Thread: Eccles: Talking about things is not possible in church. Discuss. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000953
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
An almost throwaway comment by MartinPCnot on another thread:
And I´m sick of myself whinging about it out in the wilderness as no conversation is possible in church.
sparked something off in me, as I realised we go to church to listen, but never to discuss our own thoughts. But perhaps this is because my church follows a very didactic model, with worshippers sitting neatly in their pews being talked at.
Do other shipmates have experiences to share of when churches manage to give opportunities for people to air their thoughts, or is this very rare? Would it be convenient for some church leaders not to have their congregations questioning and puzzling over what gets uttered from the front? Are some people, like me, on the ship regularly precisely because it provides a forum for discussion which is not possible in church?
If discussion were to be introduced as a regular feature in churches, when and how should it happen?
[ 09. October 2013, 07:37: Message edited by: seasick ]
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
The coffee hour gets rather lively here discussion-wise when we have the right mix of folks present.
PD
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
Small Christian communities meeting in homes, or in spaces provided by the parish; clergy making home visits or meeting with people in the office; coffee hour; bible study groups; church schools of all levels; retreat centers; Lenten soup suppers / fish fries; summer parish picnic; wherever two or three are gathered!
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
And of course, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media services.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I realised we go to church to listen, but never to discuss our own thoughts... If discussion were to be introduced as a regular feature in churches, when and how should it happen?
Yeah, most typical church forms don't allow for much discussion and exploring of our own thoughts and feelings. Bit of a hobby-horse of mine, this; how most church services invite the congregation to join in with what the clergy-people (and some lay people like Readers, musicians etc.) have prepared, but don't give the congregation much opportunity to share from their own interaction with God.
Small groups, church social events and so on are great contexts for discussion and every-member ministry, but you could also have a flick through these two blogs for more ideas of how some people are doing it in a whole-church context:
Church in a Circle
The Assembling of the Church
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
The principle services of the Church are not for the sharing of life stories or the bringing together of diverse 'viewpoints', but for the corporate exercise of the ministries assigned to each order of the church (including the order of the laos) in the worship of God through the Great Sacrament of the Eucharist (which is both a meal and a ritual, in contrast to the second 'blog SCK linked to).
The desirability or otherwise of large- or small-group discussion besides this formal worship is another matter, which should not distract us from our true callings.
Personally, I think we tend to talk a little too much , without ever really saying anything [mea culpa, certainly]. I imagine most attempts at large-scale groups sharing would be just as trite as anything one might hear over the coffee urn after Mass.
Small groups might be different: I get a lot out of a small number of spiritual friendships, within which I can discuss theology in depth. Do I think everyone should have such friendships? Yes. Do I think such discussion should become the normative practice of the Church corporately? Absolutely not.
I'm sure I've misunderstood a number of positions, and would be happy to have misimpressions corrected, obviously.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The principle services of the Church are not for the sharing of life stories or the bringing together of diverse 'viewpoints'
I agree. When the church gathers together it should be for mutual encouragement and strengthening in our faith (at least that's what my Bible says ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). The typical structure of most church services doesn't make this easy, ISTM.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
How can the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament not be tremendously encouraging and strengthening?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
How can the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament not be tremendously encouraging and strengthening?
Fair point, but it's not exactly strengthening and encouraging one another, is it? That's the raison d'etre for church gatherings, ISTM. And the way most churches (including my own!) do communion these days isn't exactly true to the New Testament pattern, as part of a full meal in fellowship with one another, with all partaking as equals whatever their social status.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
I think the primary purpose of Sunday services is for God's people to worship God, for us to "declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light" (1 Peter 2:9). That said, I don't see why that necessarily precludes times for discussion etc.; in fact, I've tried to encourage this at our place. The main problem has been trying to find a way to do it: some people don't like talking "out loud" in front of everyone, others don't like talking in small groups, some people think it's too much like being at school... Picking your way through that lot is a nightmare!
I guess for us Baptists (and Congregationalists and other churches that run on a similar governance) church meetings should be a place where this happens; it rarely does, at least in my experience, and I've a feeling that's my fault for not encouraging it and allowing the space for it to happen. I'd love to have a discussion time about, say, the subject of the sermon with space for people to rip holes in what I've said, but finding the right way of doing that is the hard part.
And I think it's important not to overlook all the conversations that happen outside of formal services and meetings, but which nonetheless are significant and perhaps have a more immediate influence on what goes on than the "formal" conversations.
(Incidentally, I know of one Baptist church in Manchester that has a much shorter morning service, followed by coffee/tea, followed by a second session which is much less formal and much more interactive and discursive, with different members of the congregation being invited to prepare and lead it. I'm sure, Kevin, it'd be right up your street.)
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
How can the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament not be tremendously encouraging and strengthening?
Fair point, but it's not exactly strengthening and encouraging one another, is it? That's the raison d'etre for church gatherings, ISTM. And the way most churches (including my own!) do communion these days isn't exactly true to the New Testament pattern, as part of a full meal in fellowship with one another, with all partaking as equals whatever their social status.
But the liturgical tradition, which is antecedent to the NT, and which the NT must therefore describe, was hierarchically ordered and involved the community celebrating according to their diverse orders, so it wasn't really like a communal meal with everyone 'equal' (which I take to mean doing the same things more or less interchangeably) at all (and neither was the chaburah ritual from which the Last Supper draws its potency)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
More power to your elbow, Stejjie! May God guide your efforts. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
(Incidentally, I know of one Baptist church in Manchester that has a much shorter morning service, followed by coffee/tea, followed by a second session which is much less formal and much more interactive and discursive, with different members of the congregation being invited to prepare and lead it. I'm sure, Kevin, it'd be right up your street.)
Oh yes, very much up my street. There's a fair chance I'll be moving away from the south coast in the next 6-12 months, and if my travels take me near your neck of the woods then I may well be in touch! Both to check out this other church and to see how yours is getting on.
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But the liturgical tradition, which is antecedent to the NT, and which the NT must therefore describe, was hierarchically ordered and involved the community celebrating according to their diverse orders, so it wasn't really like a communal meal with everyone 'equal' (which I take to mean doing the same things more or less interchangeably) at all (and neither was the chaburah ritual from which the Last Supper draws its potency)
Ah, I'm afraid I don't know about this ancient liturgical tradition. I was primarily going by 1 Corinthians 11 which seems to speak of a shared meal at which all should have opportunity to eat and drink, even if they aren't able to contribute much themselves to the meal.
