I was reading this Journal article where Abp Hiltz talks about mission:
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said that “an emerging focus around mission” characterized a spring gathering of the third Anglican Lutheran International Commission (ALIC) in Chennai, India.
Meeting from April 28 to May 5, the group discussed “how Anglicans and Lutherans approach mission, how they understand it, how they carry it out,” said Archbishop Hiltz, co-chair of ALIC, which oversees Anglican-Lutheran relationships worldwide. “Within that focus there was yet another focus around diakonia, which is the servant ministry of the church,” he said.
I wondered, what is this word ‘mission’ meant to signify? If one goes back to the 2006 statistical survey (thanks Ellie), we read this:
The Anglican Church of Canada has experienced a huge decline over the past 40 years, according to a new independent survey.
Over the period of 1961 to 2001 the Canadian region of the worldwide Anglican Church has lost 53% of its members, with numbers declining from 1.36 million to just 642,000.
An even more worrying sign for the worldwide Church is that the survey suggested that the decline is accelerating. In the period between 1981 and 1991 the Church membership decreased by 13%, however between 1991 and 2001 the numbers reduced by a greater proportion of 20%.
A retired marketing expert, Keith McKerracher carried out the report, according to the Church of England newspaper. The report was then passed on to the House of Bishops.
After the report was released, McKerracher explained, “My point to the bishops was: Hey listen, guys, we’re declining much faster than any other church. We’re losing 12,836 Anglicans a year. That’s 2 percent a year. If you draw a line on the graph, there’ll only be one person left in the Canadian Anglican church by 2061.”
The decline has coincided with the liberalisation of the Church views over the past four decades; something that has also been witnessed in the Episcopal Church USA. Ted Byfield, a long-time observer of Canadian culture, who has published a weekly news magazine in Canada for 30 years and now serves as general editor of ‘The Christians’, a 12-volume history of Christianity, has suggested that this liberalisation of the Church is the core reason for the decline, reports Dutch Christian newspaper ‘Reformatorisch Dagblad’.
McKerracher, however, also said that he did not believe that the Anglican leaders in Canada would respond in any significant way to the findings. He continued, “The church is in real crisis. They can’t carry on like it’s business as usual. They talk things to death. And my impression is that the bishops are not going to go around telling priests to shape up.”
The Church of England newspaper also have been told by Canadian Archbishop Andrew Hutchison that although the report was a “wake-up call”, he hoped that a new emphasis on social justice and ecumenical cooperation would halt the decline.
It seems that either ‘mission’ is failing dismally in the ACoC, or that it now means something very different from the traditional understanding.
Keith McKerracher had it right, as the Journal article amply demonstrates, both the means and the end appear to be about talking. Is this now the mission of the ACoC – social justice, ecumenism and meetings to talk about mission?
I’ve been thinking quite a lot lately about what drives the ACoC.
It’s pretty apparent to me that the majority in the pews don’t like controversy and, generally, aren’t prepared to make the effort to understand the issues. With respect to the view from the pew, the additional complcation is the profound lack of critical scriptural literacy. We don’t even share a common language to begin a discussion.(a search of the Blog will show that liberals want to discuss literature and science, not scripture or tradition.) This leaves the institutional church.
I recall that Keith McKerracher was a guest panelist on The Agenda. I don’t recollect who the spokesperson was for the church, but I recollect feeling that McKerracher’s remarks were not welcome and represented the proverbial water off a duck’s back.
I am finding it increasingly useful to view the ACoC, not as a religious organiztion, but as a bureacracy. It’s purpose is self perpetualization: it exists to exist. This helps to explain why vital discussion over the nature of the church is insignificant, but legal actions instigated by the institution are growing exponentially. The head of the church is acting more like a CEO in a proxy fight than a spirtual leasder charged with feeding his sheep.
I expect that the ACoC will continue to become more like the society it lives in. I also expect that those who seek to be faithful disciples will continue to find their way to the cross -regardless of where they find themselves.
Peace,
Jim
Jim (#1), your observations about the ACoC are interesting, but I think that some of them may characterize Anglicanism as a whole. I know that my “sample size” is small, but it seems to me that the mere existence of the BCP, as good as it is (at least in its original form), may act as a disincentive for many Anglicans to the direct study of Bible. I’m sure this was not Cranmer’s intent, but I find it odd when I encounter an Anglican who has obviously memorized much from the BCP, yet struggles to locate books of the Bible.
This blog is an interesting case study as well. Of the 400+ posts, and 4000+ comments, I wonder what percentage make mention of scripture? There also seems to be little interest in discussing theological issues; apart from God’s view of homosexuality and women’s ordination. Many of the other “religious” blogs that I visit have a much greater focus on the Bible and there is much more interest in discussing/debating the great themes and doctrines found in God’s Word. The endless argumentation on some blogs between Arminians and Calvinists can become tiresome, but at least there is strong enthusiasm for rightly dividing the Word of God.
