John Richardson’s A Strategy that Changes the Denomination (reviewed below), and the book which inspired it, Towards the Conversion of England, both contain a number of suggestions that are worth considering. God willing, they will appear on this blog over the next month or two. Richardson’s point that we need to start where the church is now is one we need to take to heart, and the Episcopal Church has its own equivalent of the C of E’s Commission on Evangelism, which produced Towards the Conversion of England: the Standing Commission on the Mission and Evangelism of The Episcopal Church (details here).
On the Commission’s web-page are links to the minutes of all meetings since the last General Convention, and some earlier reports, although there’s no detailed information about their work. But it’s one place where Evangelicals could put their energy, and perhaps a place where that might be appreciated. The minutes are detailed but not always clear, and until I’ve read them all I’m not going to say much. But its most obvious difficulty is the fact that evangelism is only half of the work assigned to it, and since the word ‘mission’ is often used to refer to all the work the church does—educational, social, political etc—it is very easy for that half of its work to consume 90% of the commission’s time, and a cursory glance at the minutes of a couple of meetings suggests that this has been the case.
Take a look at what the commission has been doing, and let’s talk about how we can encourage it to give equal time to evangelism. The report of the commission (known at that time as the Commission on Domestic Mission and Evangelism) to the last General Convention can be read in the Blue Book, downloadable from here. Don’t expect much in the way of anything Evangelicals would understand as evangelism, but do ask yourself, how could I help the commission do better?
December 27, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Being a moderate-liberal Anglo-Catholic, I’m but a stranger to this blog. But I read so much about strategy and policy on this blog, and so many others, that I just have to comment that, while I love and appreciate the thinking, the problems that I observe and confront are all related to a lack of seriousness about our work. I see evangelicals who will turn the high point of attention in a service to football, and Anglo-Catholics who will dismiss all other intentions based on poor art. What is it, and what will it take, to just simply get serious about some basic things? That is the real enemy I face in my work as a musician. How could a commission address this?
December 31, 2011 at 9:42 am
I think Richardson’s main point is that the “parties” of the Church–let’s call them the Evangelicals, the Anglo-Catholics, and the Broad Church Liberals–seem to devote most of their energies to political battles about ascendancy within the institution of the Church, which is in the end a game of musical chairs on the deck of the Titanic. His vision instead is that all these groups turn their attention to “all nations,” as per Jesus on the Mountain at the end of Matthew. Or at least our own nation. Or at least our own neighborhoods. Evangelism isn’t, mustn’t be, a distinctive “interest” of Evangelicals. It is the essential work of the whole Church. Catholics, Evangelicals, and Liberals need to stop pitching at each other, take a breath, and go out to introduce themselves, and the winsome gospel of our Lord, to those all around us, and there are plenty, who haven’t heard, or who have decided, mistakenly, that there is nothing in the gospel that is worth their while. The fields are indeed white for the harvest, but the laborers seem stranded back in the tool shed and locked in arguments about the proper grip on the scythe handle. Let’s just hit the fields and get working, Richardson seems to say. We can continue the debate at lunch, after we’ve made some progress on the task of the day.
Bruce Robison
January 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Thanks, Fr. Robison–colorfully put. Helpful remarks to consider as we begin a New Year.
January 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm
One interesting thing that emerges from skimming a couple of the sets of minutes is that the Episcopal Church does have an ‘approved’ definition of evangelism: ‘The presentation of Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, in such ways that persons may be led to believe in him as Savior and follow him as Lord, within the fellowship of his Church.’ This was established in the 1970s, and reaffirmed by General Convention in 1991. It’s useful because it provides a very good test for the church’s evangelistic efforts: if people aren’t coming to believe in Christ as Saviour and follow Him as Lord, it isn’t evangelism, even if it is intended to be.
As a church, whether national or local, we do many things that it is good for Christians to be doing, but in very few cases can we point to someone previously not a Christian who came to believe in Christ as Saviour as a result of any of those things. So far, I’m not seeing much in the Commission’s minutes that focus on evangelism according to the definition.
January 3, 2012 at 1:02 pm
In my involvement in Natural Church Development, more than a few people from across the theological spectrum have recommended implementing a course in the book “Unbinding the Gospel” to reignite evangelistic efforts (not to mention reigniting a more fervent spirituality that energizes them). Both my wife and I have read it and would like to introduce it in my parish, and I know one parish that has “done” the book so far with what I hear are pretty good results.
