Another public lecture at the university tonight, unpromisingly titled “Anglican models of evangelism”. The lecture was given by Stephen Cottrell, Bishop of Reading.
But do you know what? It was a really splendid lecture, delivered with passion and warmth, engaging and accessible. We had an audience of about 120, but I wish more had been there.
I can’t reproduce the Bishop’s enthusiasm, but i can at least give you the main points of the talk.
1. You can’t share what you haven’t got.
Church needs to focus on prayer and spiritual growth before even contemplating evangelism. An obvious point that most of us overlook most of the time..
2. Church health is more important than church growth.
But healthy things grow naturally.
3. Becoming a Christian is like a journey.
Research shows that most take 4 or 5 years before making a commitment of faith. So the church needs to be in for the ‘long haul’ with people.
Which raises 2 questions every church should ask itself:
“How can we serve the people with whom we have contact in such a way that the gospel is intriguing, challenging and appealling?”
and
“Does our church have a maternity ward?”
4. Belonging comes before believing.
5. The best evangelism is the witness of ordinary Christian people in the everyday lives.
Best Quote: “Most of us want to serve God, but only in an advisory capacity”
Update: Bimbling Along has more…
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
J 02.01.06 at 12:55 am
Great points - a good model for everybody, not just Anglicans. If he posts a transcript, please link to it. For other commenters (and Richard too), which of these is most frequently overlooked or ignored?
Eugene McKinnon 02.01.06 at 5:03 am
Yes I agree and I wish I could have attended the lecture (if I wasn’t stopped by a huge pond keeping me from Wales) sigh. But the Bishop is right. We are so big on the quantity of people at our church that we fail to talk about the quality of the people. Their pastoral, theological, and Scriptural needs.
As another matter of fact, in Nigeria the Presbyterian Churches spend three years with people before they are admitted into baptism and the Lord’s Supper because they have to contend with animism and Islamist beliefs of those who have come to the churches.
Here in North America we prefer to do the dumb option of preach claptrap and hopefully somebody will come to Christ (albeit not even mention him).
Eugene
Russell Bungay 02.01.06 at 9:07 am
By an odd coincidence last night I was reading the seedy parable; there is so much risk that if you drag people through the door with the dramatic and then forget them that you end up with people who are shallow ground and put forth vigorous growth that dies off. Health in the heart and in the church and a sense of belonging should be there first.
My home prayer group thing has two midwives, so I think we have the maternity ward bit covered.
Dave 02.01.06 at 9:24 am
Yes, he was my Bishop until I left the Oxford diocese about a year ago. He’s a good chap. Wrote (part of?) the ‘Emmaus’ course I think.
sue 02.01.06 at 10:34 am
Thanks for sharing this with us. One of the biggest questions is “How can we serve the people with whom we have contact in such a way that the gospel is intriguing, challenging and appealling?â€
Richard 02.01.06 at 1:21 pm
J - I have to say that it is probably the first point that is the most overlooked. In the q&a following the lecture, the point was made that one way or another, we have over-complicated prayer and made something which is very simple seem really difficult. Getting our people back into a pattern of prayer will be the first step to renewal.
dh 02.01.06 at 2:23 pm
Richard how do explain all of the people where Believing came before belonging? Also the Bible is clear as to how one is part of the Body of Christ which is by Faith. Also, how does one explain the Great Commission and theimportance thereof? To me God is telling us to evangelize by thought word and deed. So while I agree with the “everyday lives” part for me it is more than that. “How can they hear in whom they haven’t heard and how can they hear without a preacher?” I agree it is a balance but we must not neglect either one Evangelism or what you said in your post for both are equally important. On a side note, I think you would agree that discipleship is just as important as Evangelism. However, both should not be neglected for we must “…share the Gospel with every creature.” We msun’t overemphesize to the detriment of the other and that goes for myself too. We must focus equally on growth and the quality of that growth. At the same time, if people truly repent God will make them better people for Him naturally by the power of the Holy Spirit. Oh well, if I say any more I do a disservice to what I’m saying if I continue. I hope you understand what I’m saying.
DH
Kim 02.01.06 at 4:02 pm
A few thoughts on the lecture.