Is there anywhere online I can read about the liturgical tradition which you say predates the New Testament?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Googling, the first description of the Eucharist is found in the writings of Justin Martyr - First Apology Chapter 66 but I think I've read something earlier than this too.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Googling, the first description of the Eucharist is found in the writings of Justin Martyr - First Apology Chapter 66 but I think I've read something earlier than this too.
Thanks, Curiosity killed ... Justin Martyr's account seems rather more ritualised than the 1 Cor 11 description of the Eucharist, but then the latter was written maybe 100 years earlier. The question then becomes a matter of what we make of the post-NT accounts and practices; part of God's revelation to his people, or an unfortunate deviation from how things are supposed to be...
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on
:
Some of my friends used to attend a church where, after the sermon, there was a short Q&A session where the congregation could ask questions and ask for points to be expanded - I'm not sure how they controlled the length of it (beyond limiting how many questions to answer) or whether they shortened the sermon to allow time for the questions.
I suppose it depends how much time is allowed for in the sermon, and whether you're on a tight schedule (eg to allow a later service to begin on time)
More thoughts:
In a biggish church (as in, more than ten or so people), it would be hard to have an opportunity for everyone to say something. Some churches have home groups whose programme relates to the sermons in the main Sunday meeting, so that would be an alternative perhaps. Coffee time is a possibility but I don't normally notice people talking about the sermon, rather they catch up on people's news instead.
[ 01. August 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: cheesymarzipan ]
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
Your best bet would be Dix's "Shape of the Liturgy", following up the sources, I'm afraid. It may be available online: the most relevant chapter is The Liturgy and the Eucharistic Action.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
The church certainly ought to provide opportunities for people to share in the ways being discussed here. I really don't think it ought to be in the context of the community's primary worship service, though. Prayer meetings, small groups, house meetings, etc. sound like better ways to accomplish this goal.
An open-mike situation at a service with 200+ people attending would be disastrous. It would be everything I hate about funeral eulogies exponentized, and would provide endless opportunity for those who love hearing themselves speak to talk. Bad idea.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I think that discussion over a communal breakfast was part of the original version of the poswtar Parish Communion model in the CofE, wasn't it?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
We used to have a study night once a week, with different topics being discussed each term. But that stopped about two years ago. There has been nothing since, except the yearly Lent group. Due to reasons I haven't been able to fathom, the emphasis during these has been away from discussion and debate towards touchy-feely making things, or tick-box questionnaires. So, at the moment, the Ship is my only source of discussion about interesting topics.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
As I've mentioned elsewhere on the ship, we have a weekly discussion group joined by members of both local churches and visitors, which allows for some quite deep discussions. The lack of conformity (being from different churches and different denominations even within those churches) is both a blessing and a curse, as no area is off-limits but with such a broad range of belief and practice we can find ourselves butting up against some fairly hard disagreements about the place of liturgy, the reliability of scripture, literalism, salvation, predestination, hell, sacraments, faith and works, human sexuality, the structure of the church and so on. The question of how we determine sound doctrine (as opposed to quibbling over words), as recommended (and warned against) in 1 Timothy, really had us stumped!
The group remains, though, no more than perhaps 5-10% of each church's normal Sunday attendance. I don't know whether others aren't willing to have these discussions; don't feel able or secure enough; or simply need some impetus to get involved. I know it was a year before I started attending, and then only at the urging of the minister.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
The question of how we determine sound doctrine (as opposed to quibbling over words), as recommended (and warned against) in 1 Timothy, really had us stumped![/QB]
Your group sounds interesting and fun. However, the kind of discussion that I think is even more edifying (greatly though I love talking about doctrine and theology) is that which focuses on our successes and struggles in trying to follow the way of Jesus. Sharing how we are really doing; where we see our life going over the coming weeks, months and years; being honest with people about our failures and worries.
Of course, that kind of conversation isn't going to happen in a big church gathering or a fairly open-membership discussion group like Arethosemyfeet's. But I think we need to find ways of enabling such conversations, as a regular part of our church activities. In my faith tradition this is the place for home groups, and I know some people have a spiritual director or some kind of other arrangement. However we do it, though, I think it's really important to encourage these conversations - IMO they're a key part of how we encourage each other to greater godliness.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do other shipmates have experiences to share of when churches manage to give opportunities for people to air their thoughts...
Coffee hour. Vestry. Preservice clergy/acolyte chatter. Flower arranging. Altar Guild. During the pre-meeting meetings and post-meeting meetings. Dratted diocesan convention.
Just about any place two or three are gathered, it seems to me.
Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on
:
Our mid-week eucharist is celebrated in the side chapel, with a congregation averaging 8-10 regulars, and the rector often takes the opportunity to deliver an informal and interactive sermon [while seated in a chair], not long, but with solid ideas, and some opportunity for short comment or discussion from the congregation. As we gather for morning tea following, there is the opportunity to take discussion further there if so desired. The informality may horrify some, but it works for those involved.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
the rector often takes the opportunity to deliver an informal and interactive sermon [while seated in a chair],
At the risk of not seeing the wood for the trees, I had thought that only the Bishop praught seated.
Thurible
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Your best bet would be Dix's "Shape of the Liturgy", following up the sources, I'm afraid. It may be available online: the most relevant chapter is The Liturgy and the Eucharistic Action.
Just remember most of Dix's scholarship has been shown to be flawed.
As current scholarship on the early shape of the Eucharist, I'd suggest Bradshaw's 'Eucharistic Origins' or his 'Search for the Origins of Christian Worship'. Or for something a bit harder work Bradshaw and Johnson 'Eucharistic Liturgies'.
And if you are looking for the earliest example of a eucharistic liturgy, the earliest we have is probably the Didache, though it requires a certain degree of interpretation. (Though it may pre-date the NT - some scholars suggest as early as AD49)
T
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Thanks, Vade Mecum and TomM, but I was hoping for an online introduction really. Something I could read for free that would outline the case for communion in the 1st century being more ritualistic and hierarchical than is suggested by 1 Cor 11 and the other New Testament references. Mind you, I know the Didache is available online and I'll have another look at it now.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
Our mid-week eucharist is celebrated in the side chapel, with a congregation averaging 8-10 regulars, and the rector often takes the opportunity to deliver an informal and interactive sermon [while seated in a chair], not long, but with solid ideas, and some opportunity for short comment or discussion from the congregation.