January 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Just ordered a copy. Looks interesting.
January 4, 2012 at 7:01 am
Just read comments 4 and 5. Thanks for the definition, Dr. Wainwright, and for the book recommendation, Fr. Lenny.
January 4, 2012 at 10:23 am
I’ve gone through the minutes of the Commission since the last General Convention. They’re not written in such a way as to be completely transparent to someone who wasn’t at the meeting (this is not a criticism, few minutes are), but the following seems to be true: The Commission has four sub-committees or task forces, one of which focuses on evangelism. This task force discussed the need for every member of the church to have evangelism as a priority, but with a big stress on it being ‘culturally appropriate’. It isn’t possible to discern from the minutes exactly what is meant by this. They discussed the need for dioceses to have an evangelism officer of some sort, and did some research in the archives and recovered the 1973 definition of evangelism (see above), which they adopted as their own with the additions made when it was re-affirmed in 1991. The additions talk about service to others as a means of evangelism. The discussed using social media, getting the HOB to address the issue of evangelism, and finding out what has worked in parishes.The task force visited VTS and had some discussions on evangelism there. They visited some northern Virginia churches where evangelism is said to be a priority (a video about this seems to be in production).They plan to survey the seminaries to encourage the teaching of evangelism, and having evangelism be the main focus of the 2015 General Convention. They received information about the Missio-Engage program. They seem more aware of the obstacles to evangelism than ways of overcoming them. They are now working on their Blue Book report and resolutions to be presented to the GC this year, after which they will lose several members and gain several new ones, and be at risk of repeating the whole process, I’m afraid.
It wasn’t a very encouraging read, and I don’t know that it would have been very different if I’d been a member. They really need to come to grips with the idea of changing non-believers into believers, but perhaps that is not culturally appropriate. They should read ‘Towards the Conversion of England’! Perhaps we can discuss their Blue Book report when it comes out.
January 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Steve Stagnitta of St. Andrew’s was a member of the Evangelism Committee at General Convention, Anaheim, 2009, and I believe he has been reappointed for Indianapolis, 2012. I know one major aspect of the “culturally appropriate” theme was related to outreach among hispanics, especially in the Southwest and in Florida. Mostly this outreach is related to lapsed, disaffected Roman Catholics among second generation immigrants. I don’t think it’s wrong to have an outreach to disaffected Roman Catholics, but I think it does tend to muddy the waters some when it comes to conversation about evangelism.
Questions about evangelism and Christian witness and formation are sometimes reflected in our “Inquirers Class” at St. Andrew’s. The “inquiries” are most often, “explain to me the differences between this church and the church I used to attend,” “I was on the Session at my last church, what do you call that board here?” etc., and much less often, “explain to me what you mean when you talk about Jesus the way you do.” This suggests to me that most of our Church Growth (for which I am very thankful, of course) happens when Christian people have come to us, for some reason, as they “look for a new church,” and much less because we have gone out to meet those who aren’t “looking” and made the effort to introduce them to the One who is looking for them . . . .
I’m very interested in Lenny’s book suggestion and think it might be a good one for a spring book group here . . . .
Bruce Robison
February 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Just catching up with Dr. Wainwright on the minutes of the Standing Commission on Mission and Evangelism, have printed out everything I could find since 2005 and read a good bit of it. The last set of minutes on-line is the October 5-9 2011 meeting in Mississippi. Fr. Robison–is that the same as the committee on evangelism to which Steve Stagnitta has been appointed? Would be wonderful if the answer is yes. I haven’t seen his name on the list of the several sets of minutes I’ve looked at, so perhaps he is a new appointee. QUESTION: in 1991 DO 12 “commended evangelism efforts of individuals and organizations.” Cursillo, Daughters of the King, Anglican Fellowship of Prayer, Faith Alive, and many others are examples of such groups. They are by no means the only way to evangelize, but they are indeed helpful. I’d like to see the present Commission include them in some way in their deliberations. I mentioned that possibility briefly in the Lenten AFP Newsletter, which includes a very good article by Dr. Wainwright (if any would like to see the electronic version, let me know, or check http://www.afp.org–I‘m getting ready to have a link provided to it). QUESTION: do you know who on the Commission might be a good person to ask about this?