Evangelistic
Opportunities Abound
It is
common knowledge that the fastest-growing churches in America today are
the evangelical or fundamentalist churches.1 In fact it is
probably true that the only growing churches in America today are
these churches. They are equipped with a simple message, no uncertainty
about it, and a zeal to convert new believers. Mainline denominations
like ours, on the other hand, are slowly(?) losing ground. Many of us
have always been slightly suspicious of evangelism, which has often been
manipulative and superficial, emotionalistic and oh-so-pushy. We always
felt that the kind of people we wanted would come to us as they
climbed the social or intellectual ladder, and as they bequeathed us
their children and their children's children.
But now we find ourselves
at a loss. Many members of our churches have found fundamentalist and
charismatic groups more to their liking. Many have followed
job-transfers to areas where Episcopal (and other mainline) churches are
scarce. Many of our children never made the traditional return to church
after the period of unchurched rebellion in their twenties. So our pews
are becoming increasingly less burdened.2
Facing such a situation,
the natural reaction is to give evangelism a second look. Some
forward-looking Episcopal churches are doing just this, 3 but
others no doubt still feel that evangelism is just not part of the
Episcopalian ethos. It still seems manipulative and opportunistic.
Televangelists have made it seem more manipulative than ever, and our
very situation makes it seem almost hypocritically opportunistic: now
that we need more bodies, specifically more bodies with wallets, we will
start taking the Great Commission seriously.
In what follows, I would
like to try to meet these objections and to show how the Episcopal
Church now faces not only an unprecedented need for evangelism
but more importantly an unparalleled opportunity for it.
Must evangelism be
manipulative? Of course not. The emotional pressure- and scare-tactics
of much evangelism are quite effective, but this kind of evangelism is
simply not for Episcopalians. We have enough respect for individuals not
to treat them like mere religious consumers to be conned into "buying"
Christ or our church. And we have enough respect for the truth to
believe people will find it if encouraged to examine the gospel in a
responsible, intellectually honest way. J. B. Phillips suggested that
God "is never in a hurry. Long preparation, careful planning, and slow
growth, would seem to be leading characteristics of spiritual life."4
We agree with this good Anglican: there is always time to consider the
gospel long enough to make a responsible, mature decision about it.
If evangelism is not
necessarily manipulative, isn't it still opportunistic? Are we desirous
of souls, or simply of members? I believe the cynicism lies in putting
the question this way at all. We should see it in another light
altogether: why do we want our Episcopal churches to stay afloat in the
first place? Out of inertia? Or isn't it rather that we think
Episcopalianism is a unique option, that our church offers people
something it will not find elsewhere in America's ecclesiastical
smorgasbord? If we do not believe this, indeed evangelism would be
pointless and hypocritical. If we do not believe it, perhaps we
ourselves do not belong in the Episcopal Church.
Media Ministry
I believe that no less than
three great and whitened fields of harvest await our labors. The first
of these is the mass media. As a not infrequent sampler of
fundamentalist religious programming, I believe the televangelists make
singularly poor use of that expensive air time. As is well known, most
air time is used simply to cajole more money in order to stay on the air
long enough to raise sufficient funds to stay on the air a little
longer, ad infinitum. But the remainder is either pious but
vacuous chitchat, or ignorant denunciation of "secular humanism,” etc.
There is precious little of substance even from a fundamentalist
viewpoint.
These programs are
ostensibly evangelistic but are primarily inner-directed to the
fundamentalist and charismatic subculture. Yet, notoriously, these
televangelists and their preachments do come to broader public
attention. They and their minions appear to outsiders as a comical yet
dangerous unwashed herd. "Christian TV" has an anti-evangelistic
effect, presenting non-Christians or borderline Christians with a
self-drawn caricature of the Christian faith as giddy emotionalism and
know-nothing bigotry.
It is about time that
mainline, historic Christianity had a media presence, the opportunity to
provide a voice of reason crying in the "vast wasteland" of television.
Malcolm Muggeridge, in Christ and the Media, prophesied that
Christianity could not use the mass media without getting the worst of
the Faustian bargain. The medium would become the message, and the
scandal of the cross would inevitably be jettisoned for its low Nielsen
ratings.5 Yet Muggeridge, characteristically, is a bit hasty
in his generalization. He has only described the danger, the temptation,
not the necessary outcome.
There have been rational
presentations of serious Christianity in the popular media before, and
there could be again. One might name Harry Emerson Fosdick and Fulton J.