Sounds fab. Small church is where it's at, IMO - so much more opportunity for genuine engagement with others and for the sharing of our struggles, triumphs, joys, fears, failures etc. Without that sharing, I don't quite see how we can spur each other on to greater works of godliness, which is surely a key purpose of being church together.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thanks, Vade Mecum and TomM, but I was hoping for an online introduction really. Something I could read for free that would outline the case for communion in the 1st century being more ritualistic and hierarchical than is suggested by 1 Cor 11 and the other New Testament references. Mind you, I know the Didache is available online and I'll have another look at it now.
Hmm... I'll see what I can find...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas Aus:
the rector often takes the opportunity to deliver an informal and interactive sermon [while seated in a chair],
At the risk of not seeing the wood for the trees, I had thought that only the Bishop praught seated.
Thurible
And me, when i had sciatica for 6 months.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Leo should have written to his bishop to ask for a dispensation, but this might have had a gravely damaging effect on the Supervising Consultant for Missional Metrics in Liturgical Expressions.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do other shipmates have experiences to share of when churches manage to give opportunities for people to air their thoughts...
Coffee hour. Vestry. Preservice clergy/acolyte chatter. Flower arranging. Altar Guild. During the pre-meeting meetings and post-meeting meetings. Dratted diocesan convention.
Just about any place two or three are gathered, it seems to me.
I am surprised deep conversations get started at such moments. Ours tend to be of the 'How are the grandchildren?' sort.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If discussion were to be introduced as a regular feature in churches, when and how should it happen?
We Friends have a Monthly Meeting for Business (with wide-ranging topics) in which time and effort is spent in making sure that no one leaves who many have something in mind or on their heart that they need to express.
In fact, the commonly used phrase to end MOnthly Meeting for Business is "Are all minds clear?" Sometimes that has to be asked more than once.
It's not a bad plan, although I know most non-Quaker congregations would not like the no-vote consensus ("sense of the Meeting") model we use for decisions which need to be made.
But not everything discussed at Meeting for Business requires a decision.
sabine
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Leo should have written to his bishop to ask for a dispensation, but this might have had a gravely damaging effect on the Supervising Consultant for Missional Metrics in Liturgical Expressions.
This is a joke, yes? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I just want to be sure, because sometimes what I reckon is pretty darn trivial gets discussed with great seriousness (e.g. the 'which way should the choir face' thread running at the moment!).
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
In fact, the commonly used phrase to end MOnthly Meeting for Business is "Are all minds clear?" Sometimes that has to be asked more than once.
That's a lovely phrase. How marvellously welcoming and inclusive, giving everyone the chance to say what they feel the need to. Can I ask - how often do you get people dominating the meeting or raising things which really aren't relevant / helpful? And when it does happen, how does it get handled?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I just want to be sure, because sometimes what I reckon is pretty darn trivial gets discussed with great seriousness (e.g. the 'which way should the choir face' thread running at the moment!).
Trivial? (i) The practicalities of organising services of worship and (ii) the way in which the worshipping community should relate to each other and to God in worship, trivial?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Sorry... I do appreciate the practicalities of such things; e.g. if the choir face this or that way then it'll be hard for everyone to hear them. But the symbolism seems to escape me.
Thurible's comment above about only the Bishop teaching while sitting down is another example; indeed I have a negative reaction to that symbolism as it seems to imply the Bishop is superior in some sense.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thurible's comment above about only the Bishop teaching while sitting down is another example; indeed I have a negative reaction to that symbolism as it seems to imply the Bishop is superior in some sense.
Not 'superior' (except in a hierarchical sense), but the Bishop is the primary teacher of the faith in his (her) diocese. Hence I suppose it makes sense for the custom being as described. Though I have never seen it: lectures, in the academic style, are usually given standing and so IME are most sermons by bishops. I have seen priests and others sit to give retreat addresses and similar devotional input.
But SCK draws attention to an important fact: however symbolism is intended, it is often perceived as having the opposite meaning. Hence the bishop (or priest, in his absence) coming last in the procession is intended, I assume, to show his humility but often has the reverse effect. Elaborate vestments are supposed to draw attention away from the personality of the priest, but many people read them as symbols of power. Etc etc.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Leo should have written to his bishop to ask for a dispensation, but this might have had a gravely damaging effect on the Supervising Consultant for Missional Metrics in Liturgical Expressions.
This is a joke, yes? I just want to be sure, because sometimes what I reckon is pretty darn trivial gets discussed with great seriousness (e.g. the 'which way should the choir face' thread running at the moment!).
Well, I thought I had been making fun of myself as well as of the current approach to ecclesiastical bureaucracy, which loves titles from management world, but a shipmate has since PM'd me to tell me of someone holding a very similar title. We live in an age where irony can no longer exist!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sorry... I do appreciate the practicalities of such things; e.g. if the choir face this or that way then it'll be hard for everyone to hear them. But the symbolism seems to escape me.
Thurible's comment above about only the Bishop teaching while sitting down is another example; indeed I have a negative reaction to that symbolism as it seems to imply the Bishop is superior in some sense.
SCK - speaking as someone much, much further up the candle than you are, I find the discussions on which way the choir should face to be bizarre too! There is a lot of high church ritual that I find important to me, but I'm afraid that has never been one of them. I still rather prefer good congregational singing to choirs though...
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
In fact, the commonly used phrase to end MOnthly Meeting for Business is "Are all minds clear?" Sometimes that has to be asked more than once.
That's a lovely phrase. How marvellously welcoming and inclusive, giving everyone the chance to say what they feel the need to. Can I ask - how often do you get people dominating the meeting or raising things which really aren't relevant / helpful? And when it does happen, how does it get handled?
Everyone is allowed to raise an issue as they are led, but if it doesn't fit with a thread currently under discussion, the Clerk of the Meeting will ask that it wait until later in the Meeting for Business (another topic or even new business). Also, some things can go to committee to be "threshed out" there and then brought back to the Meeting at a later date. If someone is bent on talking at length and not letting the Meeting go forward, it is not uncommon for someone (the Clerk, Member of Ministry and Counsel, or just another person) to gently remind them that they have repeated themselves or that others may want to speak.
I remember one Meeting in which we were discussing a hot button topic with many diverse and passionate viewpoints represented. A man spoke in a somewhat abusive manner, and when another person suggested that he change his tone, he left the Meeting in a state of great distress. It was obvious that something deep and hurtful for him was behind his outburst, so a member of the Meeting went after him to talk privately and possibly find a way to address the personal feelings the man had.
