Giles Fraser doesn’t like evangelism

I have this delicious vision of the leaflet ninjas being followed down by parachuting cassock-wearing priests, each carrying a small load of bricks and mortar ready to build an ‘insta-church’ before the sun rises on their new parish.

Yes, David, that “cafeteria Christianity” again…take what you want, and leave the rest. 

Meanwhile, yell about “boundaries” because the Christian down the street is doing it better than you. 

Lots of people/clergy don’t like the Gospel being preached when it’s not their gospel, but it’s easier to hijack a church(especially one that has beautiful liturgy—we MUST have pretty music at all costs) than it is to have integrity, admit that your message is truly not a Christian one, and start a new Unitarian church…except for that pesky, neurotic “validate-me” legitimacy thing, even though I truly sound just like any other New Age flake.  But, if I can manage to show the whole world that this is the NEW mainline protestantism, then maybe I am REAL, RIGHT, and have WORTH….

“Tell me if it’s the same with you wonderful people in the States and Canada”...ok, case-in-point: 

From the St. Lukes/Park City, UT, website: 

“Fr. Charles left the Southern Baptist tradition during his late twenties because he could no longer be intellectually honest and open in such a conservative environment…‘We fell in love with the Episcopal Church because it is a Christ-centered spiritual community that celebrates intellectual freedom, diversity of thought and experience, and respect for the dignity of every human being’”...

A “Christ-centered spiritual community”...as opposed to a “Christian church”?!!! 

It continues: 

“Fr. Charles thinks that, due to the convergence of a number of factors, a new spiritual reformation or understanding is slowly emerging.  The Church of the 21st century will continue to celebrate the love and mercy of God expressed in Jesus of Nazareth as it increasingly acknowledges that God can never be contained and finally defined by any one particular theological or religious system.  Religion’s attempt to control thinking, to suppress intellectual diversity and spiritual exploration is coming to an end.  Christian spirituality will more and more be seen, not as submitting oneself uncritically to a list of “correct beliefs” or doctrines, but as an exciting, wondrous adventure embracing not only Christian thought and tradition, but also that of other faith and wisdom traditions from around the globe.  Salvation will no longer be understood as the attainment of immediate certainty and “eternal security,” but as the healing and wholeness that comes from the fearless search for truth, wisdom, and unity.

“My dream for St. Luke’s is that we will increasingly become a place of worship, study and practice, a spiritual community that celebrates intentional hospitality and intellectual freedom.  In other words, our support of one another’s practice of those disciplines and methods that deepen our love and compassion and awaken our consciousness of the Love of God will take place in a community context that is completely open, both spiritually and intellectually. St. Luke’s is, and will more and more become, a safe place to explore and practice spirituality. . .Completely in love with the God revealed in and through Jesus of Nazareth. . . .Completely open to any and all seekers. . . .Completely accepting. . . .Completely curious. . . Completely excited about the adventure of the spiritual journey.””

Come again?  I intellectually understand all of the above, but I think it’s COMPLETE AND UTTER BUNK… 

While I don’t have data from ‘05-07, it appears this church had a steady decline in ASA from ‘01-‘05, from 240 to 100 on a Sunday.  The above rector, I believe, has been in place since ‘02.

http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_512200795040AM.pdf

In my view, this is a common phenom all over TEC.  When they go from The Gospel to a gospel of intellectual secularism with a splash of Jesus, the confessing Christians tend to vote with their feet. 

It will shake out over a number of years, just as it always has.  False gospels, eventually, don’t have much of a membership.

So, to answer your question, yes, it’s “everywhere”.  But, despite its “cultural conditioning”, the Scriptures called all of this right, and, for us, forewarned is always forearmed. 

And, foremost, HE STILL REIGNS, in spite of all the psuedointellectual human gobbledygook…

Keep the Faith, Brother, and your post was a great one!! 

IC,

O.

Transgressing parish boundaries and trespassing on another church’s parish has, historically, always been a huge no-no in the Church of England (no-no is a technical theological term).  Elsewhere it seems non-sensical because of the absence of geographical parish boundaries.  However, in recent years there has been a recognition that a fussy observance of boundaries can hinder the mission and ministry of the church, and the general advice from many bishops has been to “observe boundaries where to do so helps the gospel, and ignore them where they hinder the gospel.”
Rogation days and ‘beating the bounds’ are still often enough observed in rural parishes and sometimes in urban parishes.
The main issue reflected in Giles’ article is that reappraisers seek to elevate the transgression of ecclesial boundaries, whether at the parish level in England or at the international provincial level, such as with CANA, to a level of moral equivalence with the consecration of a sexually active unmarried man as a bishop.  Such an equivalence was explicitly rejected in the Windsor Report.  Nonetheless, as a strategy it is reasonably effective, because it clouds the issues under discussion and reduces the debate to a tit-for-tat squabble about the breaking of rules.
It is true that the geographical integrity of ecclesial boundaries has been recognized from a very early date in Christian history.  BUT that has always been tempered by the concomitant recognition that there are occasions when intervention is very necessary, to correct error and restore order.  Autonomy is important, but autonomy should never be confused with independence.

I must plead ignorance on the “Church of England of South Africa.”  I take it this is a conservative offshoot of Anglicanism that is not in communion with Canterbury, is this correct?  Can someone provide a bit of background on the organization and what it is up to in England (and, I assume, South Africa as well)?

Pity that they have caught on to the ninja thing.  How are we going to carry out our parts in the midnight church raisings on September 30th now that Fraser has blown our modus operandi?

Pray tell, could one of you Brits tell this Yank what it is you mean by the phrase “beating the bounds”?

David:

Re:  Church ‘boundaries’

This is intriguing for two reasons.  One is purely theological - does the Church really have boundaries?  The second is regional - I live in the West were such traditions are thin and the idea of a ‘boundary’ is not even really a concept here (with the exception of the Montana TEC Bishop who thinks he owns the entire state). 

