Craig Schwarze - 11 April 2008 02:25 PM

Those darned Anglicans… ;-)

Not damned Anglicans?

Language…

Jeff Atack - 11 April 2008 11:34 AM

Many perceived the issues you described above craig, and in fact there was a question about structure and hierachy which related to them.

Timmis replied by suggesting that the episcopal hierachy that the Anglican church has in place is unneccessary and certainly not exhorted by scripture. To which many of the present Anglican ministers and Moore students nodded & chuckled in aggreement!!

This I think is an interetsing point - when I asked that question about church leadership structures, I was hoping he’d suggest a nice, theologically-driven, easy to roll out method of implementation for us anglicans.  wishful thinking… :)

The more I think about it though, the more I think it’s pretty much unfeasible for us in Sydney.  It takes 4 years to get the degree, and another 3 or 4 (can’t remember which, though seeing as I’m a candidate, I should know!) to be ordained as a priest.  So by my calculations, it’d take about 8 years to be ordained to run a church the size of 30-40 (I think that’s what Steve suggested as a good size) people.  So, it’s pretty unrealistic to deploy what he’s got going there, here.

BUT (and for the record, i’m quite happy with the episcopal three-fold order), I reckon we could find a solution by: downsizing our large congregations to something much more feasible, having one congregation per visible church, not having massive staff-teams, promoting a local-community emphasis on church, and by working out ways to encourage members to live amongst each other on a day-to-day basis. 

I know it’s an overly simplistic explanation, but i’m sure it’s possible, and on the flip side of the coin, i’m not so sure doing ‘big’ church makes it possible.  younger evangelicals are screaming out for an authentic experience of church community life - I contantly here this.  I think Francis Schaeffer was right when he wrote in “The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century”:

“There is no use saying you have community or love for each other if it does not get down into the tough stuff of life. It must, or we are producing ugliness in the name of truth. I am convinced that in the twentieth century people all over the world will not listen if we have the right doctrine, the right polity, but are not exhibiting community.”

My view - I have doubts it could [work in the Anglican structures]. I think it would have to be driven forward as an independant network, even affiliated with Crowded House (as has been done in the US).

I think it can and is… see Stu Crawshaw’s ministry at Gymea.

There are real parallels with Church Army’s Local Mission Bases (LMB) approach.. although it should be noted that CA operates extra-parochially with the permission of the diocesan or regional bishop

Indeed I think working in the Anglican system provides accountability structures the independent model lacks (ie Stu @ Gymea has a board of reference - elders - outside his community which means if the pastor (ie Stu) went off the rails there would be someone the punters could appeal to for help)

I didn’t buy Steve Timmis’ rather glib answer to the question of accountability (ie “look how the episcopalians have protected the gospel") because it did not engage the heart of the concern behind the question… there is a plethora of examples of ‘intense’ Christian communities turning into cults for a more serious answer to that question.

I didn’t buy Steve Timmis’ rather glib answer to the question of accountability (ie “look how the episcopalians have protected the gospel") because it did not engage the heart of the concern behind the question… there is a plethora of examples of ‘intense’ Christian communities turning into cults for a more serious answer to that question.

Hi Jeremy. I agree with what you have said here about the danger of cults.
It also could be argued that the behavior of some of the USA & Canadian episcopalian churches could be considered cultish or are in fact cults.
Perhaps Steve’s glib answer came out of his own frustrations with dealing with the established church not willing to change.

However I do see the way forward where the diocese has already established and is open to having links with churches outside it’s jurisdiction. Perhaps under this covering Anglican churches can plant new churches within it’s midst like Crowded House has done. And do it in a way that does not suffocate it’s growth by insisting they become little Anglican churches.

Hi Mark

I donlt understand why you think it won’t work here in sydney when the only reason you have given for it not working is the status quo. where is principled thnking in this? break the paradigm.

regarding accountability I think models of leadership teams where there is a genuine plurality of elders (ie biblically qualified men who are able to teach) is the best framework.