Sheen as notable examples. Closer to home, think of C. S. Lewis and his
"Broadcast Talks" which still, in book form, communicate a rational
Christian faith to millions. J. B. Phillips and John A. T. Robinson are
other Anglican "popularizers" in the best sense of the word. I believe
we should seriously explore the possibility of television ministry. It
might take the form of talk-shows, interviews, forum discussions,
documentaries, lively classes, broadcast sermons, or any combination of
these.
Welcoming
Fundamentalists
It was while attending an
evangelical seminary that I first became aware that many evangelicals,
charismatics, and fundamentalists gradually evolve beyond their
ecclesiastical origins and seek out the Anglican tradition. A recent
book by fundamentalist-turned-Episcopalian Robert E. Webber explores
this phenomenon in some depth: Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail:
Why Evangelicals Are Attracted to the Liturgical Church.6
Webber and others like him eventually found the spiritual nourishment of
fundamentalism a pretty thin gruel. Tenuous webs of rationalistic
doctrines and apologetics had dispelled the sense of numinous mystery
that was later recovered in the Episcopal Church. Fundamentalist Church
meetings were essentially lectures with a bit of mediocre singing
("vaudeville" as Daniel B. Stevick calls it in Beyond Fundamentalism7)
thrown in. In Anglicanism, fundamentalists come to find more of a true
worship experience through ceremony and liturgy. The fundamentalist
sacraments seemed a mere formality, not a means of enlivening grace as
Webber and others finally found at the Episcopalian altar. And many
thoughtful fundamentalists eventually tire of their sectarian isolation
from the great catholic tradition. Closing their eyes to the whole
history of the Church after the death of the apostles, blinking only at
the Reformation, fundamentalists are blind to the heritage of the
historic Church. Many tire of this ecclesiastical amnesia and are happy
to reenter the stream via the Episcopal Church.
Webber's book seeks to make
the Episcopal option available to a wider audience: the book is
published by a major evangelical publisher. It is exactly the
kind of evangelism I am suggesting: sharing our testimony of what we
find satisfying about our church and welcoming those in whom it strikes
a responsive chord. No divisive polemics or manipulation here: he who
has ears, let him hear. This book, or other similar volumes, might be
given or loaned to potentially interested friends.
Another bridge to
fundamentalists who might be happier Episcopalians is C. S. Lewis.
Fundamentalists love the writings of Lewis, mainly his apologetics. But
Lewis would surely be surprised at some of the adulation he has
received! It is symbolic of what I mean that Lewis' view of scripture
would bar him from teaching at fundamentalist Wheaton College where a
special collection of his works is enshrined! How many fundamentalists
know of Lewis' belief in Purgatory, his belief in the salvation of
Christ-like non-Christians, his view of Genesis as “true myth,” his
characteristically Anglican relish of the "good things of life" like
alcohol? When some discover how non-fundamentalist was their adopted
champion Lewis, it causes them to take a second look at these things.
Some will be more likely to reject restrictive fundamentalism than to
reject the winsome and convincing Lewis. Richard Quebedeaux, in his
The Young Evangelicals, attests to how Lewis has helped many to find
a more humane Christian style. He speaks of this "pipe-smoking,
claret-drinking academician" who "proved that an Orthodox believer can
enjoy life--that he is just as human as he is spiritual.”8
I suggest we help our fundamentalist friends to notice this less
familiar side of C. S. Lewis.
There is always a
percentage of converts who become dissatisfied with their new faith and
drop out. In the wake of recent fundamentalist growth, the percentage of
ex-fundamentalists has already become very great. What happens to these
individuals? Often they become disillusioned with religion, or at least
Christianity, altogether. Ironically, when they feel they must reject
fundamentalism, it does not occur to them to doubt their preachers'
claim that one's only alternative to fundamentalism is absolute
unbelief.
In the last two years, a
new organization called Fundamentalists Anonymous has emerged as a
safety net for such people. FA is a network of small
support groups whose
goal is to affirm the ex-fundamentalist in her questioning, to reinforce
his self-confidence after years of devastating guilt and introspection,
and to encourage her to make her own decisions. FA does not suggest any
particular new alternatives. Some members leave religion altogether;
others join mainline churches. FA therefore is nonsectarian and neither
religious nor anti-religious. Its aim and technique are psychological,
not theological.9
Yet many mainline churches,
very definitely including Episcopal churches, support FA, donating
meeting space, personnel, or funds. Why? Because we mean it: we are
against manipulation. We want people to decide for themselves, and we
want to facilitate such thinking. And it is important that FA members
know that there are churches who affirm free thought in this way. If FA
members decide that fundamentalism was only the bathwater, not the baby,
they will look for new church homes, in churches who foster free
thought: us, and the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Unitarians, American
Baptists, and others who care enough to support Fundamentalists
Anonymous. And if they choose no church at all, it’s their business. We
don’t want to manipulate anyone, remember? But it would clearly be in
both their interests and ours for our church to support the unique and
much-needed "ministry" of Fundamentalists Anonymous.
