I have been a fan of St George Rugby League Club in Sydney since 1980 (they were champions then, and have failed to win since). However, I own only one piece of club paraphenalia (a beanie I sleep in sometimes), and I have been to perhaps three games in the last 27 seasons. I am not aware of their current form, nor of the names of their current players. Their coach is Nathan Brown (or was last time I looked). I don't watch their games on TV (even when I am in Australia). However, I do want them to win, and if they are in a major game it is them that I barrack for (that means 'support' in Australian). St George RLC is certainly not aware that I exist - but I think that they could make a better effort to flush me out.
Am I a St George fan?
Well, I think I am. But a diehard, every game attending fan will most likely despise me for my lack of commitment. But how dare they!
It strikes me that this is how many, many people think about their membership of the Anglican church, at least in Sydney. Apparently, there are fewer of them than five years ago (see here), but it is still a whopping 20+% of the population - more by far and further than support St George, even more than support Rugby League!
Evangelicals have in the last thirty years seen such people as a bit of a nuisance, because they asked for baptisms and funerals which took a lot of time but in many cases didn't really believe what they are doing - it's a horrible feeling performing a sacred ceremony when you know people are basically perjuring themselves before God, believe me. Or, perhaps they lingered on as Christmas and Easter attenders who complained when anything changed, but didn't really care about what happened the rest of the time.
But: some 700,000 people in our city already think if themselves as members of our club, which I would think means that they have some vaguely positive feelings towards us. So: what are we doing about it? This is a huge potential missionfield.... What is the statistical information that we have on this vast population of people? Why are they still connected, but absent?
10 comments:
I wonder if we could not use those opportunities of baptism and funerals and weddings as a form of discipleship.
I think God's grace is at work attracting people to the sacraments (and sacramental rites), even if they can't formulate why they are attracted to them, or what they actually mean. In other words, the sacrament holds on to them even when the spoken Word of sermons and creeds has become very weak.
I have never been a parish priest--I don't know. But it seems like you should be able to require, say, parents to attend a few meetings about the faith before baptizing their baby.
Yes, this is now standard practice in Sydney for these services (though not funerals of course!). But I am not aware of it succeeding as an evangelistic strategy particularly well. I think we could use baptism more - actually invite people to consider and seek it for their children and then do as you suggested.
Funny enough, (I am in Newcastle as you may remember)I have conducted about 400 funerals over the last 4 years mainly for nominal ACA's. They chose a celebrant rather than an Anglican clergyman because they have had such a poor deal from Anglican clergy in our region who, they say to me, have been arrogant, rude and demanding towards them. They feel they have been depersonalised, and just regarded as a number. I think they are also concerned about some of the social issues where Newcastle Anglicans differ from Sydney anglicans (some have expressed that).
They overwhelmingly have expressed the desire to be treated like a person.
I think they desire to know someone who will be their friend, and will share the gospel with them on that basis.
I am guessing that the problem is the overwhelming numbers of nominals that Anglican clergy ahve to deal with in a week, that must make them impatient and seem unfriendly. On the other side I know some very very good warm friendly Sydney Anglican clergy. Some are even sensitive! wait.. I am trying to think of one....
I think some lessons in people skills at theological college may be helpful (imagine a B.Th from Moore with a third level in friendliess!)
Steve
Friendly? My goodness, we can't have that!
Yes, actually having pointed out the large numbers of nominals, it strikes me that to serve all of them in this way would be overwhelming. In the bad old days, the nominals were the bane of clergy existence.
Wow, 400 funerals is a very large number!
Good post, Michael. I was thinking about this issue just recently when our congregation doubled in size for a baptism, some of whose participants were plainly unchurched in any sense. Our minister's approach to baptisms seems very open, and whatever else one might say about this, I feel it must be preferable to the resentful spirit I've witnessed from some others.
Why are they still connected, but absent?
In my many years living as an expatriate, there were several where I did not attend church at all in the area where I lived: this, essentially, because the Protestant churches in the area were crazy, and the one that wasn't crazy broke my heart. (I also attended mass at the local Catholic church for a year, with the understanding of my minister back home but to the scandal of several friends to whom I mentioned my behaviour.) I don't wish to expound the circumstances in detail and in a sense it would defeat the purpose to do so, because my red-button issues are different to others', and it's the general point I want to address.