Of course the idea that a church, any Christ-centered Bible-based church has a boundary is ridiculous.  It’s not Scriptural, it actually limits the effectiveness of any church who adheres to it.  One of the reasons we started attending our former church was because the priest encouraged us to support the other Christian ministries in town and see our Christian witness as in conjunction - rather than competition - with our Brothers and Sisters in the Faith.  I think that’s a Godly perspective.  Even now, without a priest, we see our role is to be supportive of other Christians - not to be ‘sheep hunting’.

The second is just purely a cultural shock.  In Montana (and much of the West) just having a good church - of any variety - is a goal so no one really is into ‘boundaries’.  Here, a large church is one that has 100 or more members -  with the exception of our Catholic brethren.  Now, like I said, the Bishop of Montana is an entirely different oppressive story - he not only thinks the entire state is his boundary - but thinks he should control everyone coming in and out of it (and what they say, as well).  But as our SLC friends, his liberal grip is getting tighter and tighter and more and more Godly people slip through his grasp.  So, that boundary is slowly slipping away. 

Isn’t it amazing how even now the traditions the English started with their churches (Feudalism) still play out even today?  We forget sometimes that traditions are easily started but are not so easy to leave.

“church boundaries” and “beating the bounds”

Its an English thang and tied up with being the established church for the whole population.  In the parish system the rector or vicar is given the “cure of souls” for the parish and everyone in it; not just for the congregation of the church/s within it.  Within that parish the incumbent deals with all marriages etc.  It dates back to a wider vision.

Beating the bounds was also done marking out the boundaries of the parish.  A few places still do it.

There is quite a lot of discussion here about whether these boundaries are now inhibiting our mission in modern conditions.

Let’s not have any of that “salvationist” folderol.  Keep the boundaries.  Let’s see heaven, earth, hell ... wait! wait! Jesus!  You can’t do that here!  What’s with this boundary crossing you’re doing?

Stop it, Jesus!  Stop it, right now!  Or, I’ll have to tell yo momma!

Yeah, that’ll stop this boundary crossing.  Who does that Jesus think he is?  God?  One little slip in the handwashing and next thing you know, He’s all over the place!

In rural agrarian England in the Middle Ages “beating the bounds” each year marked the the boundaries of the fields in which members of the community raised crops. Boundary marks were identified and in some cases restored. In Medieval feudal society the “parish” also was as much a civil unit as an ecclesiastical one. “Beating the bounds” was as much a secular practice as an ecclesiastical one. This practice provides no precedence for maintaining rigid territorial boundaries for local churches or provinces. It simply will not bear the weight of such an interpretation.

It must also be noted that the Church of England is an established Church. How things are done in the provinces of the Church of England do not provide any precedence for how things should be done elsewhere. In England the Church and State were tied too closely together.

While trespassing in another parish may have been “a hugh no-no” in the Church of England this does not mean that it was not done in the past. John Wesley and George Whitefield preached in open fields when they were not welcomed ihn the parish church. The Anglican Evangelicals planted independent “Evangelical” churches in parishes where the incumbent was not an Evangelical and they were not able to purchase the “living” and therefore become the patron of the parish and pick the incumbent. Evangelical bishops also advised Evangelicals to attend travel to parishes in which the incumbent was an Evangelical and preached the gospel if the incumbent of their parish belonged to another Church party and was too secular, too liberal or too “Catholic”. In some cases parishes had more than one church and the churchmanship of each church was different.

You will find no support for parishes, denominations, or territoriality in the New Testament. In the New Testament you will find support for the concept of local churches, local bodies of believers, and the concept of universal Church, made up of all believers in all places for all time. But that is about it. Paul does refer twice to the “churches” in a particular but his reference is not sufficient warrant for any notion of “national church”.

Parishes - well that’s the history.  There is still an element in the Cof E that makes provision for new towns and communities to ensure that the population has access to a church.  That’s why we are still supporting churches in places where the population has moved and building new ones in new towns.  Its cumbersome and now doesn’t add up and provides an argument for those such as Dr. Fraser who find some such traditions sacrosanct.

In the Elizabethan period the parishes were not only a church area but an administrative area and the parish was the unit that had care of the poor under the “poor laws” and until recently the unit on which schools were based.  The parish was an organised unit which defined and still in some places defines that particular community…in England.

Parish Boundaries

Here is some history from the Commonwealth of Virginia (400 today!).  In colonial times the same “established church” relationship existed in Virginia as in England, other than that there were nowhere near enough ministers which led to the development of lay leadership and the vestry system, but that’s a topic for another day.

Parishes had civil duties in addition to religious ones.  They “beat the bounds” (as in medevial England) to establish property boundaries, they executed contracts of indenture to care for orphans and were responsible for the care of the poor, maintaining public roads and prosecuting people in the county civil courts for offenses of the morals laws.  For this they were supported by taxes collected by the county sheriff.   This ended after the disestablishment, though the same people who had been on the vestries became “overseers of the poor” and continued some of these duties as civil officers.

Why is this relevant to the current discussion?  Well, Bishop Lee has recently complained about boundary crossings, but Virginia has effectively neutered the traditional, geographical, parish!

Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia (2005 revision)

CANON 9. Boundaries.

Section 1. The Parishes of the Diocese, and their boundaries, are fixed as of January 23, 1972, and shall not be changed henceforth.

Section 2. In every Region, the Rector and Vestry of each Church and the Vicar and the Vestry Committee of each Mission shall have and exercise concurrent jurisdiction within the boundaries of the Region, and equal responsibility for the extension and welfare of the Church and ministration to needy people within the Region.

[And, included for completeness’ sake.]

Section 3. The authority of an inactive Church is assigned to the Executive Board, which may delegate this authority in specific cases to a sub-committee composed entirely of members of the Executive Board. An inactive Church is defined as one in which there is no functioning Vestry or Vestry Committee.

I don’t know how widespread this practice is within TEC in general, but in the DioVA the vestries of every congregation within a “region” have concurrent jusisdiction and each region has a clergy Dean and a lay President and some mechanisim wherein common efforts may be addressed.

Why oppose concurrent jurisdicitions at the Diocesan and Provincial level [for argument’s sake we’ll say by mutual consent] as unprecedented and impossible when you’ve proven that they don’t have to be at the level of parish boundaries?