The distinctive contribution that Timmis and Chester make in this regard is that the elders are ‘in community’ - there is a much flatter structure to their church governance which doesn’t abolish leadership roles so much as promote every member exhorting one another.
i.e they are seeking to genuinely pastor their pastors rather than professionalise them.

let us be clear biblically - the language of pastor/ shepherd, bishop (overseer) and elder are the one office. see 1 Peter 5:1-2 where Peter uses all three together.

it saddens me that there are men who are biblically qualified elders in unpaid supported ministry who are fine bible men whose life and doctrine adorn the gospel of grace - yet we fail to recognise them because of our professionalise structures and clericalism.

In all this emphasis on formal training and ‘ministry’ competancies I wonder if we are in danger of creating a new priesthood - of all bible teachers?

somehow we need to work out ways of affirming local elders in churches in both financially supported and unsupported roles, whilst holding in tension a system of recognising the more formally qualified pastor teachers etc.

I also think ti would be wonderful if Anglican bishops were locally based in congregations so that we might reflect a little more of the imprtance of exercising oversight in local community first and networked community second.

Jeremy Halcrow - 11 April 2008 05:41 PM

I think it can and is… see Stu Crawshaw’s ministry at Gymea.

Indeed I think working in the Anglican system provides accountability structures the independent model lacks (ie Stu @ Gymea has a board of reference - elders - outside his community which means if the pastor (ie Stu) went off the rails there would be someone the punters could appeal to for help)

I didn’t buy Steve Timmis’ rather glib answer to the question of accountability (ie “look how the episcopalians have protected the gospel") because it did not engage the heart of the concern behind the question… there is a plethora of examples of ‘intense’ Christian communities turning into cults for a more serious answer to that question.

Hi JH,

I only know the details of Gymea from your recent podcast, so can’t comment any further on that set up.

I don’t doubt that existing smaller congregations could adopt the MO of CH with no problem (save the massive mindeset change), however as Steve has said, they are built on a multiplication model, so once the numbers hit the 20-30 mark then a new church is planted with it’s own elders, most probably dual vocation.

So my comment related to the issues Mark E raised around, under the way we work now, for a person to be able to lead a stand alone ‘church’ that exists in the CH model would take circa 8 years of training to be ordained as a presbyter, plus a full time salary for that person.

I agree with you on the issue of accountability and would agree Steve’s answer seemed glib. Perhaps he was being so deliberately given the audience. I know that when Mark Driscoll planted Mars Hill he set up a group of external elders from other churches to provide accountability, so this approach is not without precendent.

Well it depends if you tell the Diocese about it!

There is at least one parish that currently operates a cell church structure with lay leaders given PTC level training.

Granted, I think Sydney Anglicans would have to run a modified TC model… but so what? Is the structure locked in concrete?

For Surfers Church, our accountability goes like this:

I’m licensed by the Archbishop with an Authority to Officiate. His office, including PSU, keeps me in the loop generally.

The Bishop & Archdeacon stay in contact.

I’m part of the Randwick Area Deanery.

South Sydney Regional Council require an annual report from us re funding accountability.

Church Army national leadership have me & other Local Mission Base Leaders in an accountability network that meets about once a term.

I have an Advisory Board, comprised of leaders from Church Army, the Diocese, the Minister of St John’s Maroubra, the Pastor from Maroubra Baptist Church, & Christian Surfers Australia. If our MSC teams needs, the Advisory Board meets with our local team. Usually we email each other in between.

Our local team of leaders & trainees is my day to day accountability group!

And my mates in the Ministers’ Retreat Group keeps me accountable by asking the right personal questions!

Jeremy Halcrow - 14 April 2008 05:49 PM

Well it depends if you tell the Diocese about it!

There is at least one parish that currently operates a cell church structure with lay leaders given PTC level training.

Granted, I think Sydney Anglican would have to run a modified TC model… but so what? Is the structure locked in concrete?