I can't in good conscience say that all Quaker Meetings for Business as wonderful examples of peace and harmony, but our tradition is one that values the fact that each person may have a leading and therefore deserves a chance to speak. Consequently we try our best to make it happen.
Also, since we do not vote, we need to foster an atmosphere which will lead to collaboration and consensus (or a "sense of the Meeting").
sabine
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I can't in good conscience say that all Quaker Meetings for Business as wonderful examples of peace and harmony, but our tradition is one that values the fact that each person may have a leading and therefore deserves a chance to speak. Consequently we try our best to make it happen.
Also, since we do not vote, we need to foster an atmosphere which will lead to collaboration and consensus (or a "sense of the Meeting").
Sounds really good to me. More 'real' than meetings / services where the only participation is joining in with what others have already prepared. Of course, as you say, it won't always go smoothly and as planned, but IMO God is fine with that...
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on
:
I have fond memories of a church in the southern hemisphere - most welcoming and charming - I counted nearly 20 souls - including 2 young families. After the service (which was held in a ballroom - its a small, persecuted group) the entire congregation repaired to the pub. And then were invited to Mrs X's for lunch (for which they have a roster system) - sort of pot-luck - then drinks or coffee - board games and talks - after which tea was served. By the end of which, the priest had sunk into an armchair snoring - they had to wake him up. Otherwise we would have missed evensong. I really miss that lot. They really gave the impression of a true community.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
[QUOTE]Coffee hour. Vestry. Preservice clergy/acolyte chatter. Flower arranging. Altar Guild. During the pre-meeting meetings and post-meeting meetings. Dratted diocesan convention.
Just about any place two or three are gathered, it seems to me.
This can be very dangerous as it's a real breeding ground for gossip. If communication is to be effective it should be between the greatest number of people, involving the lowest levels of secrecy and the widest possible involvement.
Unless of course, it really is about your grandchildren etc and personal. If it's about church life, bring the discussion into that life - and probably the only way to do that is a sensitively led whole church forum or meeting.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I would just like to point out that the above quote was not by me, but The Silent Acolyte.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Leo should have written to his bishop to ask for a dispensation, but this might have had a gravely damaging effect on the Supervising Consultant for Missional Metrics in Liturgical Expressions.
Is that a Euphemism for The Sacristan? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I would just like to point out that the above quote was not by me, but The Silent Acolyte.
oops apologies! Forgive me Chorister. Not very bright today at sorting quotes .....
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do other shipmates have experiences to share of when churches manage to give opportunities for people to air their thoughts...
Coffee hour. Vestry. Preservice clergy/acolyte chatter. Flower arranging. Altar Guild. During the pre-meeting meetings and post-meeting meetings. Dratted diocesan convention.
Just about any place two or three are gathered, it seems to me.
I am surprised deep conversations get started at such moments. Ours tend to be of the 'How are the grandchildren?' sort.
I had a theological conversation over coffee today, though it was with a shipmate so maybe it doesn't count...
Carys
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Some of our best discussions happen at or after daily Morning Prayer....we use the Franciscan (SSF) Daily Office, on which Common Worship's MP and EP were based (IIRC)....
There's time, before the Office, to bring up any urgent matters for prayer, and, after the Office, to discuss the readings, or any issues of faith that might arise. This is often done in the context of (Fairtrade) coffee and toast at our local community centre café!
tangent alert/
It saddens me that our local Franciscan Novice Master (and a past Area Minister), a fellow Reader, and a regular member of our congregation at Mass, sees fit not to join us at this service, telling us that he is so disciplined in the faith as not to need to join in communal prayer....... end of tangent
Ian J.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I had a theological conversation over coffee today, though it was with a shipmate so maybe it doesn't count...
Carys
Your church is rather special, Carys. I seem to remember at one time it held the record for the church with the greatest number of shipmates in the congregation. That disposes it towards being a great place for theological discussion already!
I think in my town more theology gets talked about in the pub than in church. Well that's the excuse the vicar uses, anyway! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Theology doesn't really get talked about at my church (not even over coffee, probably at Lenten small groups but I have not attended these as yet) and I'm trying to pin down why. We're relaxed A-C, AffCath but the Dead Horses are barely mentioned, mostly aged 50+, white and working-class - and about 45 adults altogether. We do a lot together as a congregation and we're very close-knit, but it's all doing and not talking. Doing is good but I wish we could talk a bit more!
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on
:
A parish I know used to hold Bible Studies at a time when the vicar was not available so that they could hold discussions. He was, and I believe still is not a good listener, but rather sermonises continually.
It is sad when a person of great knowledge and experience can not participate in generous discussion - the too and fro - which demonstrates genuine interest in the views of the flock. Concern for genuine relationships based not on role and position but on appreciation and respect for the full range of the gifts and needs of the gathered community, is more important than academic lecturing.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
It is sad when a person of great knowledge and experience can not participate in generous discussion - the too and fro - which demonstrates genuine interest in the views of the flock. Concern for genuine relationships based not on role and position but on appreciation and respect for the full range of the gifts and needs of the gathered community, is more important than academic lecturing.
Possibly, although frankly I'd far rather listen to a decent lecture than a load of uninformed wittering, which is all to often what "discussion" turns out to be.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
...frankly I'd far rather listen to a decent lecture than a load of uninformed wittering, which is all to often what "discussion" turns out to be.
What about taking part in a discussion, rather than merely listening? ISTM that listening to a sermon / lecture and taking part in a discussion fulfil two different roles. Sermons and lectures give us new information, inspire us, challenge us about issues we hadn't considered previously. But IMO many people need to talk about what they've heard, in order to process it and integrate it into their lives.
Some churches use small groups to discuss the Sunday sermon, others have time-limited groups like Jade Constable mentioned. But I think it would be great if the discussion time was more integrated into the main church gathering, because without discussion ISTM so many sermons just get forgotten and not acted upon. Don't most people simply need that discussion in order to work out how they'll put into practice what they've just heard in the sermon?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What about taking part in a discussion, rather than merely listening?
"Taking part" in a discussion starts with me giving my interpretation or opinion on the subject and listening to what others have to say (in some order).
If all they have to say is witter, I'd be better off talking to the wall, and even better not talking at all, but going away and thinking (preferably with a transcript of the sermon or whatever, if such a thing were available).
Generally speaking, I find people's immediate response to videos, sermons or whatever tends to be influenced by the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the argument. If you want reasoned, coherent thought, you do better to go away and think first.