It seems to me that, at least conceptually, the concept of a ‘parish’ which has boundaries has to date back to the era of Constantine when Christianity was declared the official religion, and everyone was obliged to come under the jurisdiction of the Church, which was a co-agent with the State. The missional church was no longer requisite within the boundaries of the Christian state, and a “mission” was a church established to convert the heathens in a foreign county (since, by definition, the sending country was ‘Christian’ and not ‘heathen’).
  This concept was carried into the American mainland, where there are still churches today with vigorous “missions” programs, defined as sending people ‘over there’ to the heathen nations (we no longer use this term, but many of us still think this way). Some very evangelical denominations, who would never think of the idea of a ‘parish’ yet regard their own territory as won and foreign territories as ‘mission fields’. These concepts create a burden for us today in this post-Christian world.
  I submit, contrary to the gut reaction of the conservative in this country, that the United States is not a Christian nation. I have seen extensive apologia contending that it was indeed established originally as a Christian nation, but the truth or error of that statement has no bearing on the current situation. I suspect that Canada may be in the same situation. I fear that England, no matter how non-Christian it may become, will never be able to admit such a fact.
  Yet, at least for my home country, it is a fact. Once admitted, it becomes a very liberating idea. No longer will we be able to think of ourselves as the Savior of the (third) World. No longer will we think of missionaries as those who travel to Africa (or Southeast Asia, etc.) and never as those who travel FROM such places to convert the heathen country of the United States.
  What a mind-boggling idea it would be, if clerics from, say, England, petitioned to the burgeoning Christian communities in the Global South to send helpers to convert their heathen nation! “Beating the bounds” as a concept could no longer be maintained within the newly perceived reality.

His article is so sad to me. 

He so does not get it. 

The more I read things like this the more I am convinced we need new wineskins for our church.  Perhaps what we think we so most desperately need to protect, or stay linked to, is exactly what God wants us to replace.

Watching Mr. Ould fulminate can be interesting.  It’s a good show, so long as you don’t look too closely at what is being claimed…
Above, Mr. Ould claims that “Fraser loves to misrepresent,” and offers as evidence the point that the interlopers ” ... invited a CESA bishop in. But here’s the rub - since he’s not in communion with the CofE then how could it possibly be a crossing of boundaries?”  The answer is found a little earlier in the material that Ould himself has quoted:  “Bearing the C of E logo, it proclaimed “a new church for Fulham”. The back of the glossy flyer had a map showing half of his parish.”
So the interlopers posted a flyer representing themselves as being the Church of England, but they were not in fact from that Church, had not followed the rules of that church—they’d merely appropriated the name and logo.  If one takes their false advertising as genuine, then it is a clear case of crossing boundaries.  Otherwise, it’s a case of deceit and theft—curious behavior for those purporting to be from a church (and conservative at that!) which teaches “thou shalt not steal.”
Mr. Ould is apparently unconcerned with such practices, since the “church” in question is preaching a dogma he happens to approve of.  One wonders what his opinion might be if we took the exact same conduct but exchanged the players.  Anybody want to bet that there wouldn’t be some instant outrage on display?
.

Thank you, taomikeal.  I couldn’t agree more.
I was also mildly amused by Mr. Ould’s emphatic assertion that only a church preaching “another gospel” would complain about a “growing, bible-based church”  down the street.  He rhetorically asks:

How can that possibly be a problem? Would you complain if a growing, bible-based church set up in the next couple of streets from you? Personally, I’d be delighted that more people were being reached with the gospel. Unless, of course, I was preaching another gospel.

Would Mr. Ould be so “thrilled” if that same “bible-based church” began to attract and draw parishioners away from his church?  I suspect he wouldn’t.

Actually, I suspect that he would be fine with parishioners leaving his church for another so long as the other is faithful to the scriptures. I would too.

In any case, I am utterly thrilled when parishioners leave heretic TEC parishes for bible-based non-denominational evangelical churches and I think it is important for orthodox parishes within and/or outside of TEC to do what they can to help those caught up under false teachers.

True, sodbuster. But over time the church came to believe that it already owned the only real estate worth having.

Frankly, Matt, I find that extremely difficult to believe, unless one is ready to go out the door himself, which apparently many federal conservative rectors are.

believe it third mill

RE: “Would Mr. Ould be so “thrilled” if that same “bible-based church” began to attract and draw parishioners away from his church?  I suspect he wouldn’t.”

Yikes, Third Mill—I’m a Communion Conservative [not a Federal Conservative] and if someone is a confident reasserting Anglican rector they should be fine with other churches setting up shop down the street.  Bring it on! . . . should be their response.

We live in secular cities, largely, with many many many unchurched people in them.  There are more than enough to go around to each and every reasserting church of varying denominations.

Strong Episcopal parishes should be more than able to hold their own and offer their unique gifts to seekers who will be attracted to them—just as seekers of different personalities and needs will be attracted to other types of churches. 

I have often talked with seekers and, after carefully assessing their needs and nature, have recommended churches of various denominations to them, depending on what those churches will offer.

I really don’t think that a traditional service in an Episcopal church is right for every seeker.  Nor do I think that a conservative Baptist church or every non-denominational contemporary-worship church is right for every seeker.

Would Mr. Ould be so “thrilled” if that same “bible-based church” began to attract and draw parishioners away from his church?  I suspect he wouldn’t.

I’d be delighted. More people hearing the gospel every week. I’d be telling people to decide which of the 2 churches they felt better able to commit to and then to get stuck into the work.

And, I’d also have no problems if a neighbouring liberal catholic parish set up a marquee on the street outside our building. I’ve got nothing to fear from false gospel.

See the difference? We evangelicals don’t need parish boundaries and rules to “protect” us. We serve a completely different master who never once (to my knowledge - and I could be wrong, I’ve only read the bible through about 4 times and spent 10 years studying it) spoke about such parish boundaries.

Thank you, David and Sarah, for putting it so well.

