Sometimes the candlestick is removed (as has happened to the Church of Scotland). And I would not be certain that God is not finished with Sydney.  Or at least it may be that first He will judge the city for its pride, wealth and hubris; before He moves in revival and renewal.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

This week I was at a conference on evangelism.   I was really looking forward to it, but I ended up being frustrated and really disappointed.  Let me explain why

I came to Australia to get involved in evangelism.  Evangelism being the communication of the good news of Christ to people who desperately need Him.  I wanted to learn both how to do it better, and also to share in actually doing it.

Despite the change in employment from City Bible Forum to Evangelism and New Churches (of Sydney Anglicans) and now to Scots Kirk Presbyterian – my aim and heart has always remained the same.  So, I was delighted to read that the excellent Nexus conference in Sydney was going to focus on evangelism.  I signed up immediately!

On Sunday evening we drove down to Sydney and Monday I headed off with a degree of anticipation to the Village Church, Annandale.

To begin with we were given some of the bare statistics about the decline in Sydney Anglican churches.  The number of large churches has dropped from 21 to 10.  63% of Sydney Anglican churches have decreased, and even those what are not declining are growing primarily because of transfer growth.   These figures are unquestionably accurate as Sydney Anglicans are very good at figures and have a mine of data information.

One particularly disturbing statistic was that in 2001 it was reported that 12.4% of attendees in Sydney Anglican churches had become Christian in the previous five years.  In 2021 that percentage had fallen to 5.4%.  Whilst it was accepted that there are national, community and cultural factors at play, there was also a recognition that there seemed to be a particular problem with Sydney Anglicans.   What could be done about it?

This is an important issue – not just for Sydney Anglicans – but for the wider church in Australia – including the Presbyterians – because Sydney Anglicans have been a dominant and influential force in the Australian church for many years.  Their methodology, ecclesiology and theology dominate the evangelical scene in Australia – and is a big influence on many other parts of the world – including the UK, Africa and the USA.

The speakers at the Nexus conference showed why.  Chris Braga and Phil Colgan are two excellent pastors who spoke well.  Dave Jensen is probably the best-known Australian evangelist working in Australia, and is certainly one of the best speakers.  He has a sharp mind and a Godly passion.   Dominic Steele, pastor of the Village Church, in whose church Nexus is held has a great podcast – The Pastor’s Heart – which really does give insight into the world of Sydney Anglicanism.

So, given all of that – why was I so disappointed and frustrated that I actually left early?  I had paid for the whole day and as a Scotsman, I believe in getting value for money – so why miss the lunch and the afternoon session?  Because I just found it too painful – and by the time we got the end of the Q and A session I realised that this was not my world, and I had nothing to say into it.  Given that I had worked in this world for four years this was a profoundly disappointing experience.

I have wrestled with this over the past 24 hours – including a restless night.  Trying to work out why – and what was wrong with me!   I write this not in order to attack people – nor even to just engage in self-reflection – but I hope to help myself and others think through some of the issues raised.

There was much that Braga, Colgan and Jensen said that was helpful and instructive.  But overall, I felt that the message was like that of a defeated political party which says, “The people are not getting our message, we just need to repackage it and carry on doing the same thing”.   Let me just list some of the points I struggled with.  (By the way I confess I may be wrong – this was part of my frustration and sorrow – what if I am wrong?  What if these brothers have really got it right and their model is the one we should all be following?).  But let’s look at some of the issues where I felt there should have been at least some discussion.

• Ministry is tough. Yes, it is.   But we need to ask why?  And we need to ask why so many ministers crash and burn – and why there appears to be a relative reluctance for pastors to become senior rectors in the Anglican system.
• Never let evangelists be in charge of the church – Why? The implication seemed to be that evangelists would be so concerned to get people in by any means that they would let theology, or ecclesiology slip.   Yet it was Paul who stated that he became all things to all people that he might win some (1 Corinthians 9:20) ….and it was to Timothy, the pastor, that Paul said he should do the work of an evangelist in order to fulfill his ministry ((1 Timothy 4:5).  I realise that in the context of the ecclesiology of Sydney Anglicanism this comment makes sense – but I just think that it is the ecclesiology that is wrong and does not reflect the biblical view that evangelism, church and theology go together. This was an especially poignant point to me because I once had a senior Christian argue against me being called to a particular charge because I was an evangelist and the last thing that the church needs is a minister who is an evangelist.  I have also heard pastors say that evangelism wasn’t their thing and therefore they didn’t want to do it.  How can you be a pastor with that attitude?
• In order to do effective evangelism, we need proclaimers rather than apologists? Churches with most conversions see minimal apologetic detours.    It’s almost become a cardinal doctrine amongst Sydney Anglicans that apologetics is somehow a hinderance to evangelism.  The irony is that one of the people most responsible for this doctrine, Philip Jenson, is himself one of the best apologists in the business! Again I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of what apologetics is.  Almost all of the early church fathers would have regarded themselves as apologists for the gospel.  And I am certain that Peter, Paul and the other apostles did so as well.  They debated from house to house, in the synagogues, the temples and the marketplaces.   We are always to be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us for the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15).  I don’t think that Peter meant we had to learn a formula from a booklet that we could repeat ad nauseum to all and sundry! I don’t understand how you can be a proclaimer without being an apologist, or how you can claim to be an apologist without proclaiming!
• I wanted to point out what Tim Keller said when asked what he would change in his 30-year-old self.  His reply was that he would not teach his congregation an evangelism programme – instead he would ask what three questions they were most scared of being asked.   I wanted to point it out – but for some in Sydney Anglican circles citing Tim Keller is enough to make you questionable – to say the least.  And to be questionable in this context is the equivalent of being thrust into outer darkness!

• Focus on the People Most Likely to be Converted –

I understood what was being said here – and to some extent can appreciate it. 

Read More