In my attempts at understanding the different demographic profiles of my area I thought I’d do some research on Sydney’s Sub-Cultures. In my search I came across a site of a so called ‘Religious Academic’ from Sydney. I’m not sure if he has anything particularly interesting to say, however, I found this blog comment which I thought was very pertinent.

http://teusner.org/2006/10/18/sydney-anglicans-new-site/

I have reproduced the comment here in it’s entirety as it’s worth reading. I’ll give you a minute…

As for Sydney culture and what/how is it misunderstood by some Sydney Anglicans … that could almost turn into a book project! On the one hand these folks are on the side of the angels in their desire to pass on the gospel of Christ to others, and whatever eccentricities and failings there may be found, God works out the details. Now with that in mind, I would frame my observations and/or criticisms around several topics.

A). The cultural exegesis of Sydney is hampered in general by the social stratification of the Diocese - it is largely populated by those who hold to conservative middle-class values and lifestyles. Now they are not peculiar in this stratification as other churches suffer from similar problems. The difficulty is that in a middle-class dominated network of congregations, social stratification occurs as “like attracts like”. It is very hard for the church ethos and style and theology espoused in these networks to effectively translate beyond the bubble — it does not really reach very well into the lives and experiences of blue-collar working class people (and the suburbs that are characterised by blue-collar values).

B). Another correlative is that its success is found among certain clusters of young adults many of whom have undergraduate degrees (Uni of Sydney, Uni of NSW, Macq Uni — but poorly under-represented in UWS). Out of that talent pool come younger lay leaders as well as many who pursue theological training (and become ordained to the ministry). These networks tend to also be shaped and reinforced by shared experiences and shared values and shared techniques in conducting lay ministries. The end result is “like attracts like”, and those outside the general mould either are marginalised or never come within the orbit of contact. So the assumptions about Sydney culture (be it Anglo-Celt stock or conservative East Asian stock) tend to be limited by their own horizons and spheres of contact.

C). The exegesis of culture tends to yield a certain sameness in perspective about how Sydneysiders behave and think, which works fine in limited boundaries (like on uni campuses, in lower north shore suburbs etc). The strength they possess is being able to engage with specific patterns of thought held by fringe dwellers of the church (those who occasionally attend a church) or those who essentially hold to a fairly dogmatic way of viewing reality in the first instance (imagine a hard-boiled fundamentalist atheist who hands out tracts promoting the Humanist Manifestoes and Origin of Species). It is generally easier for someone whose personality traits and experiences of life fit into fixed patterns of thinking about “right/wrong; true/false”.

D). The tremendous weakness of the exegesis is that anything that stands outside a certain box - that which is largely unfamiliar to the Christian - is negated as marginal, fringe, irrational, and insignificant. I have noted this problem in attitudes manifested about the trends within Sydney where many have gravitated to experimental and do-it-yourself approaches to non-Christian spiritualities (new age, neo-pagan, Goth, neo-Buddhist etc). So “new age” for example is superficially understood as mystical and non-rational, and the response to it is one of debunking beliefs and pointing to the “rationality” of christian beliefs. The emphasis is often on cognitive faith with little appreciation for the intuitive and experiential nature of these alternate approaches to life. The outcome, no serious or sustained interaction takes place with these networks. Instead the assumption is that disbelief in Christianity is coterminous with humanist, atheist and formal agnostic philosophical thinking.

E). There is not a great deal of appreciation for the subtleties entailed in cross-cultural exegesis, cross-cultural communication especially as it pertains to the history of missions. So there is not much interest in looking at Sydney culture(s) anthropologically, sociologically etc. Since the main aim is to persuade people to hear the good news and repent and become discipled, the need to differentiate how social networks and groups form, sustain and maintain themselves is largely not comprehended, let alone acted on. In its simplistic form, a set menu of evangelistic tools are relied on as the primary way for initiating discourses (or monologues).

F). Even when some aspects of popular culture are identified as issues, the exegesis and response tends to be partial or incomplete. For example, the folks have correctly noted the momentum surrounding the novel and film The Da Vinci Code. Various seminars and booklets have been produced that analyse the claims and identify serious misinformation contained in the story. The response is one that offers basic information as to why the novel is unreliable on Christian origins, beliefs and history, complemented by evidences to positively show the gospel records are primary sources alongside a restatement of “believe and repent”. The primary shortcoming is that no refection takes place: what does the Da Vinci Code say back to the church about its “unpaid bills”? There is little recognition of the manner in which people mistrust institutions like Churches, and the suspicion that information has been suppressed (e.g. secret gospels suppressed and recently recovered). Alongside that is how the Da Vinci Code has helped to inform people who have already begun a spiritual journey into non-Christian pathways — none of this engaged with let alone acknowledged as issues that need to be addressed in dialogue.

