Press was admitted to the plenary session (yes! Inside the big blue tent) to hear Brian McLaren, an American from Maryland who is an expert in evangelism and has written 10 books about it. He was specifically invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury to speak three times at this conference. He talks about the emerging church, which I did not detect as syncretism of an emerging “Unitarian” type of church. His opening line was “I love Jesus Christ and have come to break open our models for Evangelism. We must proclaim the way of Jesus Christ. You are leaders in this church and this is one of your primary jobs, not being drained by the complex demands of institutional maintenance. You must speak on behalf of those who are not in your churches, people Jesus described as harassed and helpless; those without a shepherd.”
“Evangelism is disciple formation. Nothing else is worthy of that trust beyond Christ. You are here to save the church from division, implosion and exhaustion.”
Pretty good start, right? I did not doubt his commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. But I must admit that it was a very “slick” presentation, a graphically rich Power Point that showed his points on three large screens behind him. The weakness with the presentation was in naming particular countries, continents and cultures as pre-modern, modern and post-modern. The ”˜tsunami’ of change that accompanies a culture going from pre-modern to modern, for example, could lead one to believe that the amazing numbers of conversions in Africa are not authentic; they are superficial and concentrate on how to go to heaven, not how to live on earth. Couple this with the increase in Aids/HIV that we have seen in this “newly Christianized” continent and you may have substantive proof of this shallow discipleship. This information alone may give the Americans more reason to dismiss the Africans and their requests to this conference.
McLaren has two additional sessions today and tomorrow for those who want more specific information on how to go about being evangelists in their local contexts.
When did Brother McLaren get to be an “expert” on evangelism? I think he is a provocative thinker and writer on the current American evangelical scene, but I do not think he translates well to other cultures.
Better to have invited Tim Keller of Redeemer PCA in Manhattan if they wanted a Presbyterian to speak on evangelism. Or maybe an Anglican like Michael Green or John Stott (who might have been coaxed out of retirement for the occasion) who have track records of evangelizing across cultures. But then again, they might not be acceptable to 90% of TEC bishops due to their conservative positions about salvation and Scripture.
What can an “emerging” church person have to say to a sinking or even buried church?
I would like to read or see the presentation McLaren made/makes before really critiquing.
One small note, though, that should be made. All of us have the tendency to reduce longer statements and definitions down to something “manageable”, including mission statements, goal statements, etc. We do the same with scripture sometimes, such as referring to “The Great Commission”, or “You know that famous verse at the end of Matthew”.
With that in mind, the reduction that Cherie reports McLaren gives of the definition of evangelism just doesn’t do it for me.
“Evangelism is making disciples.” Well, certainly, presuming the material you have to work with before you “make a disciple”, you can’t make a disciple out of anything but someone who is a Christian. But that is a big presumption in an American or other western context that eschews any solitary avenue or way to salvation (if even that term is allowed). In other words, for some Episcopalians, making a disciple really means assimilation into the local congregation — no matter who or what you are, or how or what you believe in anything.
“Evangelism is making disciples” is a reduction of what became quickly an ecumenically famous and formulative definition of evangelism made by Archbishop Wm Temple. If you are not familiar, here it is:
Evangelism is “the presentation of Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, in such ways that persons may be led to believe in him as Saviour, and follow Him as Lord with the fellowship of His Church.â€
This was published in time for the Lausanne world conference in the 1930’s (I believe – correct me if I’m wrong).
You see that McLaren’s reduction has the beginning of the fuller and complete definition, and also a summary of the final clause. But the reduction assumes or presumes, or perhaps doesn’t even want to acknowledge the first clause (which is why I want to read the rest of what McLaren says – perhaps he’ll lay it all out later in his power point). McLaren”s presentation aside, the truth is that many, many Episcopalians don’t get the tools for either clause, much less how to lead a person to a saving relationship with Christ. And the presenters around – if they are so bold – are few and far between.
At the 64th General Convention of PECUSA in Louisville (1973), the following definition of evangelism was adopted as by a resolution: “The presentation of Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, in such ways that persons may be led to him as Savior, and follow him as Lord within the fellowship of his Church.”
Clearly, the almost word-for-word use of +Temple’s definition. Clearly, as well, it has been a battle to allow this definition by resolution into its rightful, foundational place in every congregation, and every diocesan congregational development program. That’s because the resolution was pressed through by people who knew it to be true, not by those who wished it would be true.