This article and dialogue has revealed a 180 degree difference in how one views the nature of the church and the role it is intended to play in the Kingdom.

Luke 15:7 tells us that there is joy in heaven when one sinner repents.  I don’t believe this joy is contigent on the repentence occuring within the boundaries of a historical parish.  If the Gospel is being proclaimed, let them at it.

Okay, look, I like to think I’m the very model of a modern reappraiser.  I support the ordination of V. Gene Robinson.  I think references to gender-specific terms should be removed from the Sacrament of Matrimony.  I sometimes get very annoyed with, very impatient with, people who disagree with me on these points.

But what’s the deal with boundaries?  Why the hell am I supposed to care whether Archbishop Akinola wants to set up churches in the States?  Let him—some of the pledge money will go to some very worthwhile social justice programs in Nigeria, where an American dollar goes pretty far.  We’re all about microlending and socially responsible investments, we get a chance to make conservative dissenters happy and pay for great work to be done in Nigeria, too, and we’re supposed to be upset about it?  What’s the deal?  I know Archbishop Akinola’s pretty far right on relationship related issues, but it’s not as if there’s some massive gay-friendly competitor over there that conservatives could be sending money to instead.  This is it.  You want to help Nigeria, you tolerate the fact that some of the people doing good work over there will be homophobes.  Same applies if you want to help pretty much any poor nation on Earth.  Don’t like it?  Then conscientiously object by refusing to attend churches under the authority of the Province of Nigeria—certainly I won’t.  But why impose our conscientious objections on others? 

It is high time, I think, for progressives in the Episcopal Church to show some grace to dissenting conservatives.  If they want out of affiliated Episcopal communities, let them have their own.  Instead of shelling out millions in legal fees to keep property you won’t know what to do with anyway, just sell it to the conservatives at a discount, or lease it.  There are better uses of that money and time.  Property doesn’t matter.  Jurisdictional boundaries don’t matter.  Those are not compelling primary concerns for a religious organization.  Better to focus on the things that do matter—much better things that can be done with all of that time, money, and passion than kicking conservatives around.  Radical inclusion is a worthwhile agenda.  Radical asset management?  Not so much.

Cheers,

TH

It’s always amusing when a party wishes the protection of rules, while ignoring those rules themselves.

I’m reminded of the tradition where the medics in the armies of civilized nations are considered noncombatants—off limits to being deliberately targeted. I may be wrong, but as I understand it in WW II that was somewhat respected by both sides. In return, the Allies would treat the wounded of the other side and I assume vise versa.

In Vietnam and Iraq, by contrast, the docs carry sidearms. That’s because the OTHERS (obvious reference to the TV show Lost) don’t honor this tradition.

Telling orthodox ministers to keep out, while simultaneously imposing heresy on the local Christian populace is like the Viet Cong or terrorists overrunning the American camp and killing the docs, while fussing that the docs tried to squeeze off a round or two before being taken down!

In an age of denominationalism, the “no boundary crossing” argument is simply absurd.  In any given city or town, there are going to be multiple churches from multiple denominations, often right across the street from each other.  Also, in an age of automobiles, geographical proximity is no more an issue for church attendance than it is for work.  If necessary, people will commute to church.

In terms of theological consistency, if the boundary crossing argument is to work, then the local Episcopal/Anglican bishop has an obligation to protest not only against interloping Anglicans, but also against his neighboring Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Methodist colleagues. If the ancient canon is to be followed, there can be only one bishop in a geographical area.  The ancient tradition says nothing about one “Episcopal/Anglican” bishop.

The unspoken assumption of the argument seems to be that if orthodox Episcopalians/Anglicans have only one Episcopal/Anglican parish in their neighborhood, that’s the one they’ll attend.  And if it’s a liberal parish, they’ll attend it and support it.  Nonsense.  That hasn’t been true for at least two generations now.  Massive loss of membership in both TEC(ECUSA) and the C of E in the last two generation demonstrate the obvious.  If the local TEC/Anglican parish is not orthodox, orthodox Anglicans will drive a little further to find one that is.  If they can’t find one that is, or if they’re no longer willing to live in a diocese or denomination that no upholds orthodox faith, they’ll start shopping in other denominations, they’ll find a bishop who will cross boundaries, or they’ll find something else to do on Sunday mornings. 

But they won’t attend a revisionist parish because of the ancient tradition against “boundary crossing.”

I don’t think boundary crossing is an issue, but judging from AMiA membership figures it doesn’t look to me like Episcopalians are flocking to the right, either.  Most demographic analyses I’ve read of mainline church decline attribute it mostly to people falling out of church attendance altogether (falling off the left and joining the church alumni association), not moving to the right—which makes sense when you think about it, since mainline churches in many cases try to appeal to more casual churchgoers who don’t necessarily attend every Sunday.  Imagine the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, saying that attending four services a year is just fine.

I’m also of the apparent minority opinion that it doesn’t matter a hill of beans how many people belong to your denomination.  I would be absolutely fine with joining a national denomination that consisted of one church with 150 members.  Sunday morning, when I’ve participated in it, has been the one point in my life when I couldn’t be bothered to care about prestige.  I got so much out of the 1pm Spanish service at St. Andrew’s, where attendance ranged anywhere from 5 to 100 (averaging out at around 25), and would attend it even when I missed the 300-strong 11am English service.  And consider: I can’t write a single coherent sentence in Spanish. 

I also don’t like expensive property, because then the property becomes a hassle—the current lawsuits being a case in point.  See, now, if even the largest church property was a half mil, people wouldn’t be coming to blows over all this; “Oh, you can have it, we’ll just buy another one.”  Cheap, plain-looking property with as little sentimental value as possible, if you ask me. 

Cheers,

TH

In colonial Maryland, as in Virginia, the Church of England parish was a civil unit established by act of the General Assembly whose elected vestry was empowered to levy and collect a tax on persons to provide for the poor, build churches, and pay clergy. The tax was usually about 30 pounds of tobacco per person or about 2 to 3 per cent of income. On average giving to the church remains between 2 and 3 per cent of income. After the Revolution the parish boundaries remained and some years ago my father, Dr. Nelson Rightmyer, then the Historiographer of the diocese of Maryland, published a booklet with maps of the parish boundaries in that diocese. I have a few copies for $10.00. Write (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

    The Church of England in South Africa comes from a division in the mid-19th century in that land and is an evangelical low church body with a web site and a succession of bishops from the former Anglican bishop in North Africa.

