To a large extent I agree with the original commenter. I think many Sydney Anglicans (and by extension other evangelicals) would also agree with him to a point, but most would fail to begin asking themselves the kinds of questions Michael is driving at.

The main problem, as I see it, is that in “evangelicalism” theology and culture are intertwined, but most evangelicals fail to acknowledge the cultural aspects of the movement and fail adequately to reflect on how evangelicalism relates *culturally* (as well as theologically) to the rest of the visible church as well as wider society. Evangelicalism carries with it a distinct culture (or cultures) which appeal(s) to a certain kind of person (and not others). Although “evangelicalism” definitely has a theological centre, it also has a significant cultural coating. For some this makes evangelical a very difficult pill to swallow. For others the coating makes it far too easy to swallow and the theological side of evangelicalism is downplayed or even lost entirely. I think the history of the evangelical movement (especially in the United States) makes it plain that over time the significance of evangelicalism as a cultural movement has waxed but its significance as a theological movement has waned.

Because evangelicals too often neglect the cultural aspects of evangelicalism, far too many of them identify Christianity with Evangelicalism. Although for the most part such people mean well, their efforts at evangelism and discipleship often end up being failed attempts at making people cultural evangelicals rather than genuine followers of Jesus. Whether we as evangelicals like it or not, “evangelicalism” as a block just can’t relate the gospel, Christian discipleship and the church to large chunks of the outside world. And as evangelicals we need to start being honest with ourselves about this. I know many people who just wouldn’t fit in within evangelical circles. But I desperately want them to know Christ and to be joined to his body. And if that’s not to be then I want the stumbling block to be Jesus Christ himself rather than our evangelical “baggage”. This does not mean that evangelicalism is doomed to failure or that we should suddenly run to Rome or Constantinople or the Emergents or whomever else. There are no easy answers. But we do need to
begin asking ourselves the tough questions.

Evangelicalism (along with the rest of the Church) needs to reform itself in line with the Word of God. I’m not sure to what extent it will be able to do this. But I think the Anglican Diocese of Sydney has a better shot at achieving this than much of “non-denominational” evangelicalism in the U.S.

I got the general impression that the original comments were meant to be “critical” in more than a “constructive criticism” kind of way. I won’t lie; some of the charges levelled against Sydney Anglicanism are fair. But it would be a mistake for people who’ve not experienced Sydney Anglicanism first hand to draw too many negative conclusions from the original comments. Compared to much of evangelicalism as well as Western Anglicanism there are an awful lot of good things going on. The commenter’s criticisms need to be viewed in that context.

My guess is that as Western culture increasingly becomes less amenable to Christianity much of evangelicalism (particularly in the U.S.) will wither and die. But evangelicalism as a whole won’t necessarily die and far more important than what happens to “evangelicalism”, the Church of Jesus Christ certainly won’t die. Not even the gates of hell shall prevail against it.

Much of the critique is fair in my opinion. Sydney Anglicans have not only the reputation for disagreeing with the wider Anglican body (which is often a good and necessary thing) they also have the reputation for turning on their own when someone within the “Sydney Anglican” circle voices criticism.

I have seen too many ungodly people enter Anglican ministry in Sydney – men who are manipulative and argumentative and who are not sober minded. When these men get out in ministry they ride roughshod over churches and lay leaders. The hierarchical episcopal model prevents congregations from ejecting bad pastors without the Archbishop’s approval. Moreover, even when a majority of congregants might see a potential ministry candidate as ungodly, their opinion is not what matters when the man enters Moore College.

Having said that I also agree with Shayne. There is much about Sydney Anglicanism that is good. Here in Newcastle (NSW) we have an Anglican church that condones homosexuality, condemns gospel preaching and uses robes and incense. The entire Hunter valley has less gospel churches per capita than the most “godless” regions of Sydney.

Moreover, Sydney Anglicans have championed Biblical Theology, which is a vibrant and common-sense (and thoroughly biblical and Christ-centred) alternative to dispensationalism. Anyone who has read dispy literature for decades will then have a head explosion paradigm shift if they read Gospel and Kingdom by Graeme Goldsworthy.

As with all ‘good’ stories there is about 90% truth and 10% nonsense – as a recent member of the Sydney Anglicans – and having endured their last two Synods, I’ve become a little familar with current developments. A tiny bit of research, might have been in order – or even a reference to their site and maybe some material on their Archbishop could have been useful in presenting a balanced view on what’s happening in Sydney e.g. this article on Archbishop Peter Jensen’s role in global Anglican directions:- http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/future_anglicans_unite/ ,which might be of interest to the wider community.

Sydney Anglicans are not liked – very much not liked, in the wider, western Anglican community because of their strong biblical focus. Yet, although I am critical of many facets of what they do, I have to admit one important point – they are being blessed with some church growth where many other (liberal) areas in Australia, are not!

Though unusual its not isolated (I came from one of those busy busy body bee churches myself that exhaust you and starve you to death, plus raid your $$$ with their tithe sermons near the end of the physcal year). My best fried who is a pastor/elder at a very small (left the SBC) bapist church took a similar turn. They preach nothing but 200% Gospel in the Word. Changing the worship from earth to heaven as if to move God (paganism) to one of receiving from God weekly and afresh the Gospel and forgiveness of sins.

We always heard the “you’ll get plugged in, no pew sitters here, etc…” One of the things they “joke” about but are serious is that they “love pew sitters”. And I kid you not that literally drew a family some 90+ miles away, exhausted with the opposite in SB-ism and shamefully I must admit a PCA church in KY. They, like many of us were simply exhausted both in body and soul, no Gospel food, no weekly return to forgiveness of my weekly, daily, hourly, by the second sins…etc.

