if a growing church isnt a good indicator for the effectiveness of evangelism, how is a shrinking church a better one? as for the RC, i believe it is still realing from the single greatest capitulation of the 20th century: Vatican II, what else it other than a compromise with secular society?
First, because their views seem to be unlike those of virtually every Anglican I've met. Secondly, because I get the impression that many of you have broken away from the mainstream and set up splinter churches not recognised by Canterbury/Lambeth.
That's actually perfect for my point of view. We can be as hardline doctrinaire as christianity demands, without an impact on church growth. Appealing leadership is all that matters. That we are born in sin, all humanity with a core proneness to evil, that is inexplicable via natural science. That our Leader suffered a bloody, gruesome, horrific suffering, with screams and anguish, and streams of blood, and his onlookers numb at the suffering they were witnessing. That God thought this to be necessary, as a means of expiating the aforementioned Sin. That the person he sent, the only one capable of doing it, that is Himself, not only did it, but conquered death and rose from the death in resplendent glory. And that we, as mankind, will die a perpetual death, or live in that resplendent glory with him, depending on how we view this story above.
Why is "mainstream CofE Anglicanism" 450 years after the events of the Elizabethan Settlement to be the standard of Anglicanism? There are two obvious objections without even delving into doctrinal reasons: The majority of Anglicans live in Africa, not the Western World, let alone England in particular. The "mainstream CofE" Anglican does not attend Church more than for special events and maybe the occasional Christmas or Easter service. Those who attend Church in England are certainly not "mainstream" if we go by numbers alone. Do not get me wrong: I think the Anglican Communion is important, and because I believe that I intend to join what I consider to be an off-the-rails liberal Church. I'm even a rather committed Anglophile in relation to England herself (probably one of the subconscious elements that attracted me towards Anglicanism). I love the Church of England, and only hope and pray for the best for her. However, the best for her is not to adopt some form of lowest common denominator Christianity that sacrifices many of the things we read in the Bible on the altar of social respectability. If that's the way to go, let's go to a "Megachurch" where they make worship a concert to please rock lovers and then give some self-help message with an "in Jesus' name" at the end. When we sacrifice the teachings of Scriptures, like the ancient Israelites did innumerable time, it can only hurt us and those we serve in the long run. It might hurt in the short run, it might not even make sense, but staying faithful to even the unpopular exhortations of the Word of God is, in the end, the only way forward, not just the best way.
Agree. It's a very busy world and people have very limited free time. Why would anyone be willing to give up their Sunday morning to come to Church to be just like us, when we are trying to attract them by becoming just like them? When we allow the Holy Spirit to work through us to the point that we reflect Christ's peace, joy and love then people will want what we have. And we can only do that through prayer and staying true to the Word of God.