I’m not looking to pick a fight, but I’m curious as to how others view my perspective. Am I out to lunch? Did my 21 months at an Evangelical Anglican church, and time spent on Anglican websites, not give me a proper understanding of what Anglicanism is really all about?
I hear you Warren, my thought is that this blog isn’t primarily focussed on debating theological issues (though inevitably it touches on them!), rather providing a place where orthodox Anglicans can have a voice, offer feedback, discuss latest developments etc. Until fairly recently, the only voice that was heard was the liberal heirarchy, e.g. the Journal and other official pronouncements. So, this blog seeks to put the other point of view and act as a rallying point for orthodox Christianity.
Now, we could discuss other issues here, but as you say there are many other blogs that are doing that, so why reinvent the wheel? The point here was that there were blogs south of the border and in the UK, but nothing for Canadians specifically. Having identified that ‘hole’ here we are to fill it
Anglicans in general – you may well be right, scriptural illiteracy might well be a problem in some places. As for me, I’ll be found lurking, sometimes contributing at other blogs – some of which deal with theological issues. More than that though, I find regularly reading the Book to be the best antidote
I’m more of an Arminian by the way, though I do appreciate elements of Calvinism. Heh, now look you’ll start us off on a scriptural debate.
2 Warren,
You are bang on. In fact, one of my friends has said she doesn’t feel too guilty about not reading the bible regularly because she gets it in “regular doses” in the liturgy.
Apologies on my spelling today folks. My harware spell check (brain) must not be worling.
Peter (#3), you are right about there being many other blogs where theological issues are discussed; I spend far too much time visiting them. There doesn’t seem to be much out there with an Anglican flavour, though. And even less with an evangelical Anglican flavour.
I would suggest that the ANiC is known more for what it is against than what it is for, which is entirely natural given recent developments. I think it would be healthy, however, if there was more discussion on what it means to be a Network Anglican, and I think this blog could play a valuable role in that discussion.
Take this post for example – it is easy to come up with reasons why “mission” is failing in the ACoC. The more important question, in my mind, is how ANiC churches intend to do missions. In earlier eras, the Anglican church could perpetuate itself through births and baptisms. This is no longer a valid model for church growth, and the gospel needs to be preached to a world that knows nothing of Christianity and views the church with deep suspicion. What role does Anglicanism have to play in spreading the gospel and how can it do so with integrity and relevance? These are the sorts of issues that I would love to see discussed on this blog.
Sounds good to me – up and at em, guys! How should we ‘do’ mission? We’re looking at a leaflet drop in our community as a Church invite to the services and events over the summer, whist that may sound pretty pathetic, it’s a start and puts us in peoples minds especially in the ‘what shall we do with the kids moments’……
However, this doesn’t really touch highly on theology….
This thread is quickly fading, but I’ll try to keep it alive (I’m sure there are many out there who are concerned about reaching the lost with the good news) . . .
How is the gospel best presented to a culture that is increasingly post modern, and ignorant of all things Christian? Is the saying attributed to St Francis – preach the gospel, if necessary use words – valid, or even scriptural? Those in the emergent church movement would argue that it is all about “contexualization”; presenting the gospel in ways that are relevant to the culture. Are they right, or are they just watering down the Word? Is the manner in which the gospel is presented the most important thing, or is the actual message most critical? Can we trust the Holy Spirit to make up for our shortcomings in how we present the message? Is it correct, as some would say, that, in our current culture, we should expect it to take up to five years of friendship and gentle persuasion before someone can be expected to give their life to Christ? Is revival still part of God’s plan; and can we expect the Holy Spirit to move in dramatic ways as He did on the day of Pentecost when large numbers responded to Peter’s sermon? In short, how can ANiC churches most effectively carry out the great commission?
Warren
All of your questions are good ones. On a personal level, they will know we are Christians by our love. But many of your questions require answers from our emerging church. My sense is that, in a real way, we are in free fall conveyed by the Holy Spirit. When we can catch our breath and recce the landscape, our answers to your questions will define us as a church.
Peace,
Jim
Warren #5 & #7: I’m totally with you on the need for us Anglicans to dig into Scripture more and more. We need to know this book which is God-breathed and life-giving and which, as the Sword of the Spirit, is an essential part of our spiritual armour. I also agree that evangelism, the proclaiming of the Good News, is our calling as a church. However, I don’t see discussion this blog as unrelated to these characteristics of the church in action.