Spin it anyway you want, Mr.‘s Ould and Kennedy.  But in the future if you ever find yourself in the position where you need to start laying off good parish employees, oh, like youth leaders, associate ministers, maybe even take a salary cut yourself (God forbid!), and make other cut-backs that stall your ministry, because a couple important families in your parish come to you one day and say, “We just feeeeeel like God is telling us to move on,” and then they proceed to move down the street to that new exciting work, I want to hear back from you to see if you’re still as delighted as you both claim to be with Cafeteria-style Christianity.  Maybe it’s because both of you have been on the receiving end of these “flock-exchange” circumstances that you cannot appreciate how traumatic this can be on the other side of the equation.  Or perhaps you’re just superhuman.  Us mere mortals would see things differently.

3rd Mill,

Uh, no. I don’t have a youth minister or staff. I am my staff. I got to my current parish, my first right out of seminary, in 2002. We had about 50 on a Sunday. 2003 came along. I took a public position on VGR. We lost a good thirty. But at the same time we gained about the same number…not transfer but conversion growth. We have, in the years since, grown from 50 on a Sunday to 80 on a Sunday only two of those are transfers or transplants from other Anglican parishes…and these from the most revisionist in town. The rest are either conversion growth or people who have not gone to church since they were kids.

In any case, I don’t need you or anyone else to tell me about losing people. I’ve lost them. I lost the 30 mentioned above (more than half of my original parish) to a liberal parish. Believe me I would have been MUCH happier if they left for biblical congregational churces.

I am not, in other word, talking just to talk. I’ve been there. I could very easily be there again. I would be fine with people leaving so long as I knew they were going to a biblically faithful church.

I am amused by Third Mill’s certainty that we conservative clergy would be really upset if folks left our churches for others they found more enticing.  Like we haven’t experienced that in spades!?!  We live, as William Witt so clearly puts it, in the denominational age and we had better adjust to it.  Most of our conversation (our squabbling) still assumes that Episcopal / Anglican is “The Church.”  We are having difficulty incorporating this new truth into our thinking.

Personally, I romanticize the era of real parish boundaries.  How cool to have real diversity in a parish, many of all opinions and types gathered under the doctrinal umbrella of the BCP!  It ain’t happening, though.  It’s a dream.

Now, people, doesn’t St. Paul speak of parish boundaries when he speaks in Romans 15:20 and 2 Cor. 10:15-16 about not encroaching on the labors of other missionaries?  I always took that to be—in the New Testament context, of course—a warning against “boundary-crossing.”  Perhaps we simply need to update this concern with boundary-crossing to our present denominational and post-Christian context.

Churches or Social Clubs?

Hmm, there seems to be a perception problem with the idea of church here.  A church is not a building, location, or a tradition.  It is not an area.  The church is the People of God.  The job of those people is to ‘go to every nation, baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey EVERYTHING Jesus commanded (note:  not the three socially accepted ideas that are currently socially ‘cool’).  Therefore, by definition, by limiting a church to a certain area you are already destroying it’s primary mission to bring Christ into the ENTIRE world - not just a three block radius of a building. 

Now, this being the case, it stands to reason that the job of all Christians is to bring Christ everywhere - not stop and 4th and Main.  Why one Christian would try to force another into this schematic - is just bizarre.  If you truly love Christ then you want EVERYONE to know him - that is just what makes sense.  If those who are languishing from a lack of knowledge of Christ in a ‘church’ go and find another to find Him, why would any of us stand in their way?

And Third Mill, this does not only apply to Protestants.  I live in a strongly Catholic town and I know one parish in town where their numbers are bursting while three others are just about to shut down.  Why?  The priest at the one has a dynamic relationship with Christ - his love for Jesus draws people to his parish.  Regardless of denomination we all want the same thing - to know Christ better and to find a place that helps us get there.

It’s interesting, however, that David has brought this up.  I remember when my church had their last parish meeting before the majority of us had to leave to continue to be Anglican.  One of our older members stood up and said we should stay together because he knew of an older member who was going to die and he was going to give all that money to the parish.  I remember thinking, “You just don’t get it - it’s not money or buildings or even a tradition of being together - the Church is about Jesus.” 

We aren’t about boundaries, we aren’t about endowments, we aren’t even about the Prayer Book - we are about Christ, need to be about His Business, and draw everyone to Him through our lives and witness.  Anything that detracts from that goal is not worth either time or effort.  The boundaries need to go the way of the Feudalistic culture with originated them.

I’m 110% CommCon and proud of it. 

If any TECers want to walk out and attend nondenominational, Biblically-based Churches, then I’ll dance in the streets along with David, Matt, Sarah, and anyone else who is overjoyed when people come to Christ, not to “the nice guy with good ideas”, “Jesus of Nazareth”, “the man I see in every person who walks down the street”, “Rabbi Jesus”, etc etc. 

Come to Who He really IS, people, or join the Unitarian church.  It’s like I’ve heard Dr. Witt say, too—“Baptism is a Covenant, not a membership card”. 

I’m sure he and others with his thorough education could make the same theological case for the Liturgy.  Those of you who stick around for pretty music and “the person who Jesus was”, are either missing the point or ignoring the point and seeking your own validation.  That worships YOU instead of the Triune God. 

NOT my idea of a good time….

WW writes:

The unspoken assumption of the argument seems to be that if orthodox Episcopalians/Anglicans have only one Episcopal/Anglican parish in their neighborhood, that’s the one they’ll attend.  And if it’s a liberal parish, they’ll attend it and support it.  Nonsense.  ...  If the local TEC/Anglican parish is not orthodox, orthodox Anglicans will drive a little further to find one that is.  If they can’t find one that is, or if they’re no longer willing to live in a diocese or denomination that no upholds orthodox faith, they’ll start shopping in other denominations, they’ll find a bishop who will cross boundaries, or they’ll find something else to do on Sunday mornings.