Have a sermon, have people go away with notes and some homework and spend serious time thinking about it, and then come back and discuss it next week, and you might produce a discussion with value (assuming the members of your group think in compatible ways).
Every church discussion group I have ever been involved with has had discussion immediately after some kind of presentation, and has usually not been useful.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think in my town more theology gets talked about in the pub than in church. Well that's the excuse the vicar uses, anyway!
Clergymen like to say this sort of thing, perhaps because it makes them seem down to earth. But it makes me wonder why Christians don't just meet in the pub rather than going to church!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Generally speaking, I find people's immediate response to videos, sermons or whatever tends to be influenced by the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the argument. If you want reasoned, coherent thought, you do better to go away and think first.
Have a sermon, have people go away with notes and some homework and spend serious time thinking about it, and then come back and discuss it next week, and you might produce a discussion with value (assuming the members of your group think in compatible ways).
Every church discussion group I have ever been involved with has had discussion immediately after some kind of presentation, and has usually not been useful.
Yes, perhaps you're right. My concern, though, is that if you make room for discussion only as a separate activity some time later then many people won't access it. Whereas if the discussion is part of the main church gathering, obviously more people will take part.
One solution I'd quite like is to have far fewer sermons, maybe just one a month. Then in the other church services, have some guided discussion based on the recent teaching, some free-form sharing, a Q&A session with the church's teachers / ministers etc. Let's be more creative about how we spur one another to greater good deeds!
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on
:
Leorning, I agree to valuing a good lecture or exegetical sermon.
However to be effective such a lecture or sermon needs to be directed appropriately to the audience and context. A Bible study is not such a context but aims to encourage interaction and group learning and growth.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think in my town more theology gets talked about in the pub than in church. Well that's the excuse the vicar uses, anyway!
Clergymen like to say this sort of thing, perhaps because it makes them seem down to earth. But it makes me wonder why Christians don't just meet in the pub rather than going to church!
That's a very good question. I sometimes wonder whether we wouldn't be better off doing just that.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think in my town more theology gets talked about in the pub than in church. Well that's the excuse the vicar uses, anyway!
Clergymen like to say this sort of thing, perhaps because it makes them seem down to earth. But it makes me wonder why Christians don't just meet in the pub rather than going to church!
That's a very good question. I sometimes wonder whether we wouldn't be better off doing just that.
If discussion of theology is what church is all about, you're dead right. If it is about worship of the transcendent God, then no. But why not both?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Which means we need to ensure that what we do in church meets that second intention. Or we might as well just go where the drinks are better. Perhaps a pint down the pub if we've been relatively virtuous over the last week and Anglican Coffee(TM) for the more egregious sinners.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Angloid
Actually, I know a minister who said that the singing was also better down the pub! Worship through singing clearly wouldn't be a problem.
There are lots of unused pubs round the place these days. Maybe they should be used as churches, especially since it's quite the fashion to use old churches as pubs and clubs.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which means we need to ensure that what we do in church meets that second intention.
Exactly. So less apologetic faffing around and just get on with celebrating the liturgy, please. (Oh, and mine's an espresso followed by a pint of real ale, thanks.)
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
I was going to say that another argument in favor of a time to discuss the sermon would be that it would be helpful to the preacher. It would let them know how much of the sermon actually sank in, allowing them to learn from mistakes and get their message across more effectively.
But I wonder whether the reason preachers and congregations don't like opportunities for discussion is precisely because they will provide helpful feedback on the sermon. The preacher will have extra work in order to act on the feedback, and the congregation will find it harder to sleep through subsequent sermons.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
Oh, and here's William Blake's view on the relative merits of churches and pubs
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which means we need to ensure that what we do in church meets that second intention.
Exactly. So less apologetic faffing around and just get on with celebrating the liturgy, please. (Oh, and mine's an espresso followed by a pint of real ale, thanks.)
Except of course that that manifestly and frequently Does Not Work, unless your definition of "worship of the transcendent God" includes wishing the organist would speed up, hoping that this week they use one of the shorter Eucharistic Prayers, trying to hush the kids a bit and promising them that it won't go on for much longer, honest.
My definition doesn't.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Maybe we are too hung up on trying not to be bored/ trying to follow every word/ making the liturgy in our own image. As long as we are there, and the liturgy is being performed, does it matter if our attention/participation isn't 100%?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As long as we are there, and the liturgy is being performed, does it matter if our attention/participation isn't 100%?
I think it matters very much. We don't gather together to watch others perform some rituals that we follow along with if we can be bothered. That sounds awfully like the sort of religious practice condemned a few times throughout the Bible.
ISTM we gather to praise God together and to strengthen and encourage one another in the practising of our faith. How can that happen if we're just going along to watch the 'liturgy... being performed'?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
However to be effective such a lecture or sermon needs to be directed appropriately to the audience and context. A Bible study is not such a context but aims to encourage interaction and group learning and growth.
I have never seen "interaction" as a goal of Bible study. It's a means to an end - discussing the interpretation or application of a particular passage can certainly be a good thing for your own learning.
If you treat "interaction" as the goal rather than the process, I'm rather afraid that that's when you're most likely to end up with witter.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe we are too hung up on trying not to be bored/ trying to follow every word/ making the liturgy in our own image. As long as we are there, and the liturgy is being performed, does it matter if our attention/participation isn't 100%?
I can't quite square "worship of the transcendent God" with tedious boredom. I mean I'm not talking about wanting things perfect, but when the main feeling that one has at the end is "thank God that's over" there's something wrong.
I was overall positive - with reservations - before I procreated. Then I was forced to see things through child eyes; through eyes not accustomed to the liturgy, and through those eyes it's pretty dull and the transcendent God seems prominent by his absence.
Interestingly, I only said to Mrs Backslider yesterday that I've always felt a misfit in church - a habitual churchgoer who doesn't much care for church. I know other Christians who don't like it either, but they resolve the problem by Not Going.
The only church I don't feel a misfit in is so left-field that most people wouldn't recognise it as a church and I've got a pretty strong feeling many denizens of Eccles would not be willing to dignify it with that name either. But it's the only place I've not felt that I'm regarded as a bleedin' nuisance, either because I Ask Questions, or Have Children.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As long as we are there, and the liturgy is being performed, does it matter if our attention/participation isn't 100%?
I think it matters very much. We don't gather together to watch others perform some rituals that we follow along with if we can be bothered. That sounds awfully like the sort of religious practice condemned a few times throughout the Bible.
ISTM we gather to praise God together and to strengthen and encourage one another in the practising of our faith. How can that happen if we're just going along to watch the 'liturgy... being performed'?