Inviting Roman
Catholics
Recent controversies in the
Roman Catholic Church have convinced me that here, too, lies concealed a
large group of Christians who would be happier in our church. The Roman
Church is ablaze with controversy over whether women should enter the
priesthood, whether individual conscience should decide questions of
abortion and birth control, whether Roman Catholic theologians are
entitled to full academic freedom;: whether priests may marry.
The Pope insists that
theologians who depart from traditional Catholic stances cannot claim
any longer to be Catholic theologians. Similarly, he insists that
laypersons cannot be good Catholics insofar as they decide for
themselves which elements of Church teaching they are willing to accept.
At stake is the shape of authority in the Church. The Catholic position
is not simply a particular set of beliefs, like a political party
platform, but rather a belief about how Catholic beliefs are
established. The Pope establishes them. If one does not hold
this belief, one may agree with all the other individual beliefs and
still not be a Roman Catholic.
It would not be enough to
believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, infant baptism,
the apostolic succession of bishops, the great ecumenical creeds,
priesthood, and the role of tradition. With all these, yet without Papal
authority, one is by definition not a Roman Catholic. The Catholic
dissidents seem to want Catholicism minus papal supremacy over
individual conscience. And the Pope and his advocates reply that such a
Church would not in fact be the Roman Catholic Church.
I find it hard to resist
the logic of the Pope. This ideal church which the dissidents seem to
want would not be the Roman Catholic Church. It would be the Episcopal
Church. I believe dissident, liberal Catholics would be happier in our
Church and should be invited to join it. To some this will seem
underhanded “sheepstealing,” un-Christian competitiveness motivated by
some strain of anti-Catholicism. But it is nothing of the sort. I am
admitting that the Pope has the better of the argument. His definition
of Roman Catholicism is the historically and logically correct one. If
one is to be a Roman Catholic, the Pope has shown the way. For the
dissidents to make the changes they propose would be to make the
Catholic Church Protestant. Not only would that be unfair to the
traditional Catholics who want it to stay as it is; it would also be
reinventing the wheel. The Church they want to see exists already. Ours
is the Protestant yet Catholic Church they dream of, where theologians
are welcome to theorize freely, where women can be ordained, priests can
marry, and all are urged to think for themselves. To invite dissident
Roman Catholics to join us would be pro-Catholic: it would be to
affirm the existence of the traditional Catholic option for those who
want it, yet to offer a more congenial home for those who do not.
The Episcopal Church has
much to offer because of its distinctive identity. Our tradition, we
believe, represents the mainstream Christian tradition rescued from
abuses and protected from extremes. It is Catholic Christianity reformed
by the Reformation, yet not one more Protestant sect, enlightened by the
Enlightenment, yet not aridly rationalist. Ours is not a compromise
position; rather, it approximates the norm from which others diverged in
various directions. Thus it is no surprise that in its balance it offers
something for everyone. In the present crises both of sectarian
Protestantism and of Roman Catholicism we have a unique solution to
offer and a priceless opportunity for growth.
FOOTNOTE REFERENCES
1 Dean M. Kelly, Why
Conservative Churches are Growing (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
Publishers, 1972, 1977).
2 Kenneth L. Woodward,
“From Mainline to Sideline,” Newsweek, December 22, 1986, pp.
54-56.
3 Ibid.
4 J. B. Phillips, Your
God is Too Small (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.,
1973), pp. 55-56.
5 Malcolm Muggeridge,
Christ and the Media (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1978).
6 Robert E. Webber,
Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail: Why Evangelicals Are Attracted to
the Liturgical Church (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1985).
7 Daniel B. Stevick,
Beyond Fundamentalism (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964),
p. 147.
8 Richard Quebedeaux,
The Young Evangelicals (San Francisco: Harper& Row Publishers,
1974), pp. 62, 65.
9 Richard Yao, There Is
a Way Out (New York: Luce Publications, 1985).
By
Robert M. Price