So, for the sake of the Anglican Communion, those who know it to be true know that the future of the Church is dependent upon both clauses being put into action. Jesus is Lord, and we are called to Follow Him, and the World needs help to make it happen in their lives.
But if “Evangelism” is only seen as a growth and development “program”, offered by those who are aware of its truth but not necessarily committed to both clauses, then it will only become a weapon that bishops and congregational development officers will use to bash over the heads of clergy and lay leaders for the reason their congregations aren’t growing or becoming more like the Outposts of the Kingdom of God (“Gospel shoppes”, Bp Bigiliardi used to say) they should.
And many bishops at Lambeth, sad to say, not willing to engage at all in McLaren’s presentations, no matter how they conclude, will walk away saying, “Whatever.”
Let’s not get to the reduction of what evangelism is in its fullest quite yet, shall we?
RGEaton
Note – Cherie reports McLaren as saying “Evangelism is disciple formation”, which I’m sure was carefully thought out. I used the phrase “Evangelism is making disciples” in my comment above because that’s what I heard, ie, my mental reduction of his reduction.
Inviting Brian McLaren to present at the Lambeth conference gives me the most hope so far for an orthodox ancient/future Anglicanism that is inclusive and has all the best traits of progressive/ social justice issues without losing the Christological heart. Please God let KJS be at his sessions!!!
I thought his presentation was brilliant, humble, bold, generous and Spirit filled. I’d vote Brian McLaren for ABC in a heartbeat. Better than most he knows how to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Preach it!
Rob, That definition comes from the Archbishop’s Commission on Evangelism in 1917 and is regularly wrongly attributed to Archbishop Temple.
Francis,
Thank you for that reference. As soon as I read your comment, I remembered exactly that Commission and reading its report, as I have a copy of it published from that time, here in my office. It still is hiding from me, but I seem to remember a part of the report that implies the Archbishop’s direct hand in articulating the definition. I’ll take another look later and see if I can find it. No matter, the definition stands on its own. Would you recall whether the impetus for the definition was the Lausanne conference?
RGEaton
“…many Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine… many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened people…. A shared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue—and it doesn’t seem an exaggeration to say that the future of our planet may depend on such dialogue. This reappraisal of Jesus’ message may be the only project capable of saving a number of religions.”
––Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 7
http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
Fr Rob, I have no idea. David Watson refers to it in [b] I Believe in Evangelism. [/b] Evidently it was 1918. C. Peter Wagner refers to it as the best definition of evangelism ever. I do not know about Lausanne; would that be the WCC conference?
Francis,
There was a World Missions Conference in 1910 in Edinburgh that, combined with Bp Brent’s passion for a world Christian fellowship, showed up in the first World Faith and Order conference in 1927. I’ve left out a lot in between there! But essentially it took from 1917 until 1927 to put the whole conference together. There were a multitude of commissions that were developing what you might call position papers during that time. Wm Temple (who wasn’t even Bp of Manchester until later, and Archbishop of York until 1929) got involved in some of these groups, and then continued on with them until he was asked to chair the combined Faith and Order, and Faith and Work World conference in 1937 (still not Canterbury yet). I used the word Lausanne too freely; still these were the predecessors to what would take place in 1974 as the Lausanne world conference on Evangelization.
What I can’t remember was when Temple was chair of the Commission on Evangelism that eventually penned that definition of evangelism that was later adopted both by Faith and Order, and then Lambeth. It was either in that seminal decade prior to 1927 conference and in preparation for it, or in the 1930’s when he was actually an Archbishop (“the Archbishop’s Commission…..”).
I’m still looking. I’ll wake up at 3 am tomorrow knowing exactly where it is!
RGEaton
#8 Jimmy,
[blockquote]“…many Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine… many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened people…. A shared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue….â€
––Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 7 [/blockquote]
McLaren has stated similar statements in earlier books (for one, the book series with “Neo” and friends); such statements reflect certain contemporary understandings within Hindu and Buddhist circles. The openness of the Indic traditions to Jesus Christ provides a space for real dialogue and inter-religious understanding. See the Dalai Lama’s [url=http://www.amazon.com/Good-Heart-Buddhist-Perspective-Teachings/dp/0861711386/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216777344&sr=8-1]The Good Heart[/url], for example. Indeed, one could argue that some Hindus who affirm Jesus as God-Incarnate, are in fact more Christian than Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny it.