AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
In my review of Facing the Future: Bishops imagine a different church published in the print edition of Southern Cross, I make the point that the future of the Anglican Church is ‘strangely congregational’ as the missiological approach of the Fresh Expressions movement takes hold.
Here are five observations flowing from the book's content:
1. The national church is becoming more orthodox
The harsh fact that the Anglican Church is slowly sinking has seen the widespread embrace of a mission agenda. This in turn is leading to the resurgence of a self-confident doctrinal orthodoxy in the national church.
While this is just one book, the significance of the evidence here is not merely the boldness in half a dozen of the chapters by evangelical bishops linking gospel fidelity to the confidence needed for mission and outreach, but what the liberal and catholic bishops actually write.
To take one example: Brisbane-based Bishop Geoff Smith laments the cancerous damage caused local mission by 'the death of God' movement and the way it undermined lay confidence to do outreach.
But what really surprised me about this book is that not one essay - despite the very diverse range of authors - argues positively in favour of a liberal theological agenda as a mission imperative: in the way you hear promulgated out of North America.
The Archbishop of Perth, Roger Herfft makes a somewhat opaque criticism of "extreme" Calvinism in exploring what it means to minister in a multi-faith society, but he is very careful to locate his essay in a self-confident orthodoxy saying: "Christians must avoid compromising the uniqueness of the gospel".
2. Evangelism/social action is no longer being 'decoupled'
What is also nearly dead - along with head in the sand approach towards the corrosive impact of the secular culture - is a parallel attachment to being a pseudo-established church. The love affair with the 60s secular agenda is over. And there is not even a whisper of the Church's lingering desire to be chaplain to the nation and the elite political class.
So perhaps the most surprising aspect of this book is what isn't here. If this book had been written a decade ago would have seen more strategies attempting to influence the culture via lobbying and media campaigns, and the need to become more relevant through supporting trendy causes. You certainly would have had much more talk aimed at reshaping society as a primary goal of the Church.
In contrast, Chris Jones, Missioner Bishop and CEO of Anglicare Tasmania, in his chapter 'a new compassion for the marginalised' is blunt about the need to stop evangelism and social justice from being "uncoupled".
In Sydney, one of the big wins of the last 5 years has been the realignment of Anglicare and the Diocese in the Mission. The result has been the recent blossoming of many more parish ‘community care’ partnerships.
3. Mission planning is more and more congregational
As mentioned above, if this book is any guide then the future of the Anglican Church is far more congregational, reshaped by the 'fresh expressions' movement.
While it may appear decline is driving parts of the national church towards a Sydney-esque emphasis on the local fellowship, in fact the radical embrace of a congregational ecclesiology in some places is now surpassing what has been pioneered in Sydney Diocese.
In the 'missionary diocese' of Tasmania, John Harrower convincingly defends his decision not try to develop a diocesan-wide vision.
His missiological emphasise has seen a radical restructuring of the centre to resource local parishes for their mission and seven fairly loose principles to guide each church's individual planning. These include: 'be faithful to God and each other' and 'think big and don't be afraid to take risks'.
"If we are serious about the [missiological] principle to recognise the local church as the primary mission agency, then it is not necessary to develop a shared diocesan-wide strategic plan," Harrower argues, suggesting this approach helps reduce paralysing 'anxiety' about decline and failure.
4. In liturgy: a universal 'core' and local freedom
It is also very surprising to read a catholic bishop arguing that we must 'free up' liturgy in local congregations for the new mission context.
Godfrey Fryar acknowledges that it will be impossible to get the national church to agree on any new prayer book, so like Harrower advocates the local approach. He argues that Australian Anglicans merely need an 'agreed liturgical shape' for a few key 'universal' services such as Holy Communion and Baptism, with the Book of Common Prayer remaining the touchstone.
"When it comes to 'the local', however I think we should encourage a more relaxed approach. applied around core universal values," Fryar says.
5. 'Mission communities' given more recognition
The exploration by the Archbishop of Brisbane, Phillip Aspinall, of his Diocese's schools mission policies raises questions about the gaps in Sydney's strategic planning.