1. First, on secularisation - by which I mean the decline in the national and cultural authority of the church: we only have ourselves to blame. The post-Reformation inability of Catholics and Protestants to resolve their differences, and the resulting mass bloodshed of the 17th century wars of religion, drove Europe not so much ideologically as quite simply practically into a liberal humanist political order where religion has been marginalised from the public square. The rise of fundamentalisms with their hegemonic pretensions hardly argues a persuasive case for the desirability of a reversal of the process.
And herein lies the importance of ecumenism: only churches that recognise each other as churches, celebrate diversity, dialogue and tolerance as a positive theological principle, and cooperate rather than compete, have any theological right to to reclaim the social space we have forfeited. Evangelism and ecumenism are a seamless garment.
2. “Church growth” is an ambiguous term. I want to ask, “What kind of church?” - and “What kind of growth?” (see Matthew 23:15). What’s the point of getting more and more people on the Titanic?
3. And this business of “belonging comes before believing” - it is, in fact, a nonsense, as if people ever belong in a vacuum, heads empty of beliefs and values. There is a recipe for totalitarian and sectarian communities if I ever heard one! Of course, if people in church do not feel that they belong, they will leave, with the rather obvious consequence that belief will decline even faster than it already is. Which is precisely why, yes, our churches need to be “intriguing, challenging and appealing” - but only if they are both theologically robust and spacious and neither gospel-lite nor gospel-thuggish. The saying is true: authentic evangelism is one hungry bugger telling another where to find bread.
Richard 02.01.06 at 4:29 pm
I’m in the happy — if rather unlikely — position of being able to disagree with Kim & dh at the same time. Bliss!
dh - the “belonging before believing” thing is a statement based on empirical evidence from many surveys of active and ‘lapsed’ church goers (OK, I know that’s not exactly the same as “Christian”, but bear with me) which show that
a. When people stop going to church, it rarely has anything to do with loss of faith. But faith does decline thereafter
and
b. Many active Christians testify that their faith grew after they found a place within the church, not that they came to faith and started coming to church.
Of course there are exceptions to this, but as a general principle it makes alot of sense. Even those who have a “sudden” conversion experience very often turn out to have a longer story than first appears.
Kim — I have no issues with 1 & 2 above, but I reckon you’re over-stating your case in 3. No one’s suggesting that “people belong in a vacuum, heads empty of beliefs and ideas”. That would indeed be nonsense. But the point is surely that the model of evangelism with which many (protestant) Christians work is that people make a commitment of faith and then join a church. The converse is true, and maybe it would be better expressed as belonging preceding commitment. Is that better?
dh 02.01.06 at 5:32 pm
The reason I state this is that I came to Faith this way. Once I accepted Christ and experienced His Salvation I then desired to know as much as I can of the relationship I have. Like the Scripture says “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” (not that going to church is a command, yet it does say “forsake not the assembly of ourselves together”, but you get the point).
Also, what does #1 have to do with this subject? It seems strange to include that. To me positive theological is Salvation by Faith in Christ and repentence from sin alone by giving our heart, soul and mind to Christ and Jesus is God. I can be ecumenical with that.
Also, when you talk about belief declining, I believe that true belief is heart, soul and mind. I believe that if “so-called” Faith declines then maybe they weren’t a Christian in the first place. Maybe it was faith rather than Faith if you get my drift? Also, I never said belonging in a vacuum. The relationship with Christ is the basis of it not being a vacuum. A person can unbenonced to themselves be apart of the Body of Christ when they accept Christ. For example babies are born with bladders and those bladders when they are born are not developed to interact fully with the rest of the body yet but once the interaction takes place then the bladder works properly. That isn’t to say that the bladder is not part of Body for the baby is born with one but it is to say that the bladder is not fully developed. The same goes with a person who accepts Christ before being part of the church. Does that make sense? I know the analogy is crude but I hope you get the point because from my experience I accepted Christ before belonging. I did see the love of the Body but that is different from belonging.
dh 02.01.06 at 5:36 pm
I just react to the idea of belonging before commitment because nmany people “so-called” belong but never make a commitment and thus never have a relationship with Christ and in my opinion are not part of the Body of Christ. For one to be part of the Body of Christ requires Faith in Christ alone.
