of course this doesn't tell us what has happened in the last 5 years.
Whether or not Churches grow or not is really in the hands of God, the only really worthwhile questions are, have we been faithful?, have we loved people sufficient to desire and work for their conversion?.
I know it is more complicated but in my opinion, these are the real issues.
It is and it isn't.
It is in the sense of being the church of Jesus Christ and he has a vested interest in the church.
It isn't because it is always struggling in a world which can be alternatively indifferent and hostile with members always in need of further growth in godliness
church leaders will still need to manage the *expectation* that change is required
If that is the case, then that is a matter for serious consideration which might include getting back to the basics as much for the congregation as the elders.
Hey, I don't mean to be difficult but I am a conservative in matters of religion and rather leary of the call for change, a call I've heard repeatedly and virtually all my 50 years as a Christian. Someday the penny has to drop. Change can actually be an excuse for being disobedient.
But lack of willingness to change can be equally disobedient.
If I can be a little cheeky - we don't want end up 'Amish'.
A friend of mine which neither you or I belong to, left ministry in a thoroughly Reformed denomination (that neither you or I belong to) because mission and thinking missiologically just wasn't on their agenda.
Yes, they had the truth but they weren't prepared to share it with others.
Surely this dissatisfaction with various forms of government betrays our over-reliance on government and our failure to be self-governing individuals, families and institutions? It takes a free people to make a free society work, and free people are self-governing.
I think that Rudd's Christian convictions were always half-serious. Rudd may have done press conferences outside of St John's but in private he abused staff, was rude to his colleagues and was apparently thoroughly unpleasant. Even many ALP-leaning public servant friends are glad to see Rudd go. It's disappointing to see Christians identify with a man whose private relations with colleagues were so at odds with how Christians should behave. Hopefully in future Christians will be more wary of claiming politicians for their own. Ironically, Tony Abbott has had the same loyal staff for years, but shows his worst face to the general public.
We have David Marr's essay that I linked to. Make of it what you will.
I say,
Change can actually be an excuse for being disobedient.
Jeremy says,
But lack of willingness to change can be equally disobedient.
If you mean, lack of willingness to change to something new and novel, I don’t agree that is disobedience. You would need to argue specifics in a convincing fashion to get me to change my position
If you mean, lack of willingness to change ungodly ways then I will agree that would be disobedient.
I see mission as part of the historic mandate for the church and I’m pleased that my denomination takes this very seriously. I suspect the disagreement is not about whether we are into mission, but what kind of mission, and more specifically what change is being proposed.
Contrary Michael Bull I think church government is important and I think that because the New Testament says it is. And because this is so I’m a Presbyterian and not a Congregationalist nor an Anglican!
There, I’ve said it!
I'd agree that's the nub of the debate, David.
In my mind the key change most churches need to make is to move beyond thinking that merely putting out the proverbial 'welcome mat' is sufficient to fulfill the Great Commission in 21st century Australia. If you like, the "making disciples" bit needs to happen inside and outside the church gate.
While I think I know where you're going with this, I would like to speak to it. Having been around a few of the traps in Sydney, I have seen good management and bad management, good leaders and bad leaders.
While I agree that we need I don't think this follows directly from a trend towards professionalism of ministry.
While the minister who always sits in his office and never engages the outside world is a bad thing, I don't think this is widely seen, at least in Sydney. The problem which I've seen over and over and over again is the lack of willingness of the laity to take on ministry opportunities. This is by no means universal, and some churches are particularly blessed with a large lay involvement, but the traditional view of church is the view which has the minister running all the ministry.
As someone who has been through the process, I can tell you that everyone one I know is keen for lay involvement, which would revolutionise the church, except for the laity.
It's getting better, but the change we need to see is the congregations owning ministries, and reporting to the ministry team, rather than the other way around.
And that is why some colleges train the ministers in how to read and teach the Bible as the key ministry they will be involved in.
As a Minister who was responsible as Team Leader and Coordinator of just over
1,000 Volunteers in Australia's largest Church, Wesley Mission, and which due to the phenomenal growth phase Wesley Mission experienced was responsible for the Leadership,Management, Recruitment, Interviewing, Deployment, Care, Encouragement and Identification of new Volunteer/Lay opportunities, saw this huge Volunteer/Lay Workforce grow in the next 3 years to 2,500 Volunteers.
A change in both the attitudes of some Ministers and many Laity alike needs to happen, in order for a turnaround and revolution in the Church to take place in small, medium and large Parishes!
The revolution will come through the power of the Holy Spirit if, first we have a change in Attitude to how we do Church and Ministry.
Second,if as Ministers and Lay Leaders we become Culture Creators in our Parishes.i.e. We create a climate and develop a culture within Parishes, that being part of this Parish, comes with an expectation of some volunteer/lay involvement.
Third, our Colleges prepare Ministers and others, for the how to do this in a systematic, methodical way as part of courses and equipping for Ministry.
Fourth, Denominational Leadership become Culture Creators and show their enthusiastic endorsement and it filters down through the various layers of Church Government, Leaders, Colleges, Parishes, the outcome being, in years to come, through higher participation it is "Making a Difference!
The suggestion that Sydney diocese is not a highly centralised organisation seems to ignore the Australian Church League and its role in maintaining political ascendancy as a device for maintaing the ascendancy of a particular set of religious values.
Of course, there is a distinction between diocese and ACL but I wonder how that works out in Synod and elsewhere as far as decision-making is concerned. No criticism in particular but curiosity from someone outside the circle.
To Ian Welch, check out the www.outloudopinion.com podcast for some stench. It is written by conservative columnists (like Chuck Norris, who should be president!) so there's obviously a bias. But they do tend to back up with facts and figures.
On the floor of Synod itself, the ACL doesn't exert a huge influence over Synod members. The ACL does put forward views on various contentious issues, but speakers on motions don't identify themselves as ACL members, and there's nothing like a party whip to keep you in line. You vote as you see fit after listening to the arguments.
The area where the ACL has the biggest influence on Synod is in the election of representatives to various bodies. They put forward a list of who they suggest you should vote for. You can vote otherwise if you see fit, but most Synod reps follow the ACL list, mainly for safety's sake. Given the size of Sydney Diocese, most candidates for any position are unknown to you, so the ACL voting list gives you the security that you'll elect a solid evangelical.