I stopped going to the church in question because its absurdities were beyond my tolerance, and there was no personal connection to counterbalance this; and I didn't go back because I saw no realistic hope of it being different. (The Catholic church by contrast, whatever its flaws, "was what it was" to adapt the saying.) Likewise I think nominals don't come to church because at some point they stopped, for whatever reason, and whenever they've wandered back through the door we haven't given them a reason to stay. I am inclined to respect this. If I have personal objections to a church I can articulate them in acceptably Christian terms: but I am (what passes in this country for) an intellectual and I have a theology degree, and so if I couldn't do this there would be something wrong with me. Just because hoi polloi can't do this, it does not render their opinion unworthy of attention.
Since I can't speak for an ethnic or a social group, let me take the scientific community as an example. If per impossibile this particular prodigal group returned to the fold in force, without any prior movement on our part, I claim that the evangelical church would have no idea how to handle the phenomenon. Yes? The estrangement has been long-standing. We are no longer accustomed to each others' sensitivities, except as means of provoking further tedious conflict.
I think I amn with you on the choice of going to the CAtholic church, and I think John Calvin would be too...I think...
Re Calvin: That's also my impression ... I think ...
The point I really wanted to make was that I had quite good reasons for leaving the church I left, which I felt were unacceptably difficult to raise or discuss with the minister ... and to what end? Yet he was doing what was right by his lights. I cannot help thinking there is some overlap with the relationship between nominals and evangelical churches. For our churches have a very strong sense of themselves, and of what the issues are; but how strong is the interest in what the agenda of third parties might be?
To take another example, if I found myself in an American town where the choice was between a liberal congregation --- waist-deep in all the compromises most noxious to the habitués of this blog --- and an evangelical church that was a creationist hotbed, I would most likely break bread with the liberals. (If the evangelicals were also gay-baiters, that would clinch the deal in a heartbeat.) I see no need to make apology for this preference, which, for a scientist, scarcely requires explanation. But in much evangelical discourse there is a kind of conspiracy to avoid acknowledging that people have loyalties of this kind which are valid on their own terms, and which can cut across our preferred ecclesial choices.
Well, I guess it is one thing for this to be tested in extremis (ie the examples you have given). It is rather disappointing if our kind of evangelical church, which is committed to mission and in the midst of a city in which 700000 inhabitants would sign up for 'Anglican', is unable to put itself in the shoes of those who may potentially be its more regular members but who can't for whatever reason...
I love the phrase 'habitues of this blog' btw! Makes us all sound rather more sophisticated than we are!
Of course, you could start your own church. All you need is another person and a Bible! [Actually, you know, Robinson Crusoe has some serious discussion of this problem...really!]
Habitué is such a great word. I don't know about "sophisticated", though: a bar has habitués, after all.
As to starting my own church: no thank you.
It is rather disappointing if our kind of evangelical church ... is unable to put itself in the shoes of those who may potentially be its more regular members
On why someone might be unable to do something straightforward and necessary:
"`I can answer your question,' said Fitzwilliam, `without applying to him. It is because he will not give himself the trouble.'"
Being shy, I have sympathy with Darcy in his situation in the novel. But it's harder to sustain sympathy with the predicament of evangelical churches as a group, considering the noisiness of their rhetoric in this matter. Part of the problem is surely that we have purity issues. The analogy with the Pharisees has been made many times ... but has it been taken to heart?
Rugby League or Rugby Union? Which is better?
Personally i think Rugby League out classes union by far, though being a Wakefield Wildcats fan makes me a little biased! However i do admit that internationally Rugby League needs some work so Rugby Union has that on its side but what about the game itself?
It seems that Rugby Union is just a collection of dog piles most of the time followed by short lived runs which either involve running straight into the other teams players or scoring the odd try, WHY!? In Rugby League I can see the point in running straight into your opponent as you have to make some ground only having six tackles to do it but in Union, its just a way off losing the ball! Fools!
I mean I like doing a little Rugby League Betting every other week but When it comes to Rugby Union, its just boring! KICK! THERE INFRONT! KICK! THERE BEHIND!! KICK THERE INFRONT AGAIN!!! OH NO WAIT!! THERE BEHIND AGAIN! RUN THE DAMN BALL!!!!
Anyway I’ll stop my rant here and give someone else say what they think!
Post a Comment