mightychurch.com

Bishop blames ‘weak’ churches for losing their religious

20 August 2009

Census figures show a quarter of the population does not have a declared religion. (http://www.sxc.hu: Lionel Titu)
A former Australian Defence Force Anglican bishop says religious belief is waning in Australia because the Christianity most Australians have encountered is weak, insipid, and in some cases unintelligible.

Director of St Mark’s National Theological Centre and head of the School of Theology at Charles Sturt University, Professor Tom Frame, says churches must take some of the blame for the decline.

“The Christianity that most Australians have encountered is weak and insipid and in more than a few instances uninspiring and unintelligible, and the majority have no idea of what the Christian religion is offering,” he writes in his book Losing My Religion: Unbelief In Australia.

Professor Frame points to what he believes are three reasons for this.

“To some degree some churches are caught in a time warp, they’ve got the social and cultural forms of the 1950s and 1960s and have been unable to embrace the 1990s and the new millennium, so they do seem to be locked in time and their message with it,” he told ABC Online.

“The second thing that I would say is that many of the churches are totally overcome by internal bickering about minor points of doctrine about which the world could not care less, because they don’t bear upon everyday life.

“And I think the third thing is that the churches themselves have conducted some of the internal debates in public and given the impression that not even the churches are sure about what they believe.

“Now I don’t think that’s true, but in conducting, if you like, household conversations in the full glare of the media spotlight, [they have] led some people to focus on the division rather than the unity; the separateness rather than the oneness of the message that’s being proclaimed.

”There are some churches who in my view have a totally hybrid religion, one which is nearer to therapy than spirituality. And if you are an external observer seeing all of this it’s not surprising that you think the churches themselves don’t know what they’re on about.

“And if they can’t articulate a clear message then why should anyone bother listening ?”

At Federation, Australia was considered a Christian nation, but Professor Frame points to census figures showing that today a quarter of the population does not have a declared religion.

“If we take the census figures as any reliable measure of what’s happening in the community then we would have to say that those who have formalised religious beliefs - that express themselves through the major religions that people are offered in the census form - then certainly there’s a big change going on,” he said.

“In 100 years we’ve gone from a country with nearly 97 per cent of the population belonging to one of the four big Christian denominations to 63 per cent; 5 per cent having a religion other than Christianity. It’s a lot of change in a very short space of time and that’s going to have consequences for the whole community.”

And he says even though people may refer to themselves as being of Catholic, Anglican or Uniting Church faith, they do not necessarily have beliefs that correspond with the formal ones of those religions.

“They probably believe all sorts of things and certainly what we’re seeing in terms of surveys and other things is that belief in God still seems to be high - say 75-80 per cent - but formal religious affiliation, that’s where the bottom is dropping out of the market.”

He warns that as belief continues to decline, it places in jeopardy the estimated $40 billion worth of public money channelled through religious organisations to deliver social services in Australia.

“That being the case it seems to me that if these religious communities were wiped out there wouldn’t be the agencies that actually provide a whole lot of important services to our community,” he said.

“In addition to that, to some degree, our moral and ethical conversation in this country has been informed largely by Christianity as the majority religion. If you take away that big story and the things that it has contributed to our public life, and our public conversation, there will be a void.”

link

Is he right ?

I’m not entirely sure where he’s coming from.
What exactly does he think is weak insipid uninspiring and unintellible?  He doesn’t say.
What ‘minor points of doctrine’ are being bickered about?  The main contention, as publicly aired, is the gay debate.  If this is what he means, I think his whole argument is deeply suspect.  But he doesn’t say.

What does he mean by stuck in the 50’s and 60’s?  Does he mean the gay debate?  Or a broader picture?  On the broader picture, we do need genuine prophetic voices that can speak authentic Christianity into our time.  Mark Driscoll is one who does this. 
 
I do agree public brawls are highly counterproductive.  But where there is irreconcilable difference one must stand with the truth, not aquiesce to a false peace.
If this gives a picture of Christians not knowing what we’re on about, the confusion is due to a proliferation of false teachings.  The answer to this is most definitely not to focus on some illusory oneness.

Totally hybrid religion - nearer to therapy than spirituality:  Prosperity gospel, etc., I suppose.  Perhaps this infects Anglicans etc. more than we’re willing to admit?
Denominational affiliation not corresponding to actual beliefs of members:  interesting one.  I used to be Uniting Church, which seemed OK while I had Moore trained ministers, but as soon as a Uniting Theological College minister came on the scene, I had no idea what he believed.  A lot of people seemed to approach church from a social perspective - do what you need to do in order to seem how you should in order to fit in…keep your private beliefs to yourself.

“To some degree some churches are caught in a time warp, they’ve got the social and cultural forms of the 1950s and 1960s and have been unable to embrace the 1990s and the new millennium, so they do seem to be locked in time and their message with it,”

I agree that some churches are stuck in another decade socially and culturally but the message has been the same for 2,000 years and should never change.

“The second thing that I would say is that many of the churches are totally overcome by internal bickering about minor points of doctrine about which the world could not care less, because they don’t bear upon everyday life.

Agree, and hence why I’m a big fan of organisations like The Gospel Coalition, who are trying to demonstrate that churches and Christians with various beliefs can unite on matters of primary doctrinal importance.