G). Curious and sad gaps also emerge in ministry efforts. For example one of the major congregations (in Centennial Park) is located next to the suburb of Sydney best known for its male gay population. The congregation has been big, courtesy
of its university-student base, but hardly any exegesis of the gay culture, the spiritualities being explored in gay culture (goth, vampire, neo-pagan, neo-Buddhist, new age), and very little response except by way of common rejection of homosexuality as a moral problem. Other examples could no doubt be brought forward, but I think this illustrates the point of either having a narrow understanding or a narrow sphere of interaction with the culture(s) of Sydney generally.

H). The problem ensues further where some individuals emerge as expert voices on specific topics, but the underlying unanswered question is to what extent is the individual credentialled and recognised as an expert in the first place? For example, a novel has been composed about Islam but it is unclear if the author has studied Islamic studies at university, is conversant in the sacred language (Arabic), or has had any cross-cultural training in ministry with Muslims. The difficulty as I see it is a reified picture of Islam arises and others untrained in the field rely in part on it as a guide to knowing and understanding (or simply dismissing) the various communities in Sydney (Turk, Lebanese, Chinese, Paksitani etc) that are Islamic.

I). If one can speak of a “general Aussie outlook” in Sydney (a dangerous idea I know), I do not see how the Diocese can meaningfully interact with it on a widespread scale. We are in a culture where many people have found themselves
in self-sufficiency in career and material acquisitions and manage on their daily routines without the imperative to belong to a congregation that gathers every week. It is not necessarily “godless”, but the “theory of God” just does not figure high on the richter scale for people unless severe personal crises compel a lot of soul-searching. If one is in “survival mode” trying to just make ends meet from week to week with a basic pay-packet there is not a lot of time to be philosophical or theological. What benefit is there then, asks the Aussie, in commuting to a church and affiliating with people with whom I have next to nothing in common? As basic sociological studies show capitalism has been the single greatest eroder of traditional social structures especially relative to family units, and churches tend to idealise certain modern middle class versions of family that are unrelated in many ways to the experiences of many Sydneysiders. Life is exceedingly busy and sociologically the Diocese is unable to compete with the trends let alone change the behaviour and attitudes in the community relative to work obligations, material comfort and recreation. To add in Sunday meetings is to add yet more onto an already overloaded schedule for most people — even assuming they were the least bit interested in what happens at church.

J). Stories of success in some parts of the Diocese are often not probed deeply for a mature grasp of what is happening in Sydney generally. A relative of mine by way of marriage told me how the congregation he is part of is bursting at the seams. Multiple church services are needed, attendance rates are high, and programmes are booming. I asked, “and out of this remarkable growth in numbers how many have come from a non-Christian and non-church background?” After a moment the reply came “none that I know of”. The “success” was achieved by people already in the fold commuting from other gatherings (Anglican or otherwise). Now in citing that anecdote I merely point to the veneer of seeming success. I am not claiming that all efforts fail to ever reach non-Christians, there clearly are people who convert to faith in Christ and join these congregations. However, what is touted as success is not
necessarily always a case of adding in some of that targeted 10% of the Sydney population by 2012. And it would be possible to go on with more observations. I trust God blesses their efforts, but I feel some sober reflections are honestly needed.

If you’re in Anglican circles, that should sting, at least a bit. I personally reckon most of what this guy says has truth to it, though, to be fair, there are no doubt various exceptions within the diocese.

I was already thinking about some of the issues raised. He mentions people from a blue-collar socio-economic background i.e. the Tradies, labourers and factory workers. It turns out that (according to the 2006 Census), 36% of Stanhope is blue-collar. I can say pretty confidently that these guys are not going to be comfortable turning up to church, or at least church in the way it is generally conceived. Our churches generally suit middle/upper-class, professional, highly literate people. Singing songs together, listening to a talk etc is so out of this groups experience that it’s no wonder “attractional” methods won’t cut it.

Clearly we need to be bringing the gospel to them and then probably explore some alternative form of corporate gathering.

Man, so much to think about.