Kim 02.01.06 at 5:45 pm
Richard -
Yeah, that sounds better, i.e. more accurate, to me (in which case, sorry to rain on your parade but we really don’t disagree at all! - and see below)
And if people want to belong to a church who just don’t care about faith and commitment - e.g. who just enjoy the the emotional support, the social occasions, etc. - well, that’s okay - the ark can bear all kinds of creatures - though were it to become the norm it would be all up with discipleship, and therefore ultimately with the church itself.
There are, by the way, at least three positions that sociologists of religion have argued on the relationship between believing and belonging.
1. The position you - and I - take is the position of Robin Gill: not less belief and therefore less belonging, but the reverse: less belonging and therefore less belief.
2. Grace Davie, on the other hand, does not think there is less belief around, but continuing belief without the belonging, i.e. she thinks that many people still hold Christian beliefs but simply no longer attend church.
3. Finally, Steve Bruce, whose point of departure is the now discredited 60s-70s model of secularisation (which sees secularisation as the decline of personal religion/spirituality in the wake of the spread of scientific rationality, unlike my working definition which limits itself to the decline of the church’s institutional authority and influence) - he argues, contra Gill, that less belonging follows less belief (which is assumed by the model of evangelism you refer to “with which many (protestant) Christians work).
Of course all three sociologists support their positions with research! Personally, I find Davie’s position - that there is not less Christian belief about - hard to credit. I mean, even in the church, let alone outside the church, the levels of theological illiteracy are quite staggering. And as for Bruce’s position, only rare birds like me - exceptions that prove the rule - come to faith in Christ quite apart from contact with Christ’s community.
Kim 02.01.06 at 5:51 pm
I’ve just read what dh has said - so that makes at least two of us rare birds!
dh 02.01.06 at 6:09 pm
To me there is a difference from holding belief and having a relationship with Christ. To me if a person doesn’t give their heart, soul and mind to Christ and be Born Again they are lost and therefore not part of the Body of Christ. So I guess I don’t hold to 1, 2 or 3 in the absolute sense. If someone gave me some more understanding on the subject in less sociological terms I could be in better position to decide between 1, 2 or 3. dh
Sue 02.01.06 at 9:29 pm
From my experience there are so many young people out there these days that have so little knowledge of the christian faith that they need to belong to ever have a chance of beginning their journey. But to get them there is another matter and first impressions are so important.
dh 02.01.06 at 9:40 pm
Sue that was a wonderful balaning comment. For me though “belonging” doesn’t mean they are part of the body of Christ yet. My understanding that takes Faith in Christ. However, it was still a wonderful post. Much love in Christ, dh
Eugene McKinnon 02.02.06 at 12:21 am
I think I agree with belonging before believing. I bet Wesley and Calvin and Luther (if they lived in our age) would agree that belonging comes before believing. It takes a village to raise a child ditto for a Christian.
Eugene
J 02.02.06 at 4:17 am
1 (prayer and spritual growth ) leads to 2 (church health) and 5 (effective evangelism by example). I have to go with Richard on 4 (belonging before believing).
I’ll concede to DH that there are other paths, but I think welcoming newcomers and increasing the involvement of existing members - or for that matter visitors - in our churches is a far more common path to spiritual growth in an organized religion setting (thus it’s inclusion in an “Anglican Model”). I think DH is talking about people quite a bit further along in their walk than, say, the couple who just started coming to church after having their first child.
As for point three, or really the questions it poses, we can serve our faith community by personally getting them involved with that service. That’s the issue I see neglected most in chuch. A general plea for volunteers for various church projects, rather than asking specific people to help, will almost always result in the same group of volunteers doing everything (and can even create cliques that can harm the health of your congregation).
Kim - you write as thought we have to pick a position on the relationship between believing and belonging, but I know people who fall into each of those categories. Also, read DH’s comments.
Finally, Eugene - I heard on Weekend Update that Hillary Clinton was forced to admit under oath that it does not, in fact, take a village to raise a child…
Kim 02.02.06 at 9:05 am
Hi J,
No, I don’t think you have to pick a position on the believing/belonging relationship. As I say, all the positions I sketched have evidential support. But, like you and Richard and Eugene, I suspect that (as long as long as it is understood, pace Richard, that belonging never tales place in a vacuum of belief) the Gill position makes the most sense of things and, strategically, is the most useful model for evangelism.