Sorry, 'performed' has the wrong connotation. I'm not talking about a spectacle put on by a few special people for an audience; I'm talking about a drama in which we all share. Any shared experience for a mixed group is bound to have bits in which some people feel less involved. That's just the way it is. The alternative is to divide the church into little groups of like-minded individuals.
Personal experience: I went to church yesterday and listened to the scriptures being read; switched off two minutes into a deadly dull sermon which only lit up when the preacher switched from her prepared script for a personal aside; struggled with an unfamiliar (and theologically questionable) song and an over-long final hymn; stood to attention without much enthusiasm throughout a eucharistic prayer spoken woodenly and without joy. And yet; the intercessions, despite not conforming to any approved pattern, were powerful and deeply prayerful; the Lord was present in the Gospel, in the, albeit pedestrian, words of the sermon, and above all in the sacrament of his Body and Blood; and the Peace shared by everyone in the small but very mixed congregation epitomised the warmth and Christian love of that community. It's these things that keep me going.
Lots of things could be improved. Just because our worship will never be perfect does not mean we have to stop trying. But essentially the value of worship does not depend on what we put into it but on what God gives us through it. And my suggestions for improving things might (almost certainly would) be very different from those of other people. Compromise is the only way.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Yes, but you still speak as if there are always going to be some parts of the liturgy that will resonate with a given churchgoer.
What when none of it does? When the whole thing seems strange, alien, or plain absurd? And dull.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Maybe you need to give yourself, and the kids, an extended holiday from church then Karl. (Serious suggestion).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe you need to give yourself, and the kids, an extended holiday from church then Karl. (Serious suggestion).
An uncharitable observer could take that as "well fuck off then", you know. But that's what we were close to doing. Fortunately we found somewhere else, which, as I say, many would not recognise as church.
But I do know that this place is, well, rather unusual; the option doesn't exist in many places. Isn't "if you don't like it this way don't come" a bit of a non-answer, really, if the Church is for all? Taking a step back, the church has been saying this for decades and folk have heard, taken note, and taken permanent holidays from it.
I think many people within the church are unaware of its unappealingness because they by definition belong to the tiny minority to whom it does appeal; like football fans who cannot grasp that many people don't give a flying one who won on Saturday, they can't see Church practices through unchurched eyes. Until I had kids, I was starting to lose that ability as well.
I do not know how the church can drag itself out of this minority pursuit corner into which it has painted itself. On the one hand, it can do what it does authentically to the members - lay and clergy - it currently has, but remain a fringe perculiarity. Or it can attempt to reach more broadly but look decidedly unsure of what it's doing - at the far end of which lies vicars with guitars trying to be down wiv da yoof.
One thing I've been forced to finally reject, despite a long term attachment to the concept, is the idea that a given church can be the parish church for all in the parish. Our local shack has about half a dozen congregants from within the village (pop. 2000) and as many from outside, because of the particular liberalish AC service and ethos it has. Meanwhile we're driving past it on a Sunday (after nearly 10 years of trying to make it work) to a place above some shops in the city centre because of the service and ethos it has. I used to think this shouldn't be; I now think there is no option; society is too fragmented and diverse for it to be otherwise.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe you need to give yourself, and the kids, an extended holiday from church then Karl. (Serious suggestion).
An uncharitable observer could take that as "well fuck off then", you know.
Since you are not an uncharitable observer, I'm glad you didn't take it like that, Karl. Certainly not what I intended.
It's just that, much as I believe in the theory of 'the Lord's people at the Lord's table [or maybe just listening to the Lord's words, in some churchpersonships] on the Lord's day', there is no point in letting guilt and resentment build up if every experience of church is an ordeal. And certainly no point in subjecting young children to it unless you want them to become inoculated against Christianity.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Anyone would think, reading KLB's posts, that initiatives such as Messy Church (or similar) don't exist. In fact, it's a thriving alternate version of church for families with young children, available in many places.
I've been put off discussion during the sermon slot because some preachers have used it as an excuse for not preaching at all. A minute's introduction and they're immediately asking you to turn to your neighbour to talk about whatever. A fulfilling discussion can only really take place after a cracker of a sermon exploring something deeply, and well. Then, by all means, allow people to talk about it!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Anyone would think, reading KLB's posts, that initiatives such as Messy Church (or similar) don't exist. In fact, it's a thriving alternate version of church for families with young children, available in many places.
Including one otherwise extremely laced and birettaed shack that I know.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think in my town more theology gets talked about in the pub than in church. Well that's the excuse the vicar uses, anyway!
Clergymen like to say this sort of thing, perhaps because it makes them seem down to earth. But it makes me wonder why Christians don't just meet in the pub rather than going to church!
You've not heard of Beer and Bible then?
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
It seems, Karl, that on the one hand you indict those who prefer a certain order of service, (from here):
quote:
Karl:
You're absolutely damned right, but don't expect a sympathetic hearing from the denizens of this particular part of the SoF.
...but on the other hand you do have a specific liturgical war of your own that you are fighting, in that you are advocating a certain type of service. It does seem to be a bit contradictory, as I have gotten the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that you would most likely mock a person who would do the same thing you're doing to attend a high Anglo-Catholic church for the same reason you attend your most definitively non-AC place.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One thing I've been forced to finally reject, despite a long term attachment to the concept, is the idea that a given church can be the parish church for all in the parish. Our local shack has about half a dozen congregants from within the village (pop. 2000) and as many from outside, because of the particular liberalish AC service and ethos it has. Meanwhile we're driving past it on a Sunday (after nearly 10 years of trying to make it work) to a place above some shops in the city centre because of the service and ethos it has. I used to think this shouldn't be; I now think there is no option; society is too fragmented and diverse for it to be otherwise.
On one point I do think we see eye-to-eye. A proliferation of denominations has a positive effect that the message of the faith can reach people with differing worship preferences.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You read me wrong Olaf. I do indeed advocate a particular style of service, because I think that style is extremely rare but would work for an awful lot of people who have pretty much given up with church. But not to the exclusion of other styles, however, and that's rather the point. The portion of my post you quote from the other thread reflects the feeling I frequently get on Eccles that there is a certain amount of refusal to face the fact that our standard offerings - whether stratospheric or subterranean - do not resonate with many people and instead either bore or freak people out, or both.