“And I think the third thing is that the churches themselves have conducted some of the internal debates in public and given the impression that not even the churches are sure about what they believe.

“Now I don’t think that’s true, but in conducting, if you like, household conversations in the full glare of the media spotlight, [they have] led some people to focus on the division rather than the unity; the separateness rather than the oneness of the message that’s being proclaimed.

This is largely due to the media. The media couldn’t give a hoot about the Christian message, but as soon as there’s a disagreement between Christians or some controversy, whoosh, they’re straight onto it. Furthermore, Christians will often use the media to further their particular agenda, while others are more circumspect about their views.

But I don’t think that Christians should apologise for discussion and debate being in the public eye. And I don’t think we should give the public the impression that we all agree on everything - we don’t! But we do need to keep pushing the gospel to the front line. Hopefully the Jesus All About Life campaign will be fruitful in this regard.

“The second thing that I would say is that many of the churches are totally overcome by internal bickering about minor points of doctrine about which the world could not care less, because they don’t bear upon everyday life.

Agree, and hence why I’m a big fan of organisations like The Gospel Coalition, who are trying to demonstrate that churches and Christians with various beliefs can unite on matters of primary doctrinal importance.

 
I thought the man who wrote the article was talking about bigger differences - say between reformed and liberal churches - and suggesting they were petty, which they’re not.  This might be my suspicious mind, but he doesn’t say what he thinks is minor, except to say that the world isn’t interested.
 
The gospel coalition, from a quick look at the names on their council and mentioned on their website, seem to be pretty much on the same level.
From their website: 
 

We are a group of (mostly) pastors and churches in the Reformed heritage who delight in the truth and power of the gospel, and who want the gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected to lie at the center of all we cherish, preach, and teach. In a time of endless fragmentation, it is easy to sound prophetic from the margins, but one of the most urgent needs of any generation is to be prophetic from the center—from what the Bible makes the center. We want to be robustly biblical, richly theological, constantly elevating what God himself in his own Word makes central. We are not looking for some inexpensive lowest-common-denominator theology, as if unity that is biblically understood can be increased by enlarging the list of things we cannot discuss. Far from it: to focus on Christ and the gospel does not mean that every other subject is off limits; rather, it means we want to be able to address the full panoply of biblical topics and understanding of our times through the prism of what the Bible itself makes the focal point. We are gradually learning that our unity under the Lordship of Christ is not achieved by increasing the length of the list of things we will not talk about, but by being willing to talk about anything while bringing everything to the test of Scripture and the non-negotiable gospel it promotes.

 
I was interested to see the GC recognise a need for a prophetic voice.
What this means, as I understand it, is bringing the appropriate message from the unchanging truth of God that applies to this generation.  Let me explain by a concrete example of a message is no longer prophetic (IMO) mentioned in a recent Sola Panel post. (Paul Grimmond, 6th Aug)

I was listening to a sermon the other day, in which the preacher said, “Christianity is not about morality. It’s not about right and wrong. It’s about a relationship.” It’s not the first time I’ve heard that phrase, or something like it, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. I know what it’s trying to say. I just can’t help feeling that we’ve got the right argument for the wrong moment in history.

I think this was the argument around about the time of Billy Graham, when the general perception of Christianity was it was about being a good person, and that needed correcting, to emphasise the need for personal faith and relationship with God.  Now, with Christians sometimes referred to disparagingly as ‘God-botherers’, I think people have mostly picked up on that.  So that’s an example of how not to be prophetic, and being stuck in the 50s & 60s.

“In 100 years we’ve gone from a country with nearly 97 per cent of the population belonging to one of the four big Christian denominations to 63 per cent; 5 per cent having a religion other than Christianity. It’s a lot of change in a very short space of time and that’s going to have consequences for the whole community.”

I think the media that people are affected by has changed in the past 100 years. People used to read newspapers and go to church back then.

Different mediums have arrived which have changed the landscape, and the way people live.
Each new medium like the electric light bulb, motor cars, radio, television and computers have each made drastic changes to society and its needs. The typewriter, for example, saw the entry of women into the workforce.

Society has changed all the way through the mechanical age, up to the present electronic age.

We now no longer need to attend church in order to socialise or hear a message. People listen to radio, TV, music Movies, etc.

100 years ago we were captive to a “hot” media - the printed word, which is authoritarian in nature. We are left with no other real way to take the message when confronted with the printed word.
TV, by contrast, is a “cool” media, which leaves us with a moving icon. We are able to discriminate, using our own interpretation and judgement of what we both see and hear at the same time. We are no longer “commanded” to accept the message so narrowly as before.

The mechanical age, with the printed word, produced a militaristic society. But people nowdays would never accept drafting into the army.
We now live in a different society which allows people to judge and do what they want, much more.
(An old media classic written by Marshall McCluhan, goes into this concept much deeper than I have done.  It is entitled “The Medium is the Message”.)

The answer, I think, which will get more people into churches, is to reach them with movies, TV shows etc. Or Computer media as well. Give them a story that they can relate to!

The church meeting would be good as well after they are aroused, but how to get people to go there without some help?

(.......just a few thoughts!)