My own experience of being part of a church plant in an Anglican School suggests it is very easy for these congregations to be overlooked, marginalised and left 'out of the loop'.
Our governance structures have not adapted sufficiently to provide appropriate support for these 'mission communities'.
In fact, as this chapter makes clear, Brisbane Diocese is well advanced in thinking about it schools as 'mission communities'.
Some of Brisbane's structural reforms are certainly worth further thought. For example, should school-based 'mission communities' be represented on Synod?
So over to you.
Can Sydney Diocese learn or rediscover anything about mission from the experiences elsewhere?
Frankly, I expect the national church still has some way to fall. But it may well be that a strong commitment to gospel fidelity emerges as the foundation for a new future.
Do you mean attendance decline?
I think the picture will be patchy.
Indeed, it is possible that the turn around in some places will see growth stronger than in Sydney, especially when you account for population growth.
Mr Shanahan is, however, spot on that faith and works are specifically commanded by our Lord in his summary of the Law. Loving God and our neighbour provides the continuing link between the church in all ages and the wider community. Evangelism and good works are inseparable in a genuinely Christian worldview.
The danger is that well-meaning people draw a distinction between the two as if evangelism is a separate area of Christian activity to social action. It was the 'social gospel', a unique and perhaps the only distinctive piece of American theology, that encouraged 20C evangelicals to draw a false line in the sand—fortunately largely ignored in Australia.
Neither evangelism nor good works are distinct in evangelical belief and practice—they are two halves of the one coin provided the good works are done because of transforming faith grounded in a personal experience of God.
Ian Welch, Canberra
Your comment about taxation is well made; however, in Australia nowadays, the taxation system is actually regressive: the rich do not pay proportionally their fair share. My example is, therefore, noit as hyperbolic as you think! Personally, I suspect that the relative neglect of the poor by wealthier Australian Christians can be attributed to sheer greed (idolatry of money; fear of its loss; lack of faith): unlike the US, we in this country do not have a great philanthropic tradition.
I am with Mr. Shanahan that the wealthier have more means of avoiding tax, not necessarily evading, through a range of concessions that are not available to most taxpayers and like Mr. Shanahan, I think that is unfair as a general principle.
I have no suspicions about Australian philanthropy which is, allowing for the completely different tax arrangements between Oz and the US, as good as the US. I doubt that Australian Christians are better or worse than Americans in any respect and I think it is insulting, quite honestly, to suggest that wealth and greed are linked in the way Mr. Shanahan implies to the point of accusations of lack of faith.
Incidentally, I am not in the 'wealthy' category by any imagination.
Ian Welch, Canberra
Does anyone dispute any of my five observations about the national church?
One objection I can think of is that the Fresh Expressions movement may encourage people to relativise the content of the gospel message not merely the ecclesiological packaging.
Does anyone have any thoughts on how we should think about being a missionary church in our contemporary Australian context?
Concrete exampels would be good.
By the bye, tax is relevant as it has a great deal to do with the money the church receives from the state via taxation that allows church work with society to continue. It is one reason why the Catholic Church is the largest private employer in Australia. The dismissive statement suggests that the gap between evangelism and social justice is as wide as ever in some minds.
Christianity is fading in Western society and with it the old-time denominations, such as our ethnic Anglicanism (irrespective of churchmanship and theological heritages). Whatever the Christian message meant a century ago no longer resonates with 'Western' society.
We have tried prayer book reform (a lost cause); worship reform (even worse outcomes because it (a) fails to attract new people if statistics mean anything and (b) alienates many former regular worshippers. As for today's religious music!
The need is for theological and biblical reflection to understand why no one is listening to what the church catholic has to say, meaningfully, about the modern human condition without falling into the partisanship that irritates people outside the church. Concentrating on our chart, basic navigation, and less emphasis on deck chairs seems a good place to start.
Ian Welch, Canberra
Regarding philanthropy, the tax system is irrelevant - true giving has no strings attached whatsoever. And NB: "You cannot serve God and Mammon". If you find what I wrote insulting, then complain to God - I'm only the messenger.
