This is not the first time that Mr. [Brian] McLaren has singled out Anglican churches as perhaps best suited for worldwide evangelism in the 21st century. During his plenary address to bishops and spouses at the Lambeth Conference in July, he said the Anglican Communion, with its worldwide network of episcopally led, locally governed churches, is the prime candidate to bring culturally divergent people into a closer relationship with a church community.
But if that opportunity is to be grasped, he said this week, bold and critical action is needed by a cohort of creative and courageous bishops. These bishops must create “a zone of innovation and empowerment, a zone in which creative young and emerging leaders can be supported to plant new faith communities relevant to the needs of young adults.” Such a move, Mr. McLaren said, could do for the 21st century Episcopal Church what the Church of England failed to do for the followers of John Wesley in the 19th century.
Well, it should be obvious that the “Gay is OK” line is disastrous for a church, and the the participants are the chief proponents of this.
Bold and courageous bishops? Ha! These are the same that cower to Ms Schori’s canon law violations.
For Mr. McClaren to mention the Methodist movement is laughable. For the Methodists preached the fundamentals, something the revisionists despise.
How many of the Dioceses represented have planted a church in the last five years? How many of the bishops and priests at this gathering have first hand experience planting churches (not reading books and going to conferences but actually planting churches which are viable today)?
#1, I’m wagering that the “bold and courageous” being mentioned her means having the fortitude to reject 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching by smiling broadly as your open limo glides amongst the bare-bottomed, chap-clad leatherboys at the annual Pride parade.
This may sound strange coming from me, but I think the responses to this conference — all the way around — need some analyzing.
Apparently this conference was perceived, and perhaps conceived as being purely “liberal-leftist-progressive-re-appraising” — pick your own term. However, the topic was all about reaching out to contemporary people, and McLaren thinks we Anglicans have some good characteristics to be able do this effectively. I whole heartedly agree with that idea.
Was this an “invitation only” conference? What if the really orthodox bishops had taken this up and presented the case for genuine Christian evangelism in this context? Could that not have opened some eyes that needed opening?
Truth be told, while my Diocese recently moved a parish, building a new church in a new area with an already-established congregation, we have not planted a new church in decades at least. Neither do we have any plans to do so in the fore-seeable future even though we have growth areas crying out for Christian evangelism in the anglican way.
Why not???!!! We orthodox have got to be committed enough and passionate enough about the Gospel to take it out to the people who need it most. McLaren’s brains are definitely worth picking. Why not glean whatever is useful from him? While “Emerging Church” has some problems, they also have some very useful insights.
Anybody who knows me will tell you I am NO sell-out. But sometimes a knee-jerk reaction can actually hurt our mission to the lost — which is why we are here. A good open discussion in the context described above could have helped everyone on all sides.
Jus’ sayin’.
St. Charles County in Missouri is exploding yet the Diocese of Missouri hasn’t opened a new parish there for 20 or 30 years.
Indeed they haven’t, Nickolaus, though our AMiA parish has a church plant in St. Chas that is doing quite well.
They should looke at SC but they will not like what they see. Wesley, Whitefield and Edwards would have no place in TEC. There is another “awakening” going on now but the mainline hs chosen to be the sideline.
[blockquote]…the mainline has chosen to be the sideline.[/blockquote]
Inadvertently, yup.
More and more people are out and out unchurched but the boomer liberals running the mainline are deluding themselves if they think this will appeal to kids. Witness Mr Van Driessen on the late ‘Beavis and Butt-Head’.
They’ve been trying to pander this way for 40 years and what has it got them? (Isn’t a definition of insanity doing the same thing over again expecting different results?) I’m not just picking on the Episcopalians. It’s true of all mainliners. Nobody outside their church circles takes them seriously. People find community in family, work and, right or not, even watching sports. They don’t want this kind of church.
This lame trend-following gets laughed out of town while the kids and others who want religion go in for déclassé versions these folk would put down as fundamentalist (some of it is but by no means all: to mainliners it’s just an all-purpose putdown of theological conservatives): love them or hate them, Pope Benedict’s Roman Catholicism and the evangelical megachurches.
[url=http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
Sorry, but I find the whole picture of TEC bishops “brainstorming” about evangelism hilarious! Remember 20/20? What do they think they’re calling people to that our culture hasn’t already sold everyone on?