A few other points that, I think, support the view that seems to be emerging among us:
1. The work of Finney, whom Cottrell cited in another context, supports the view that friendship-evangelism is the most effective method not only for bringing people into church fellowship but also keeping them there.
2. Richard’s 5. - “the witness of ordinary Christian people in the[ir] everyday lives” - is an absolutely fundamental point that Lesslie Newbigin used to emphasise. You might call this “reactive” evangelism, in the sense that as people get to know you - and know that you are a Christian - they respond by themselves taking the initiative to ask you about your faith, to see what makes you tick. They look at you and think, “Hey, where can I get some of that!” Crucially, there is nothing threatening here, no agenda to make people suspicious and put them off. And it confirms the old wisom that, fundamentally, faith is caught, not taught.
3. It may sound trite but the Beatles were right: “Love is all you need” - though of course the very specific loved disclosed and embodied in Christ. In his wonderful little book Love Alone Is Credible Hans Urs von Balthasar wrires: “Lovers are the ones who know most about God; the theologian must listen to them.” And not only the theologian!
dh 02.02.06 at 2:46 pm
Interesting thoughts Kim. What I have found with the above point 2 from Richard is that when people ask me questions that is when people WANT to be taught. I have found it is a combination of friendship, witness of ones life and teaching people about Faith in Christ for Salvation. I think the Bible addresses these with equal importance. I think from above I found the answer and it is all of the above equally. I think we must not focus on one and not the others and we must not focus on one to the detrimate of the others. Kim, question, if one accepts Christ without belonging first could it be that this is always an inaccurate statement in that when one accepts Christ, Christ accepts the person and therefore “belongs” aka my bladder analogy?
Kim 02.02.06 at 3:25 pm
dh,
Thanks for your comments - and your question.
Belonging - in the context of the discussion - refers to ecclesial belonging, i.e. to belonging in/to the church. It is certainly temporally possible to accept Christ before belonging to the church - I am a case in point! But it quickly becomes clear to anyone in a relationship with Christ that that relationship is incomplete apart from a relationship with Christ’s people. The NT knows nothing of a private (Wesley: “solitary”) Christianity.
Karl Barth: “The community lives in Christians, Christians live in community.” Or, again: “To be awakened to faith and to be added to the community are one and the same thing.” Ultimately, to be in a relationship with Christ apart from the church is not to be in a relationship with Christ at all. Or in the terms of the disussion, to believe without belonging (”I’m a Christian - but I don’t go to church”) is a theological nonsense.
dh 02.02.06 at 3:36 pm
That is why I’m saying that when a person accepts Christ they become immediately part of the Body of Christ. There might not be any interaction yet but that doesn’t change the standing of the person being part of the Body of Christ.
For example “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart you shall be saved.” This can be done without a physical interaction with the church by an individual prayer by Faith in Christ with heart, soul and mind (all our being) to Christ for Salvation and believing that he dies and rose again and that Jesus is God with no other gods before Him. However, I do agree they are one and the same so the person becomes part of the Body of Christ. Does this make sense? I think we might agree to a point. By Faith in Christ we immediately belong to the Body of Christ even if rest of the Body of Christ doesn’t know it aka the bladder analogy.
Richard 02.02.06 at 7:35 pm
I see where you are coming from now dh. I wouldn’t argue with you about accepting Christ/incorporation into the Body of Christ. It’s just that I wasn’t using the word “belonging” in that metaphysical sense (if that’s what I mean!) — I meant ‘belonging’ as in actually being part of a community of people.
dh 02.03.06 at 2:46 pm
I get it now. However, can a person belongs to a community of people and still not be part of the Body of Christ and can a person belong to the Body of Christ without being part of a community of people? I think this was the context of my answers and I hope this helps you understand my understanding of the topic. I think you probably know from my previous posts that my answer is yes on the above questions.
Richard 02.03.06 at 5:01 pm
I’d give a reluctant yes to the first question, and a yes-but-it-isn’t-very-likely-and only-in-very-exceptional-circumstances to the second.
dh 02.03.06 at 5:46 pm
I totally agree with you there. Great discussion and we came full circle.
On a side note for insight: what is the reluctance regarding and what are some examples of exceptional circumstances?