If some denominations would just grasp against their blind stupidity that one’s vocations are the physical manifestation of the law of God on a daily basis (mother, father, son, boss, clerk, doctor, milk maid) and how much we fail in heart, word and deed at loving our neighbor through these alllllll week long – THEN just maybe these very very very DULL minded so called “pastors” of sheep (most are more like American cattle rustlers than eastern shepherds) MIGHT know why the Gospel is for the CHRISTIAN ALREADY TOO!

But that’s simply too much to hope for in this “do it yourself”, “try harder” idolatry here in America.

Blessings to you in Christ’s all sufficiency alone,

Larry

To answer your question, “I don’t think Evangelicalismâ„¢ wants to change or be self-critical.” It would be nice if the coalition would have enough self-awareness to accomplish the task, and I wish I could point to some grand thing the Holy Spirit was currently doing to give the coalition the self-awareness it so desperately needs, but I’m not holding out much hope in the matter.

Mark Noll had it right, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there isn’t much of an evangelical mind.” I remember when Scandal first came out. My friends and I at Eastern read it and jumped for joy. All throughout our years at college we kept being drawn into the deep waters of Christian history and spirituality by our professors, and then told by too many of our pastors “that doesn’t really matter much.” Scandal gave us the idea for the intellectual and spiritual project which we had all felt called to do but didn’t have an image of – so we went off to do it as our way of expressing the reality of the Christian Faith.

I don’t know when it happened, but somewhere in the 5 or so years after college, my friends and I heard the door click behind us – we’d been locked out of the very same Evangelical “world” that had brought us into the faith in the first place! Even mentioning Mark Noll’s book to folks, which shortly before had been a wonderful conversation starter, became a dangerous name to drop (worthy of a serious verbal smack-down by “real Evangelicals”). I held on to the title the longest, by the time I got out of Seminary most of my friends had ceased claiming to be part of the movement – 5 years after seminary I couldn’t claim it anymore either.

In short, Evangelicalismâ„¢ is incapable of being self-reflective because the very same people who are willing to undertake such a task are expelled from the herd.

The issue for all of us is having the humility to understand that our understanding is most certainly fallible and derived from our sinfulness (i.e., selfish nature). It seems that our unwillingness let go of those things that we find reinforcing whether they be status, power, lust or drugs such as alcohol, cocaine, or heroine is a demonstration of our imperfect humanity. At some level, we find our own interpretations intellectually, emotionally, and physiologically satisfying for the wrong reasons.

That said, many evangelicals are asking these types of questions. You don’t have to go to an entertainment church more than once to perceive that there are some serious issues with the non-participatory consumer model of church in the evangelical movement. But that is not the only thing going on in evangelical circles it is just very noticeable (for obvious reasons).

The small church we’re now attending almost died. Most small Baptist churches in the city have died or are barely hanging on. However, in 2007 my church developed a change of direction…reinventing as you might say. However, we went back to the basics and are not following the mainstream. We don’t overprogram our congregation with busy stuff and, instead, focus on developing a stronger community of believers. This year we are focused on reading the entire bible in one year and we have all sorts of stuff planned around this objective.

Since we made this change, we have grown by over 30% in 12 months without trying. Our services are simple. We have a variety of music, a prayer time and sermon. If we try a power point, it usually doesn’t work. We’d never dream of using a video. There will be no new gym or new worship center. We’re happy with our little building. We’d rather send the money to missions.

My pastor is older and looking to retire. However, we don’t know where to find a pastor with a passion for small churches. We don’t want to get big. When we hit 200 coming every Sunday, we plan to send 50 out to another small churche that is struggling. Finding leadership with our same vision has been a challenge.

I”m really encouraged to see what is happening at our church. But I don’t see much leadership withing SBC that we can pull from.

Leigh

The reason I think the “block” will not is that as a block like Rome, there will always remain a remnant of that “church group” that has rejected the Gospel. Post Luther, even trying to reform Rome, Rome still is. The institution stands, so will “evangelicals” as an institution – big or little who knows – but I think it will stand. Where the Gospel once was in strength but is ultimately abandoned or covered up, often as it “moves on” the remaining apostate still remains. The Jews once held the truth of the Gospel, as a block/institution rejected it, some came out (e.g. Paul), yet to this day the block/institution stands and some keep coming out. Rome once held the truth of the Gospel, as a block/institution rejected it, some came out (e.g. Luther), yet to this day block/institution stands and some keep coming out. KEEP IN MIND we are not saying in any case that an individual that remains in any of these cannot be OF the faith, just in a very ill situation. I think the same will happen in evangelicalism as a block/institution, and in MANY other protestant denominations both conservative and liberal that have or are in the process of rejecting the Gospel in some subtle way or another. Yet, many come out of them, some stay in attempt to reform until exhausted. But I don’t think you will ever see a whole sale conversion such that “evangelicalism” disappears per se, any more than Rome will over throw Trent or the Jews Judaism. At least not until the end of all things. We may pray that it does change, but it may never. Is that a failure of the Gospel? No, not at all, it’s the success of it. Such pure altruistic love from God will ALWAYS raise up the and feed “the naked passive trusters in Christ alone” (the new man) and raise up and feed the fury of the religious doers (the old man) no matter what ilk they come from.

False religion need not be “outside” the church, the entire amazing thing of Luther’s reformation was that they, Rome, denied Christ under the name of Christ. The same is happening in MANY protestant denominations on a whole sale level.

That’s not being defeatist but a realistic look at it. It’s not hopeless for ANY individual/family in ANY of those apostate or in the process/danger/brink of apostacizing groups (I use those terms not as mean spirited but lamentable terms of a sad sad heart wrenching reality). For we cannot draw them back with “law” but Gospel, yet that Gospel will repel many who want law.

Blessings,

larry