PS: If you must use honorifics, its Dr Shanahan; but Ian is fine.
As for everything else you wrote in the above posts: HEAR, HEAR!
I agree up to a point re the tax burden on wage and salary earners, whose tax allowances are minimal but there is so much working/middle class welfare that whatever is lost on the tax swing is almost certainly regained on the welfare see-saw. The issue is rather whether the higher income earners have unfair allowances for, to give just one instance, work related expenses.
I am not aware that the Rudd Government is doing anything about GST or, indeed, about tax redistribution, unless you believe Tony Abbott's take on ETS.
It is a convenient statement and a nonsense that the tax system is irrelevant to philanthropy. It is precisely because of the US tax system that their apparent generosity is do different to Australia.
As to God and Mammon, you are not the messenger, Jesus was. Whether he meant what you express is beyond me. I rarely talk to God about such matters myself, having rather more to occupy the time. I am sure that Jesus was providing a general principle but as in all human interpretation, the devil is in the detail.
I don't normally use academic honorifics that are irrelevant in the context of the discussion. The arguments must stand or fall on their merits but I will yield in this, but only this, instance.
Ian Welch, TSTC (Ed Dept Vic), BA MA (Monash), MEd (Canberra), PhD (ANU).
Canberra
My relative brevity led to the confusion. Apologies. But it is a fact that the Rudd government has made some adjustments to the tax system that are fairer to poorer Australians (albeit not the GST).
True philanthropy consists in giving without any expectation of return whatsoever - such as tax relief. Granted, the US tax system may be a cause for their greater level of giving; I am questioning motivations and definitions...
Please, henceforth, Dr Welch - just call me Ian. I hate formality (but value correctness)!
Lots of things to be pleased about in your report, but the question that strikes me is, how do you maintain an Anglican identity across the country, when everyone does what seems right in his own eyes?
Perhaps many Anglicans so-named do not consider a 'national Anglican identity' to be important (or preeminent above other theological concerns)? I for one do not. Indeed, thank God for diversity within Australian Anglicanism. How grim it would be if it were wall-to-wall Calvinistas... ;-) "Doing what seems right in one's own eyes" is surely a consequence of Protestantism itself.
There's a lot to like about the universal 'core' and local freedom formula. However, a lot more work is needed on articulating what the 'core' is. Taking liturgy as an example - is the core
. BCP - but can it function as a core if it is hardly ever used in practice?
. a particular post BCP liturgy - but do you then go with AAPB (Sydney) or APBA (the rest)?
. a particular 'shape' of liturgy into which a variety of resources can be inserted - this appears to be the approach of the Church of England with its Common Worship suite of material. But at one point does the material inserted into a shape actually undermine its theological integrity?
And more fundamentally, does Australian Anglicanism have the kind of structures and relationships necessary for a mature discussion of these issues at the national level? And if we don't, won't the issues increasingly be resolved de facto at the Diocesan and parochial levels, with the outcome David P. suggests?
Mark
There was a core denominational framework that attracted some older people but most were unchurched locals. Preaching was entirely lay although two had some theological background. Sacraments proved a challenge but clergy were found with some difficulties for baptisms (preparation by lay people) and Communion. Traditional church rules were applied and no breaches of clergy authority were permitted to entrench. The 'plant' worked because lay people did the leg work. It failed to keep growing after a full-time pastor was appointed and is now more or less static.
The Church in Australia is entirely a 'planted' model in which the laity played central roles but it was based on now irrelevant British parochial models and soon clericalised. Today's 'plant' will almost certainly be tomorrow's redundancy and that has a message about property, bank loans, etc. Our property approach must be fundamentally different to the past.
My only reservation about 'planting' is the motivation. If it is in someone else's 'parish' because we don't like their theology I think it is competitive and not necessarily godly. If it is to reach the unchurched it is a priority.
Ian Welch, Canberra
'core' and 'non core'?
Mmmm, now where else have I heard that expression?
Ian Welch, Canberra