Greg Clarke from the Centre for Public Christianity spoke at a recent meeting at St Philip's York St. His topic was along the lines of why Christianity makes such little headway these days.
I offered to him the following thoughts:
1. Recently I heard a sermon from the archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen who mentioned along the way the 'cringe' that many Christians feel when a 'public' Christian speaks on the live media (TV, radio). He thought the cringe might be because they would talk about the gospel; but in my case the cringe, which does occur, is because they reduce Christian faith to some naff disconnected credal statement, cute moralism or unsubstantiated rhetoric. Rarely do I hear an intellectually strong case made that properly foots the gospel in terms that would make sense to the audience. Nothing of the existential calibre of Paul's Mars Hill address.
So the irreligious have Richard Dawkins as their poster boy, with the Christian faith seen (for those who saw the ABC's Q&A a couple of weeks ago) as given voice by Senator Fielding, who was clearly caught off guard (more discussion on Senator Fielding on Q&A here) but there seems to be little public Christian discussion that would confront the 'way we are' in the popular mind with the gospel.
Indeed, not only does most Christian media discourse fail in this regard; that is, it either underplays the gospel, or assumes a dumber than average audience, but it also tends to be accepting of the way people frame the world: that is generally materialist/naturalist, so they hear the discourse as cast within their own world-concept (and reject it) and not as a viable or cogent challenge to it.
Indeed, not only does most Christian media discourse fail in this regard; that is, it either underplays the gospel, or assumes a dumber than average audience, but it also tends to be accepting of the way people frame the world: that is generally materialist/naturalist, so they hear the discourse as cast within their own world-concept (and reject it) and not as a viable or cogent challenge to it.
2. The formal connection we attempt to make with people (I mean in public proclamation) in many cases also seemingly plays below people's mental capability and human dignity: disengaged (that is, not answering the question 'how is this going to connect with my life concerns?'), but also dumb (and sometimes failing to recognise that lots of people have a level of spiritual interest, if not Christian).
I note in the NRSV that Paul is often stated as 'arguing' with people about the faith. I take this as not an angry fight, but as a discussion (engaged, involved, attentive, responsive) about reasons for belief. In our proclamation we rarely do this, in my experience; so people remain uninvolved in the discourse...and as McLuhan has said, the message given by our medium is 'be uninvolved' (I think of sermons and other one way communication particularly).
I note in the NRSV that Paul is often stated as 'arguing' with people about the faith. I take this as not an angry fight, but as a discussion (engaged, involved, attentive, responsive) about reasons for belief. In our proclamation we rarely do this, in my experience; so people remain uninvolved in the discourse...and as McLuhan has said, the message given by our medium is 'be uninvolved' (I think of sermons and other one way communication particularly).
3. The final element that sprang to mind was relevance. Some years ago a person I know was faced with very pointed family distress. He attended church (with his family) and the sermons went on airily attempting to expound the Bible, but nothing seemed to be in touch with his world (that is, again, disconnected from people's life interests or needs): there was no opportunity for prayerful support, or indeed prayer itself, as the church servants (ministers) were intent on moving the congregation out for the next service to start. Then the only thing was the morning tea, where people tended to triumph their successes rather than being available for confidential intimacy and prayerful support for each other. It took me some effort to encourage this person to keep attending, but it was touch and go. He almost become one of the many Christians who refuse to attend church meetings.
4. I wonder if our induction of people into Christian faith could also be a factor. A simple intro to the faith says 'this is simple'. No challenge made means no challenge available, or worthy of a novice.
My impression of the induction of new disciples is that we go lightly instead of equating our action with the seriousness of Christian faith and inviting people to its riches.
Now, I've got no idea of what might be done generally, or what the span of practices is, but I tend to think that few churches have a structured introduction that is sufficient to the task.
What I've heard suggests to me that we go lightly with a read of Mark's gospel, then simply turn up to 'church' and Bible studies (adult Sunday School/home groups). But I'd like to see a structured decent length series of experiences for a new Christian (thinking older youth to adult here). Over a two year period, it would include seminars, and at least a weekend (a couple?) if not a week away at a 'retreat' for study, reflection, prayer and counselling with an older Christian.
[Just on 'retreats', I attended a Capernwray fellowship school when I was younger and was impressed that their attitude was serious about the Bible, about prayer and living the Christian life, but also serious about enjoyable surroundings: it was in a converted country estate; serious about enjoyable food and appreciation of a thoughtful approach to the physical and aesthetic aspects of life: no hair shirts, but no indulgence either.]
The experiences would include directed reading of the Bible: perhaps the entire Pentateuch, one major or a few minor prophets (Isaiah would be my choice), a selection of Psalms, and in the NT Luke's gospel, Acts, and either Romans or the trio of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (hmm, now have I got the order right?) then, say James then Revelation. That would be a year's reading with suitable brief guide notes to contextualise the books.
There should also be theological reading and reflection in a group context; perhaps a few churches could join together for this, to encourage theological thinking, connecting thought with life and modelling prayer. To the extent possible, I'd want to encourage the reading of proper theologians too, not popular reductions.
Lastly, I'd include reading and discussion on church/theological history, Christian social action (including actually doing some), and current issues of Christian practice (connection with everyday life), thought and proclamation (encountering contemporary world views).
The message this would send is that Christian faith is a serious business and needs to be seriously taken up. I think the message that any light-weight induction into the faith sends is that Christian life is at the level of cake baking: simple recipes done quickly with no profound impact on life.
This post at Evangelion is a nice link on teaching theology.