But they won’t attend a revisionist parish because of the ancient tradition against “boundary crossing.”

I agree. The problem is not just a matter of the building or the material wealth of the parish. Boring we are. There is enough realignment, or rather conforming to Christ in the renewal of my mind to orthodoxy, without listening week after week to heterodoxy from the pulpit. I prefer one style over another, one rite over another. That is merely preference. One mustn’t forget that a person accepts certain things as true and others as untrue. There is absolutely no warrant to listen to orthodoxy in liturgy with an inserted homily or sermon that is in contradiction. I know that the priests that have been in charge of me in the past want the best for me, and if that would mean leaving anglicanism for a spell (or forever) that would be sad in the sense that on the whole then, an area would have been lost to basic Christianity in the denomination.

Tom Head writes of the “church alumni association.”  As a retired priest I frequently meet people who “used to be Episcopalians” and now attend church nowhere. Sometimes these folks moved to a new community and never found - or looked very hard - for a new church home. Some have found other groups that meet their social needs and say that their spiritual life is so interior and personal that they don’t need sermons. Some say that they worked hard at their previous church and don’t want to do it again. Some find that Sunday morning with the New York Times is sufficient. Some tell me that the Episcopal Church fights too much to suit them; they don’t agree with the politics of the minister and other church members who are either too liberal or too conservative for them, and they simply want to be left alone. I realize these are excuses rather than reasons, but they are what I hear.

    Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

Obviously, Matt, given the size of your parish, your experience with church loss did not come with hard decisions to make, like staff reductions.  I suspect you never had to break this kind of “good news” to faithful employees before.  Did your experience with church loss at least have a negative impact on your own pocket book?  How’d that feel?

Aside from these matters, the evangelical capitulation to our cafeteria-style culture betrays a deeper theological problem inherent in evangelicalism: a defective ecclesiology.  That y’all not only accept the reality of “church shopping” as part of our culture, but actually celebrate it is astounding.  That y’all applaud the export of American cafeteria-style culture to the UK as the much needed remedy to the Church’s woes is alarming.

well third mill try talking to your vestry, what is left of it, after suffering the loss of 60% of your congregation, people who made up about 80% of your pledge base in a parish without a significant or sufficient endowment.

Of course it has had a negative impact on my pocketbook. I came with a family of two (including myself) and now we have three kids and one on the way. We are shoestring. So what? God provides.

Go ahead and be alarmed but, in fact, it is your attitude that needs correction. A believer’s mindset ought to be the same as st Paul’s. So long as the gospel is proclaimed, we rejoice. And consistent with that of Christ himself…“he who is not against me is for me”

You have obviously reached a level of sanctification that most ministers never reach in a lifetime, Matt.  I congratulate you for that.  Personally, I have never been in your kind of parish situation, nor even the ones that I describe above, thank God.  The parishes I pastored steadily grew in the years that I led them.  That being said, I have counseled dozens of ministers with struggles such as what I have described, and from a spectrum of theological positions.  Lecturing to them that a believer ought to have the same attitude as St. Paul, and suggesting that something wrong with them if they don’t, while they are experiencing severe personal crises (emotional as well as financial) often leads to despair and hopelessness when they fail to live up to St. Paul’s example.  In these situations I have found that the best approach was to lead them through the angst of the Psalmist as a precursor to Herculean-faith of Paul.  But that required them to be honest with me (and God) about their fears, doubts, and emotions.

RE: “But in the future if you ever find yourself in the position where you need to start laying off good parish employees, oh, like youth leaders, associate ministers, maybe even take a salary cut yourself (God forbid!), and make other cut-backs that stall your ministry, because a couple important families in your parish come to you one day and say, “We just feeeeeel like God is telling us to move on,” and then they proceed to move down the street to that new exciting work . . . “

Uh oh—talk about the wrong example for Matt!  ; > )

Third Mill, all that you’re providing evidence of is that revisionists and reasserters have utterly different values, theology, gospel, etc.  You’re just driving the point home.

So far you’ve heard from Federal Conservatives, Communion Conservatives, those more catholic and those more evangelical—and they all agree that orthodoxy is better than heresy, and if one needs to go to another denomination entirely in order to hear the gospel, then so be it.

The thing we all have in common who have that opinion is that we’re reasserter Anglicans.

This thread provides yet another example of reappraising commenters expecting to unsettle the orthodox with the prospect of religious COMPETITION. No dice. Perhaps this points to a larger difference in outlook, in which orthodox Anglicans incline toward the sort of outreach in which religious competition is a given.

ThirdMill,

Aside from these matters, the evangelical capitulation to our cafeteria-style culture betrays a deeper theological problem inherent in
evangelicalism: a defective ecclesiology.  That y’all not only accept the reality of “church shopping” as part of our culture, but actually celebrate it is astounding.  That y’all applaud the export of American cafeteria-style culture to the UK as the much needed remedy to the Church’s woes is alarming. 

Who on earth is affirming “cafeteria-style culture” in the church? Certainly not me or Matt nor anyone else here.

Straw men will not help your argument.

Third Mill

this is rich:

“You have obviously reached a level of sanctification that most ministers never reach in a lifetime, Matt.”

Actually, I’m pretty much a sinner like everyone else, but the idea that people might leave my parish and go to another biblically sound church does not plunge me into a fit of bitterness. And, as this thread has shown, I am not at all unique.

In any case, I was not lecturing anyone but you. You seem to think everyone ought to follow you into this pit of resentment and angst and when no one really wants to follow suit you suggest that we 1. are lying or 2. don’t know what its like to lose parishioners or downsize or 3. Are self-righteous.

In fact, none of that is true. We just aren’t to be bitter with you. Sorry.