Personally, just me, I function perfectly well (if sometimes with drifting attention and wishing particularly dull and/or long hymns hadn't been selected) in a fairly high Aff-Cath service. Mrs Backslider struggles; the kids are climbing the walls with the tedium, so it doesn't work for us, hence our move, but no, I have no inherent issues with high AC worship. I just struggle with the atmosphere on here sometimes that implies that oranges are indeed the only fruit, and they have to be peeled and segmented in exactly the right way, and people who aren't keen on them need to work at it until they are. That's the attitude I'd "indict", not a preference for AC worship.
I don't actually think a range of denominations is necessary, although I have no particular issue with diversity. I think the CofE is quite capable of having a range of expressions within itself, especially with the Fresh Expressions programme - if those of us doing that can be allowed to do so without carping from the happily settled in traditional moulds.
Chorister - I'm aware of Messy Church and am given to understand that's where the kids'll be this afternoon as Mrs Backslider has just found out there's one this afternoon at the church of one of the foodbank organisers she knows. However, we've found that while it's good as far as it goes, it falls far short of being an alternative family model of church - it tends to be infrequent, only appeals to children up to around 6-7, and is often as much about cutting and sticking as it is about any actual content. As the kids grow I'm becoming more and more aware of the (to my mind) massive problem of what happens when they hit double figures where the attrition rate rivals that of the first day of the Somme.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't actually think a range of denominations is necessary, although I have no particular issue with diversity. I think the CofE is quite capable of having a range of expressions within itself, especially with the Fresh Expressions programme - if those of us doing that can be allowed to do so without carping from the happily settled in traditional moulds.
I agree entirely. However, it comes down to 'what is going to be the basic menu in your bog-standard local parish church?' Church keenies, like most Ecclesiantics and yourself included I think, Karl, will take themselves off to the nearest most congenial shack. Even that is difficult in rural areas or even some cities like this one where Anglicanism is fairly monochrome in style. But the average churchgoer, and even more the average 'would pop into church occasionally' type, is not going to do that: it is their local parish church or nothing.
So what goes on in most places on a Sunday morning has got to be something of a compromise. For me, as long as it includes Word and Sacrament, I will put up with a variety of styles and even with naff liturgy and clueless clergy. Others don't mind the lack of a eucharist. Large and well-resourced congregations can probably put on two or three services, of different types, every Sunday: most smaller parishes can't.
Perhaps it comes back to the theme of the OP: if we talked among ourselves more we might identify what our needs/preferences were among the congregation, and how we might give expression to a minority style of worship. This might mean an occasional main service done in a very different way from the norm, or it might mean a small informal group meeting at a different time. Fresh Expressions is all very well, but when that is short for 'imposing an uncongenial style of worship on a traditional congregation' it is as bad as the reverse.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Do you know of any examples where that last definition has actually been the one in force?
I agree the "standard menu" as you put it has to be a compromise and non-offputting. However, my contention is that frequently it isn't a compromise - it's "what we keenies like doing", and nor is it non-offputting - I know that Mrs Backslider in particular found the psalm chanting to be extremely strange and dreadable. A compromise there, for example, would be to let the choir do it - which is, to be fair, often the case. Or vary it with responsorial or spoken expressions. But I'm getting into specifics here which might not be helpful if it creates another debate about the best way of doing the psalm
[ 07. August 2013, 11:02: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I do know of traditional (evangelical) congregations used to ordered if simple liturgy where a vicar has stormed in and imposed praise bands, choruses, abandoned robes, etc etc, in a claimed attempt to 'attract the yoof.' Cathedrals and similar large traditional churches are full of refugees from such places.
I agree with your second paragraph. Parishes ought to be compelled to do a regular audit of their worship and ask searching questions about all their traditional practices, without implying that necessarily means abandoning them.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't actually think a range of denominations is necessary, although I have no particular issue with diversity. I think the CofE is quite capable of having a range of expressions within itself, especially with the Fresh Expressions programme - if those of us doing that can be allowed to do so without carping from the happily settled in traditional moulds.
To non-Anglican ears this sounds very strange. Almost paternalistic.
From my perspective, the CofE may be a broad church, but there's no way that it could provide the diversity that would be required in large cities and conurbations - it would be overwhelmed. At the very least, CofE structures would be problematic for many Christians from other traditions. Moreover, lack of outside choice would probably cause the level of diversity within the CofE to decline, not to increase.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I do know of traditional (evangelical) congregations used to ordered if simple liturgy where a vicar has stormed in and imposed praise bands, choruses, abandoned robes, etc etc, in a claimed attempt to 'attract the yoof.' Cathedrals and similar large traditional churches are full of refugees from such places.
That would not be a Fresh Expression. I know that all sorts of things get given that label, but I'm talking about the official initiative of that name, which certainly wouldn't include or own anything of that ilk. FEs are new congregations - whether attached to an existing church, a plant, or new from the ground up. I'd not be surprised to find we've got refugees from that sort of thing at our FE place; we've got a lot of refugees from charismatic style congregations generally.
quote:
I agree with your second paragraph. Parishes ought to be compelled to do a regular audit of their worship and ask searching questions about all their traditional practices, without implying that necessarily means abandoning them.
Aye. The problem is that churches can be amazingly blind to things that are obvious to a newcomer within ten minutes. On a slightly different issue - our welcome to newcomers - we did a bit of an audit in the PCC at my last place, and my assessment was completely at odds with everyone elses', which generally said "things are generally great." Well of course, because anyone who didn't think that had stopped coming long ago and definitely wasn't on the PCC, except extreme awkward sods like me who'd been seconded on.
[ 07. August 2013, 11:56: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Sorry Svitlana. As too often on Ecclesiantics, we tend to exist in an Anglican bubble. Of course the real Fresh Expressions are in the other denominations, especially, in my experience, the Methodists.
But I'm not sure if diversity in the C of E would be less if other churches didn't exist. The Episcopal Church in the US is much less liturgically (and theologically) diverse than the C of E, and that is largely because if you are evangelical, for example, it makes more sense to join one of the many evangelical churches than compromise with the mainstream Episcopalians.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As the kids grow I'm becoming more and more aware of the (to my mind) massive problem of what happens when they hit double figures where the attrition rate rivals that of the first day of the Somme.
Don't worry too much in advance about what happens next. Most towns have a church with a thriving youth group, in fact they are often for the whole area as many churches don't have the resources to run their own individual programme. The trick is to introduce your kids to them at just the right age when they are ready for such a step. They will get to know a much wider range of young people than they could possibly know just in their own church and, funnily enough given the intention of the OP, find themselves discussing the challenges of faith in their new group far more than adults usually get to do.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't actually think a range of denominations is necessary, although I have no particular issue with diversity. I think the CofE is quite capable of having a range of expressions within itself, especially with the Fresh Expressions programme - if those of us doing that can be allowed to do so without carping from the happily settled in traditional moulds.