Here’s why: It strikes me that, in all our present ‘troubles’ God is giving us the chance to represent Christ and the Gospel to the Canadian public. Will the public be asking itself: What makes these people stand firm in this situation when the road prescribed by the ACoC would be ‘nicer’ and more in keeping with the spirit of the age? What makes ministers jeopardize their livelihoods and families when they could just quietly believe what they want and say nothing? Why do the ANiC congregations continue to stand when bishops and powers-that-be lock them out of their buildings and take over their bank accounts? To the public we are a smallish number (though growing) and, as just a cross-section of Canadians, not terribly powerful (though the Holy Spirit empowers us). Of course, we are and will be misunderstood (especially as the enemy makes the focus SSB) but there will be some who take note and seek to understand: What is driving these people? What can be this important? What makes this David face that Goliath?
Some have asked these questions and then we answer them, helping them to see that we stand for the Gospel, for the uniqueness of Christ, for the Word of God which must not be added to or subtracted from, for the fact that our ‘[Lord's] lovingkindness is better than life’ (Psalm 63:3). In some ways, our present suffering is making us martryrs, that is, witnesses, of the Gospel in our society today. It also takes us to the Scripture and it keeps us on our knees and waiting on the Lord.
Irena (#9), I hope you are right about the public taking notice; and drawing correct conclusions. However, if the people I work with are indicative of Canadian society at large, Anglican issues are completely under the radar and of no concern. They know little about Christianity, and tend to paint all “religious fanatics” with the same brush. To them, an Islamic fundamentalist isn’t much different than a evangelical zealot; both are seen as dangerous. For that matter, I think most evangelicals have little understanding of what is going on in the Anglican church, and not much interest.
The Anglican church I attended, and which was making a strong effort to reach out to the adjacent university campus, was trying hard to understand the cultural context and minister appropriately. I’m sure other Anglican churches are doing likewise, but some probably still have a long way to go in this regard. I should clarify that I don’t view contextualization as watering down of the gospel. Preaching on sin, God’s holiness and wrath, and that belief in Jesus is the only means of salvation, should never be comprised in favour of homilies that focus only on God’s love and moral platitudes. For me, contextualization is mostly about presenting the gospel in a way that people can understand it – not much different than translating the Bible so that people who speak a different language can understand it.
Yes, Warren (#10), you are right that mostly we are being misunderstood. You only have to read the drivel and propaganda sold in any large Canadian bookstore (not naming names) to know that we don’t have a fighting chance in the culture around us. The books I could list!!! All I was saying above (#9) is that, as our situation becomes more known and even worsens, we’ll be given opportunities to stand and be counted. As the division within our communion becomes public there will be, for us, no hiding under the safe and proper title ‘Anglican’ and more and more of us will have to make the choice between acceptability and faithfulness. God is removing ‘the bushel’ over us so that our light will shine more clearly!
Even through the worst storms (we’re ANiC in New Westminster) the leadership of our church has conscientiously kept the proclamation of the gospel (teaching from the Word and evangelism) as our top priority. To act otherwise would be to be deflected from our task as Christ’s church (by you-know-whom). Does it make human sense that people would be drawn to Jesus during this time when many are embarrassed by him and his Word? Nonetheless, they hear the Word and come and receive him! What an amazing God we have!
Irena (#11), I hope I didn’t come across too negatively. With Christ, we are more than conquerors and and with the Holy Spirit we have more than a fighting chance – it’s just that we often don’t see it with our natural eyes. As you conclude in your comment above, even though the odds seem against it, people still hear the Word and come to a saving faith. We do have an amazing God!
Alleluia!
One of our strongest church members became a Christian and a church attender after hearing about all of our troubles in the Anglican Church.
In fact, a number in our congregation have been sent to reading their Bibles fervently to understand what is going on in the Anglican Church and several have come to faith and others have gone from pew warmers to vibrant Christians.
Regarding other churches noticing what is going on, we have had many expressions of support from ministers and churches in our area – phone calls, visits, letters, cards, emails, attending our services, offers of use of buildings for services, for weddings, for funerals, etc., etc. I think that is true of St. Hilda’s also, and St. George’s.
Churchgirl101 (#14), I have no doubt that other churches (especially clergy) have some awareness of what is going on – especially for those churches in the vicinity of a new ANiC church. I live far from any ANiC parishes and am saddened to say that, among the 700 people who attend my church, little or no notice is being taken of what is happening within Canadian Anglicanism. Even an elderly couple who left the Anglican church in disgust a few years ago after many years of faithful service, and one of our pastoral staff who was raised in the Church of England, seem to have very little interest. I would hope that, if one of the local Anglican parishes joined the Network and needed assistance, our church would offer help (I would certainly push for that).