Considering that more and more people reject “symbolism without substance”, this reality should be the beginning of the conversation. Less talk of vestments, mitres, blah, blah, blah…and more SUBSTANCE. Less talk of WHO Anglicans are, and instead WHY Anglicans are. Less talk of the petty insider nuances/gripes over the Holy Eucharist and more talk of the Living Lord who hosts it. Less talk about clergy and more talk about laity. Less talk about “mission” (which often means good works sans credit to the Lord), and more talk about the Great Commission: MAKE disciples….TEACHING them to observe…
There. Any takers? No…let me rephrase. Are there any clergy/leaders who have experience with Christ or just technical talk about Christ? Any changed hearts out there? Why? THAT was Methodism in the Anglican Church and should still be. We need more people with METHOD to faith rather than people who talk about it.
[blockquote]WHY Anglicans are.[/blockquote]
With a biretta tip to liberal Theo Hobson: an Erastian institution meant to prop up the state, specifically the King of England, set up when he wanted (for dynastic reasons not lust) but didn’t get an annulment from Rome. ‘I don’t care what you believe as long as you obey me: don’t be under Rome, deny the Real Presence and use my Bible and Prayer Book.’ Conscientious Christians among the Anglicans have always felt bad about that compromise and Evangelicalism (spinning off into Congregationalism), Methodism and Anglo-Catholicism all were trying to correct it.
[url=http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
Re: #11
Yes, dirty hands have always been on the Church. That includes a pope and his princes who wanted to foist the Inquisition on England and tried to undermine the government who objected.
“WHY Anglicans are” more precisely should be about the heart and about the reclaiming of truth and the essential faith that had been obscured by the comforts and trappings of an overindulged clergy. To HELL with the props and the toys that amuse the clergy. The Church of the laity needs to be more concerned with what John Wesley called “practical divinity”, that is holiness of heart and life. Of course, while there are helpful aids that cannot be denied (Prayer Book, and restrained ornamentation), I find that too many clergy believe their parishes to be their personal Toys R Us where they play out a pathetic ego drama and call it divine worship.
“WHY Anglicans are” should be solely concerning itself these days with the revival of a balanced Christian faith and practice that is fast becoming irrelevant to people who are seeking the very relevance that we COULD be offering. Instead too many Episcopalians are bent out of shape polishing the structures and lamenting the excesses/inexactitudes rather than BEING Anglicans in the best sense of the word as passed to us by the martyrs of our way.
I find some of the responses here to be every bit as troubling and smug as the theology and liberalism that they criticize. The orthodox don’t have a monopoly on what is right and true, and the insistence that you do is no more productive than others who insiste the same for their point of view.
“Yes, dirty hands have always been on the Church. That includes a pope and his princes who wanted to foist the Inquisition on England and tried to undermine the government who objected.”
Evidence, please, for this ridiculous statement.
Choir stall, you offend me, and I think you need to check your tongue. For one thing, I would imagine that more priests than you might be aware of have “experienced Christ.” For another, some of what you write off as affectation has meaning stemming from salvation history found in scripture, and for yet another thing, some of our “pathetic ego drama” actually has meaning for us as part of that experience with Christ. And yes, hearts have been changed by Episcopal priests and worship. Amazing, but not everyone and everything fits your caricature of all things Anglican.
McLaren says he thinks Anglican churches are best suited for evangelism in the 21st century. Possibly. Especially those that adapt the worship style to speak to the culture, but without compromising the faith once given to the saints and while lifting up Jesus in worship, even including dancing in the sanctuary and music young people can relate to easily. This has resulted in a steady surge in membership and an explosive growth in new church plants even while the bishops of these regions minister to an unusually large number of people in their dioceses.
What’s that? You haven’t seen any of that? Oh, you thought I meant here in North America. I guess you haven’t noticed that the actual evangelism about the Gospel of salvation from sin by the blood of Jesus and new birth to eternal life and dying to our self-will going on…in Africa.
No, Dallasite, orthodox Christian believers have no monopoly on what is right and true, nor did we claim one. You see, we didn’t write the Bible. We simply believe it and insist that God, not us, has the monopoly on what is true and right, though every man be a liar, and that the Bible is truly the work of men of old, who, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God. You have mistaken the grateful beggars for their Benefactor.
One definite problem is that church planting is rarely, if at all, practiced among N. American Anglicans. Thus, while well meaning efforts may be made, are they really by practioners of church planting, or retread parochial clergy who looked promising in their last post? To put it another way, would you have a house built by someone who who has only built furniture from flat pack kits from Ikea? Our lack of practice and practioners in church planting in N. American Anglicanism does not bode well. But the Baptists and a lot of others have vast experience to pass on to new planters. Will we learn from them, or insist that we already know all we need to know?