I am with the gang of regulars on this Third Mill, I am not a priest, but I am on a vestry and I have good and dear friends who have considered and are considering leaving out of concern for their children…it would break my heart to lose them, but as long as they go to a church that will allow them to continue to grow spiritually I will understand…and yet I will stay and continue the battle for as long as I am able because I have other friends, some orthodox, some not so orthodox who continue to need exposure to orthodox teaching for themselves and/or for their children and I would prefer to move as a whole congregation/diocese/Network rather than move piecemeal….it is often a struggle to stay… but I will make it to September and then take my cues from the leadership of my church, from the Network/Windsor Bishops, from our Global South leadership and from those here at Stand Firm who continue to fight the good fight…

ThirdMill:

Obviously, Matt, given the size of your parish, your experience with church loss did not come with hard decisions to make, like staff reductions.  I suspect you never had to break this kind of “good news” to faithful employees before.  Did your experience with church loss at least have a negative impact on your own pocket book?  How’d that feel?

Listen, most of us in the course of our lives have had to break ‘downsizing news’ of one sort or another.  However, that’s totally off point.  Have you ever been in a small parish?  From your note, apparently not.  Having been in them most of my life, having a brother and father-in-law in the ministry I can tell you that when half your congregation leaves it makes ‘just a little impact’ on a priest’s checkbook.  I don’t even know how someone who says they are in the ministry could even make such a statement.

However, this IS the point:  There are more important things than money.  There are more important things than ‘boundaries’.  There are more important things than historical buildings.  Those who are followers of Christ know HE is the most important thing… the foundation.  When you loose the foundation, the rest doesn’t matter. 

Last time I checked, ECUSA lost it’s foundation A LONG time ago - remember according to the PB Jesus is NOT the only Way, Truth and Life and I guess you can take any particular course you want to end up somewhere.

Most of us find this more important than boundaries - and we want attend churches that still believe in Christ.  Thanks be to God Uganda ‘crossed boundaries’ to save my little Anglican parish - or we would be more ‘former Anglicans’ lost in the apostasy of ECUSA. 

Thanks be to God for ANY Christian Communities that uphold the Cross of Christ, His Salvation for mankind , and His Mission.

You know something, Eclipse, both my parishes were smallish in size, one very small.  They both grew, and outpaced, percentage-wise, the bigger churches nearby.  But that doesn’t matter.  My comments were invoked by Mr. Ould’s incredible remark that the ONLY kind of church that would feel threatened by another church opening up shop down the street would be a church that preached “another gospel.”  Not in my experience.

Matt, you seem to think I’m bitter.  Far from it.  The Lord has blessed me with a good job, and fine family, etc.  On the other hand, you seem to be way too defensive, and I’m not sure why.  I commented on a generalization that Mr. Ould made, which simply isn’t grounded in the reality on the ground as I have experienced it.  Not your experience, fine.  I can accept that.  But that does not prove Mr. Ould’s incredible generalization to be true.  I know many a fine evangelical pastor who has had struggles not being able to live up to your standard.

JohnP, I appreciate where you are coming from.  Really I do.  But HELLO EVERYONE (not just you, John P), I don’t think I ever mentioned specifically TEC as the only applicable context for my remarks.  That many are leaving TEC for safer pastures is understandable.  But my pastoral experience was not even in TEC, and most of the ministers that I have counseled are NOT priests of TEC.

Who are you calling a “re-appraiser”, Irenaeus???  Perhaps you should try living up to your name.

Third Mill,

I know that you commented on a generalization that Mr. Ould made—but then you added this statement: “Would Mr. Ould be so “thrilled” if that same “bible-based church” began to attract and draw parishioners away from his church?  I suspect he wouldn’t.”

That seemed to imply not only a wrong generalization by David Ould, but hypocrisy also—which later seemed to also be applied to Matt.

I think that that was what many were responding to—that last statement quoted above implying that DO and MK would be threatened.

I *have* noticed a strange competition amongst churches of entities which already have assumed a highly limited pool from which to fish.

Some [but not all] Continuing parishes, for example, loudly denounce new parishes opening up nearby, seeming to believe that there are a limited number of potential Anglicans “out there”, and thus new churches necessarily decrease sales from the existing [and non-expandable] market of Anglicans.

I think, also, that people are challenging that notion in this thread.

I personally think that the Anglican vision of the gospel is an immense treasure that is very appealing to a wide variety of seekers [though certainly not for all seekers], and so I don’t see the “pie” of potential future Anglicans as all that small.

Third Mill Catholic:

I would agree that there are other myopic churches out there besides TEC.  However, that does NOT make them right in any respect.  I come from a Baptist background where you ain’t Baptist you ain’t nothing.  So, yes, I’ve dealt with that.  However, that doesn’t make their opinion a Biblical OR correct one.  Jesus says “He is not against us is with us.”  That’s the Biblical position - and that is the one we are called to make.    It’s one of the reasons I joined my former church in the first place - because it welcomed and encouraged others in the Faith - regardless of denomination.  My priest was a Godly man who wasn’t threatened by other men of God and their Work for the Kingdom - he said only we should strive to be like them:  Baptists in evangelism, Assemblies in Spirit, Catholic in helping the poor and the widows, Anglican in our tradition and heritage.  It’s a tradition we carry on today - even without our priest.

You walk in my church today and you are going to see few former ‘TEC’ people.  You will see some more charismatic, some more traditional (our real Anglicans), there are even some like me (AAH!) who are the ‘B-I-B-L-E, it’s just the word for me!  I stand alone of the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E’ people.  What binds us together is NOT our differences but our Unity in Christ - doesn’t mean we’re perfect, mind you, just people bound by what’s important.  We love our tradition and we are proud to be Anglican - but more than that, what is the foundation is Jesus.  It’s a foundation we need to carry across boundaries, across borders and everywhere on the globe.

Fr. Matt seems to hold that perspective as well.  I don’t know him, mind you, only read what he’s written, but what he’s written, I respect.

There are reasons why some churches die, others stagnate and a few others grow. Sometimes it is demographics, ie a town where the only factory just shut down and now has a 10% unemployment rate will have churches that don’t grow and some which die.