Cool...I’m up for it if we can do it!!

As for structure, we used the Church Administration Ordinance as our template, & through Church Army & Mike Newman from the Secretariat, we keep working at it. It’s worked really well in practice. Surfers Church meeting dynamics are too flexible & chaotic compared to normal parish models. However, financial accountabity & other Professional Standards responsibilities get handled the same as in normal parish. Church Army’s John Barnes, & Mike Newman from SDS are super helpful in helping Surfers Church in these areas.

I’m reading (so slowly) through Total Church. On the weekend I read the chapter on Evangelism, which I believe is probably the most important chapter of the book. The authors make a couple of great points that should really inform our thinking in evangelism.

Firstly, they point out that joining the community of faith is just as important as believing the doctrinal statements. We “belong” as well as “believe”. And, in fact, the “belonging” often happens before the “believing”. That is, someone will join the community of faith, and then a little while latter they will believe the gospel. I’ve seen this happen quite a number of times up at our church. It may even be the “usual” way that an outsider becomes a Christian.

The next point is maybe a bit more radical. Certainly different to anything I’ve heard locally. The authors strongly affirm that evangelism should be done “in community” rather than as a solo project. This is a shift. All the evangelistic training I’ve done has focused around the idea of the Christian as a “lone ranger”, doing evangelism at their workplace, in their families, amongst their friends. The authors suggest, instead, that the norm should be Christians evangelising as a collective. I’ll expand a bit on that later. But I think they are right…

Hi Craig

I can;t remeber whether we chatted about this before but I think you are right - we need to embrace an apologetic that is both
* revelational - we speak the gospel word of grace
* reasonable - it is sanity in the midst of insane sin
* relational - it embodies the word of grace and shows people what it is like when God’s snaity comes and lives are transformed in community

Titus 2 was used as an example of this at the conference.

Significantly, Steve suggests that genuine evangelism only really happens when the gospel is shaping centring and directing our whole identity as God’s gospel people.
Again if someone were looking for a silver bullet, just add water program they would be disappointed…

one of the key things related to this that came out at the conference was that the best ministry is always

low key
relational
long term

genuine evangelism only really happens when the gospel is shaping centring and directing our whole identity as God’s gospel people.

Shane, can you expand that a bit. Sounds good, but is a little concentrated so I don’t really get it. (Maybe you could just add water to it for us… ;-) )

Hi Michael

no surprises really

we need to grasp the gospel indicative - letting the saving rule of Christ shape who we are - and how we see ourselves as sinners saved and sanctified now saintly and sent as King Jesus’ disciples

ie we need to gospel one another so that the saving message of Jesus has ‘traction’ in our lives, delighting in Jesus, loving him, cherishing him, being captivated by him, obeying him so that our whole identity finds its place in him.

and we need to understand and live out the imperatives of the gospel as God’s people - finding our place and identity amongst his people.
salt and light stuff. embodying in our fellowship the saving work of God as he creates a new people for his praise. The way we love, serve, suffer, forgive, offer hospitality. die to self and live for other. the way we share our stuff and help each other live for his glory as we await his return.

too often we have reduced the gospel proclamation to an idea rather than a person. and we have emphasised believing over belonging when it is not an either/or but a both /and thing. it s recognition that the church, God’s gospel community, is integral to mission - the agent of mission - not just as individual missioners but as a missionary people.

I suppose its just about our lives speaking with as much volume as our lips - yet not just personally but as persons who have been saved into a people. The most powerful tool in evangelism is our corporate life and witness.

like in 1 Peter 2 - a people called out of darkness to declare his praise.

this is not new - we just need to keep reminding each other of the gospel indicative and imperative
we can so easily slip into man centred kingdom building that builds edificies to our own glory - and devise and use great tools in doing so.
or we can slip into rugged individualism and diminsh the power of our corporate witness.
etc etc

so genuine gospelling only really happens when the gosple is shaping, centring and directing our whole identity as God’s gospel people.