We have to admit that evangelism is not our greatest gift. I say that because we have at least two situations where we have not been successful in evangelizing neighbourhoods and have rented space to other Christian fellowship groups who have gone on to do an amazing job and have quite large, healthy and vibrant congregations. Instead of thinking of the reasons why we didn’t manage it – there is no blame here – let’s find out how we could be more successful in the future. Don’t get me wrong, I am very pleased that through these other communities people have come to Christ, but I refuse to believe that we can’t be just as successful in our mission to make disciples.
Our proclamation is rooted in Christ where we find the power of life and change. Are we trying to keep Christ locked inside our churches? 2 Corinthians 5:17, So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! Do we consider ourselves new creations in Christ?
It is a risky business. I was talking to a young adult who has left the Anglican church about two weeks ago. He said that he liked the church but that he really didn’t know what we were about, so when he wanted answers and direction he felt lost. I was sad that he had not found the people to answer his questions. I have invited him to keep talking to me ”“ I don’t know if he will take me up on the offer but whether I have the answers or not I am called by my own baptismal promises to offer to talk.
In order to proclaim the gospel ”“ we need to know the gospel, to study it, to live it ”“all of it not just the parts we like the best or the parts that further our plans. We need an incredibly deep understanding of scripture. In fact, we need to wrestle with the scriptures ”“ it is meant to be work.
Says Alexander: “In order to proclaim the gospel – we need to know the gospel, to study it, to live it…”
Sure it’s important to know the Gospel…but
the vital ingredient is to BELIEVE the gospel and that only comes through an act of God. Faith follows repentance and surrender. Even repentance is a gift of God (II Timothy 2:25-26)
Nothing can substitute for the new birth, regeneration which is the revelation that Jesus is Lord, the Way, Truth, Love and Life. Nothing.
As Tozer said, mere instruction cannot lift the veil (of sin and self) that separates us from God and darkens our minds.
Revelation must be followed by intentional obedience.
Proverbs 3:5-6, Proverbs 4:18-27
Addendum: Having people in church offices who do not believe the Gospel and have not received the revelation of the Faith that Jesus is Lord, Christ, Truth, Love and Life, guarantees the erosion and defilement of both the Gospel and the Church.
Good points. Two things sabotage Anglicanism in practice, the theological iffiness (people like hard-core religions – Anglicanism’s stock in trade now is picking up disaffected RCs and evangelicals but many, many more members leave) and the country-clubbiness. ‘Evangelise? That’s for disreputable sorts. Everybody who should be an Episcopalian already is’ – also a result of being a denomination not a one true church although the liberals sound one-true-churchy when they’re in the mood… if you question the sanctity of gay sex and/or claim parish property.
[url=http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
P.S. I’ll say it: [i]disaffected RCs and evangelicals[/i] who become Episcopalians… are such still wannabe social-climbers like they used to be?
It isn’t often enough said that there are things “they” — the ones renting our parish halls and having more success with seekers — don’t do well as well. They don’t do sacramental life well, the Church’s history well, theological richness and honest complexity well, Christian music and art and literature well, outreach well, cult of personality clergy well, and stability well.
The issue is more than confidence in the Gospel.
[blockquote]They don’t do sacramental life well, the Church’s history well, theological richness and honest complexity well, Christian music and art and literature well, outreach well, cult of personality clergy well, and stability well.[/blockquote]
I trust you mean [i]preventing[/i] cults of personality around clergy, Bishop.
Liturgical Protestantism is self-refuting (having the forms of [url=http://home.comcast.net/~acbfp/catholic.html]Catholicism[/url] but denying the infallible-church power thereof: [i]’we identify with the historic church by having bishops and the Eucharist, except when we want something else like gay weddings'[/i]… why not cut out the middleman and stay home?), a contradiction I think a lot of seekers see even if they can’t articulate it.
[url=http://sergesblog.blogspot.com/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
#5, I disagree with two of your categories. My experience is that “they” do outreach much better and in broader areas than TEC, certainly. Also, unfortunately, “they” are often built around a “cult of personality” of their pastor, and things often fall apart, after “he” retires or leaves. I agree that stability may not be a strong point for “them,” but what is stable about TEC at this point? Also, what do you mean by the term, “sacramental life,” that “they don’t do well?
I’d add to Billy’s observations that, at least in my neck of the woods (Pacific NW), lots of non-denom Protestant churches and the RCs do a far better job in serious outreach than TEC, in terms of supporting local and global relief and mission work.
As far as “sacramental life,” if by that you mean liturgy, well, I love the richness of Anglican liturgy, but what relevance does that have if it’s divorced from sound doctrine and theology? I think that the OT prophets and Christ himself had plenty to say about the consequences of empty ritualism.
Joshua & Billy,
You both raise some excellent points, and it seems that you understand my points as well.
Regional differences in “outreach” do matter and our real. My point is that many of these non-Doms are more interested in growth than service. Your missionary point, however, carries the day. However, in our Diocese that Mission work is serious and on-going among a dedicated core group. Some are returning from Jos right now.
As to Christ’s condemnation of false and empty ritual, I do think that is a bit heavy on TEC. There is plenty of bad theology and bad acting in TEC which we cover at length in this site. However, The theology of The Book of Common Prayer is nearly flawless and in the routine of its use imparts considerably more in the way of deep orthodox Christian Tradition than anything you’ll find going down in Non-Doms. Likewise, there tends to be selective use of Scripture in Non-Doms — repeated preaching on a limited number of texts and themes.
It is not a small number of folks from evangelical non-Doms that show up in TEC knowing full well our problems. They just can’t take the limits of prayer and liturgy and neglect of the Tradition and Sacraments they find with those parish hall borrowers or storefronts.
“are” not “ours” of course. One day I’ll proofread.
#9: “There is plenty of bad theology and bad acting in TEC which we cover at length in this site. However, The theology of The Book of Common Prayer is nearly flawless and in the routine of its use imparts considerably more in the way of deep orthodox Christian Tradition than anything you’ll find going down in Non-Doms. Likewise, there tends to be selective use of Scripture in Non-Doms — repeated preaching on a limited number of texts and themes.”
I agree and agree that is the reason folks do come and come back to TEC and further I believe that is the reason many find it hard to leave TEC.
Albany+,
A quick glance at T1:9 will show that many people do not agree that the theology of the ’79 prayer book is ‘flawless’, and in fact feel that it is quite flawed.
I won’t go into the arguments here, mainly because I am not an expert on the current BCP (being the only version I’ve used since coming into the Episcopal Church in 1986), but I’m sure there are quite a few who can.
Jim Elliott <>< Florida