Following is a copy of the full article written by Tim before it was edited to fit space requirements in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. It might be helpful in the discussion… ————- Dr. Peter Jensen has expressed a common nostalgic view doing the rounds in many church circles. This is the loss of influence by the Church in the public domain as well as the lack an intellectual champion for the Christian cause to win back influence from the secular world. On this loss he is right.

Older Christians can remember the times when churches, particularly city centre ones, were renowned as ‘preaching centres’. My own church, Collins St Baptist in central Melbourne even has a pew, which was nominated for the press. Sunday’s sermon had the potential to set Monday’s news agenda much like channel nine’s ‘Sunday’ program does today.

In mourning the loss of this influence Jensen says it is because we have ‘ lost confidence in the truth for which we stand’ and churches have preferred to be ‘relevant’ and to “sing our songs to the world’s tunes”. Is it?

What he is really describing is the slow shift from Christendom to a post-Christian, pluralistic culture. Under Christendom State churches flourished. Australian Anglicans parent was the Church of England and it had immediate cultural relevance serving as the chaplain to power. It spiritually legitimated and rarely questioned the dominant political structures, as its very head was the King or Queen. And the Monarch through the Prime Minister still appoints the Bishops to this day. In return such state churches (which are found in most European countries) were afforded respect, and a range of privileges. Fleeting memories of this huge reservoir of influence is still seen in royal funerals like the Queen Mother’s.

In the post-Christian era there is no privileged cultural role, no quiet assent to our doctrines and no automatic spiritual influence. It has to be earned and the talkback broadcaster, the counsellor, the local doctor are as likely to be the therapist of the soul as any clergy person. Indeed, I have discovered when speaking to young people who have voiced a keen interest in spirituality, that when I recommend they should try going to a church it strikes them as a novel thought that churches would have anything to offer them in their quest. They are not hostile to the idea just genuinely surprised!

Dr. Jensen’s solution is that the truth needs to be spoken even if it involves fighting the Reformation battles with Roman Catholics again. Alas, this will not bring back respect, nor indeed Christendom. For a start those battles were as much political as they were theological. The denomination that defined and controlled who received the sacraments determined who was considered to be saved. That is ultimate power and control in Christendom. Truth as defined in credal propositions was the determinative factor and religious wars were fought to prove them. Certainly Dr Jensen, in writing of “speaking the truth in love” does not want to go back to that approach.

So what is a way forward for the Church to hold to its gospel and win back influence? I do not think it is in asserting truth or a ‘recognisable theology’ to a postmodern world who only hear religious tones of superiority and dogma.

Simply, even naively, we need to re-find the way of Jesus. The truth is relational and personal as embodied in him. His style was to tell stories, not to give credal propositions. He lived in a travelling community with a common purse, showing hospitality and grace. His way was on the back streets with those who were powerless. He taught ethics in neither a systematic nor “comprehensive” way. He gave no ready answer to complex human dilemmas. In fact, he did the reverse. He advocated lending and expecting nothing in return. Try building a banking policy on that. He taught Love your enemies which when applied to the military today we end up lamely interpreting kill your enemies cleanly. He said Don’t store up riches on earth. Yet that is the fundamental plank of success in a capitalist economy. But the freshness and breadth of his vision still speaks and motivates today.

The type of truth systems that Dr. Jensen wants re-asserted have too often in the past silenced or moderated the Jesus we see in the gospels. Because he was an extremist and we in the Church are mild mannered moderates we have tried to fill the gaps in his ideas by resorting to moral philosophy and theological systems. We mutter that Jesus gave neither a comprehensive nor a realistic ethic so we are free to turn to other truths and in the process we have tortured heretics, burnt witches, moved abusing priests to another parish and even gone to war in his name. But Jesus reminds us that we are our most dangerous when we think we have the answers. Instead his extreme teaching raises a new moral sensitivity that leads us to listen to others and to God.

Rather than mourn the ‘tragic absence of truth in public discourse’ the Church may do better to rediscover its Lord and Saviour. By following him truth and relevance will look after themselves. But like him we must expect no privileged access to power or automatic respect because of our institutional and cultural role.

Rev Tim Costello

President Baptist Union of Australia

May 2002