However, as a general rule, if you are meeting the needs of people, your church will grow. I for one wonder if a church that is not growing should consider shutting down and dispersing its members to other Christian bodies who could use the help.

I’m always suspicious of groups, be they orthodox or liberal, who excuse their lack of outreach and growth with the suggestion that they are the last remaining, pure, true church and so it is OK to be small. In some communities, there is just not enough market for everyone to start their own little outfit and it becomes selfish ambition.

Good one Third Mill, make agressively presumptuous and comments like this:

Spin it anyway you want, Mr.’s Ould and Kennedy.  But in the future if you ever find yourself in the position where you need to start laying off good parish employees, oh, like youth leaders, associate ministers, maybe even take a salary cut yourself (God forbid!), and make other cut-backs that stall your ministry, because a couple important families in your parish come to you one day and say, “We just feeeeeel like God is telling us to move on,” and then they proceed to move down the street to that new exciting work, I want to hear back from you to see if you’re still as delighted as you both claim to be with Cafeteria-style Christianity.  Maybe it’s because both of you have been on the receiving end of these “flock-exchange” circumstances that you cannot appreciate how traumatic this can be on the other side of the equation.  Or perhaps you’re just superhuman.  Us mere mortals would see things differently.

And then, after evidence to the contrary has been presented by those you have essentially insulted, you say this:

On the other hand, you seem to be way too defensive, and I’m not sure why.

Sorry third mill, that doesn’t work here. You came in with a chip on your shoulder and it got knocked off. Man up.

Well, Matt, I can only tell try to you what’s in my heart.  Failing that, you may choose to divine my words any way you wish.  And since this is your turf, not mine, your words and opinions will carry more weight.  That being said, I am still somewhat taken back by your reaction.  At one point you even charge that I was accusing you (and others) of lying.  Whether you wish to believe me or not, I never once thought that you were lying to me.  The intention of my remarks (and the tone, or so I thought) was more along the lines of, “Wake up and smell the coffee.”

Sorry for the word order confusion in the first line.  I think faster than I type.

Group,

I’ve had a chance to read through your responses pretty thoroughly now, and I think part of the communication problem has been that none of you really knows me.  (I read a lot of these blogs, but I don’t participate much, so it’s partly my fault that some have made the assumptions that were made.)  So let’s set the record straight.

First, I’m not a reappraiser.  (At least one person suggested I was.) 

Second, I do not identify with Anglo-Catholicism, though Sarah (who’s had past conversations with me) can never seem to remember that, or perhaps I’ve not communicated that clearly.  Albeit, I do find more affinity with Anglo-Catholics than with Anglo-Evangelicals, “THIRD MILLENNIUM” Catholic ought to give some indication that I at least aspire to be forward-looking.

Third, and this will no doubt surprise all, my present ministry is self-consciously ecumenical.  I believe in biblically-based ecumenism, I thrive in it, I breathe it everyday (I dare say more than the vast majority of readers here!)  So if any of you thought my comments were “anti-denominational” or even “anti-competition” you were dead-wrong.  My comments were not intended to be anything of the sort.  Rather my comments were PRO-Church, and the problem that I see is NOT the proliferation of denominations or distinct traditions (which I celebrate), but the LACK of ecclesiology that pervades our Christian culture and the lack of accountability to the Body of Christ that this engenders.  Consumerism and atomism are the operating principles which drive church growth in this culture: the church serving the individual consumer rather than the church as the community (i.e. Body) of Christ.  And when I hear sentiments like I often hear expressed on this blog I want to shout, “Hey, if y’all don’t hold people accountable to the Body of Christ, who will?”

Lastly, concerning the topic that occasioned this discussion, I happen to know a little of what I speak.  If I didn’t know better, I would have thought that this Co-Mission group “stole” their game plan right out of the annals of a little known denomination called The Free Church of England, a church in which I happened to have been a minister for five years.  It is interesting to note, however, that the FCE still respected pariochial boundaries when establishing parishes, for they never established themselves where there was already a solid evangelical witness.  (They did however establish themselves in Anglo-Catholic parishes!)  Nevertheless, they were honest enough to LEAVE the established Church altogether, rather than attempt to fly under the radar by invoking Proprietary chapel status (which, ironically, is how the FCE originated, but that’s another story).

Anyway, sorry for the long-ish post.

RE: “Second, I do not identify with Anglo-Catholicism, though Sarah (who’s had past conversations with me) can never seem to remember that, or perhaps I’ve not communicated that clearly.”

Hi Third Mill, I have carefully scoured my comments and cannot find where I called you Anglo-Catholic or implied that you were.

???

RE: past conversations . . . sorry to be so forgetful—I do not remember them!  I apologize.  But still—I’m not certain where you got the whole part about my calling you Anglo-Catholic???

Hi Sarah,
Apparently you don’t know me by this moniker, but we’ve tussled a time or two in other forums, particularly in a certain listserv where the “little black cloud” frequently casts her shadow.  I erroneously made a connection between your comments about Continuing Churches and a mistaken assumption (on my part) of your recollection that I spent some time in extramural Anglicanism.  Obviously, I should not have made this connection.  Anyway, I’m a big fan of yours, though I think your idea of “Communion Conservative” is somewhat different than mine (i.e., I think that, for you, preserving the Communion and being a part of the same is a great idea, but such a reality does not really factor into your actual ecclesiology).

For those who would like to learn more about the Church of England in South Africa (CESA) and its history, I am posting the address of its web site on the Internet: http://www.cesa.org.za/

From Who We Are

Church of England services have been conducted in South Africa since the late eighteenth century.  However, when in 1833 an Anglo-Catholic Bishop was appointed to lead the Church, there were those who preferred to follow the Reformation principles and teachings of the Church of England.

Together with other groups of similar persuasion, we are endeavouring to present the evangelical voice in Southern Africa.

The Church of England in South Africa (CESA) has a close relationship with the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and conservative Evangelicals in the Church of England.

In 1990 the Church of England in South Africa (CESA) produced the CESA Prayer Book as an alternative to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The services are in modern English and adhere faithfully to the the doctrine and principles of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.