To the SydEvang, it's all about "they want to live a sinful lifestyle" and "they're rejecting God's plan for them".
In one of my political groups today, there was a discussion about how young people seem to have no idea about how the political system worked, and that the Governor General Sam Mosteyn wanted kids to learn about civics again. Someone mentioned the failing faith in institutions that our country and other western democracies are experiencing, and I noted in that discussion that it doesn't really matter how much you teach people about civics, if they feel that civic institutions are not benefiting them.
Like, sure, if you have a solid income, or good savings, or generous and willing parents with property, then sure the civic institutions may - on balance - benefit you. But if you're up-and-coming, or struggling to find work, or have accessibility issues, then the political institutions of our country have cut and trimmed and snipped and shaved and belittled and demeaned the people who rely on any kind of civic services - or even just the people who weren't born under a fortunate star.
Why bother engaging with a government who only seems to be working for people who aren't you? If the system appears rigged, the options are to rip the whole thing down, or to opt out, not to play a game where it's obvious you will never win.
I feel like this is also a problem with 'the church' broadly speaking.
Because so far as the average Australian is concerned, 'the church' doesn't care about them. 'The church' advocates for no electoral responsibility. It does not say that Centrelink is insufficient to live on. It does not note that then NDIS is designed to be bureaucratic so that it shoves people off. To the average Australian, 'the church' doesn't give a shit about you if you're gay or poor, if you can't put money in the plate, if you don't already act like a Christian. 'The church' as a body is a useless bit of happy clappy that doesn't improve the collective life of our society in any way.
Every Christian reading this will promptly protest that this is a vile slander, and the church runs charities (they don't, the charities are organisations outside of 'the church'), that it contributes to community life (it might, but it's unlikely to be doing so in any way that meaningfully impacts the community), that Christians do good works in the community...
Ah, and here we come to the crux.
"Christians" do good works in the community, but it is rarely with the full weight of a church behind it.
Christmas carols, yes. Perhaps an Easter service?
When was the last time 'the church' encouraged a protest...oh, the NSW bill about abortion services being available to more women across NSW? Apparently the only thing worth 'the church' getting behind. Somewhat like the donation that the Anglican diocese made to the 'No to Marriage Equality' campaign?
If the church is only self-interested - and yes, anti-abortion and no-marriage-equality are seen as 'self-interested' by outsiders - then how is it different to any other secular or other-religion community out there? If we are only advocating for the (largely theoretical) issues of the church, then what value does 'the church' have to outsiders? And these days, everyone is an outsider to the church, except for the small numbers of people who are regulars within it.
When was the last time 'the church' encouraged a protest about something that was 'moral' biblically, but 'controversial' within the Sky-After-Dark, anti-woke, largely capitalistically-minded congregation? eg. immigrants, poor people, disability, political integrity? (yes, political integrity is controversial within churches where the underlying belief is that "if you are a Christian, you will vote [x]" even if such sentiments are never explicitly voiced)
Biblically moral but congregationally controversial? Oh, that's a "conscience matter". But somehow the question of early abortion (before reasonable viability) or late-term abortion (for life-threatening medical reasons) is not a conscience matter? I have known families who made the choice to keep the child until it died of natural causes, and of families who had to make the choice to terminate the pregnancy early in the hope that a later pregnancy might be viable as the first was not. But everywhere along the timeline of pregnancy, there are Christians who have made choices - good ones, bad ones, morally approvable ones, and morally unconscionable ones. Were they good choices? Maybe not. But nowhere else do we so ferociously refuse to allow people to make bad choices, even when there are lives at stake.
IDK. I think we're stuck in a 19th Century methodology of preaching the gospel, with no idea of how to break out of it. And no, making it only 'the social gospel' isn't the way, but there's got to be a midway point between "you should be afraid of hell" and "it's all about being nice".