To non-Anglican ears this sounds very strange. Almost paternalistic.
From my perspective, the CofE may be a broad church, but there's no way that it could provide the diversity that would be required in large cities and conurbations - it would be overwhelmed. At the very least, CofE structures would be problematic for many Christians from other traditions. Moreover, lack of outside choice would probably cause the level of diversity within the CofE to decline, not to increase.
I wasn't suggesting that the other denominations are unnecessary per se - just that I don't think that it's necessary for Anglicans to "jump ship" in order to innovate and plant new initiatives.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As the kids grow I'm becoming more and more aware of the (to my mind) massive problem of what happens when they hit double figures where the attrition rate rivals that of the first day of the Somme.
Don't worry too much in advance about what happens next. Most towns have a church with a thriving youth group, in fact they are often for the whole area as many churches don't have the resources to run their own individual programme. The trick is to introduce your kids to them at just the right age when they are ready for such a step. They will get to know a much wider range of young people than they could possibly know just in their own church and, funnily enough given the intention of the OP, find themselves discussing the challenges of faith in their new group far more than adults usually get to do.
I'm not aware of where this might be in our area. Certainly not at the main parish church where on the one occasion we visited our three doubled the size of the children's group.
Actually, to be fair, I do know in general where they are having been on a diocesan children's work conference once. Big evangelical churches. We'd end up with a sane church I can cope with for me and a big place I can't stand for the kids.
[ 07. August 2013, 12:02: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Actually, to be fair, I do know in general where they are having been on a diocesan children's work conference once. Big evangelical churches. We'd end up with a sane church I can cope with for me and a big place I can't stand for the kids.
Caught between a rock and a hard place... Is there any secular youth work provision round your way? If there is, maybe that would be worth investigating, alongside your own parental input and more informal friendships with Christian young people (church holiday clubs? activity-based groups? Christian families you already know?)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Actually, to be fair, I do know in general where they are having been on a diocesan children's work conference once. Big evangelical churches. We'd end up with a sane church I can cope with for me and a big place I can't stand for the kids.
Caught between a rock and a hard place... Is there any secular youth work provision round your way? If there is, maybe that would be worth investigating, alongside your own parental input and more informal friendships with Christian young people (church holiday clubs? activity-based groups? Christian families you already know?)
So far they're doing OK at our weird left-field geek church There are other kids their age their and even, shock horror, some teenagers.
We don't do any specific youth work. We base our services on the whole of our congregation, and there's a general agreement on 30-40 min. max with plenty of audio-visual input to reinforce the readings and Eucharist, followed by dinner and buns.
So for now the problem is under control. But it wouldn't be if we didn't happen to live two miles from the town that happens to have this quite unusual congregation.
[ 07. August 2013, 12:23: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So far they're doing OK at our weird left-field geek church There are other kids their age their and even, shock horror, some teenagers.
Ah, that's good. Although, as you say, thanks mainly to a geographical coincidence / blessing (delete according to theological preference ).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry Svitlana. As too often on Ecclesiantics, we tend to exist in an Anglican bubble. Of course the real Fresh Expressions are in the other denominations, especially, in my experience, the Methodists.
But I'm not sure if diversity in the C of E would be less if other churches didn't exist. The Episcopal Church in the US is much less liturgically (and theologically) diverse than the C of E, and that is largely because if you are evangelical, for example, it makes more sense to join one of the many evangelical churches than compromise with the mainstream Episcopalians.
I do approve of the idea of FE, but along with Anglican evangelicalism it doesn't seem to be very strong in big urban areas (apart from London, I suppose), which is one reason why other denominations in those areas are very important.
The USA's brand of religious equality is a special case, but some people argue that in other countries, the existence of state and quasi state churches tends to slow down the extravagant growth of other denominations. One could say that a church like the CofE has to be diverse for this very reason; it has to provide the diversity that only flourishes intermittently elsewhere. Yet it's also true that parts of the CofE have been heavily influenced by ideas, movements and music that come from elsewhere. Its diversity partly relies on Christians on the outside to generate elements that it can appropriate at will.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
along with Anglican evangelicalism it doesn't seem to be very strong in big urban areas (apart from London, I suppose)
Tangent, but I would have thought big urban areas were exactly the places Anglican evangelicalism would thrive. Especially if the 'default' form of Anglicanism was anglo-catholicism or its liberal variety, as in London (both sides of the Thames), or a sort of traditionalish Tractarian liberal-catholicism like Tyneside and maybe Leeds. Liverpool (and Manchester to a degree) have had a long history of low-church evo-lite religion so full-blooded evangelicalism is perhaps less common. But it exists.
And increasingly so, I understand, in rural areas, which used to be the stronghold of solid MOTR Prayer Book Anglicanism.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Angloid,
I'm sure you're right about evangelicalism being found in all parts of the COfE. But outside of London the very self-aware, purposeful (or simply more conservative) type that tends to be discussed here seems to be a more suburban or small town variant, at least in my city.
With evangelicalism taking up a growing share of CofE churchgoing I'm sure its reach is spreading.
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on
:
i have often wondered what would happen if someone piped up with a question or an observation in the middle of a sermon at our church. I think even the most relaxed priest would find it a challenge and would fear the floodgates had been opened. Also I remember going to a Quaker meeting in a well-to-do part of S London, and after the obligatory silence, it seemed to me that what followed was just a rather polite argument about the Iraq war between a few people who liked the sound of their own voices. I'm sure the Friends are not always like that.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
i have often wondered what would happen if someone piped up with a question or an observation in the middle of a sermon at our church.
It happens frequently at my church, when people are invited to do so.
It even happens on occasion without invitation. These situations have always been ones in which the pastor treaded a little too far into political rhetoric, being a liberal in a conservative area. In every instance of this, members are lost.
Consequently, I cringe when I hear this happening. Such interpersonal dialogue is best reserved, in my humble opinion, for a one-on-one conversation; or better yet, for an open forum/study class after the liturgy.
I think a big flaw in the plan to have dialogue is that it is invariably the same people that are the fastest to respond or the most vocal or outgoing. It is also those who take opportunity to bring their personal bugbears into it. Tread lightly, for it is difficult to reign this in once it has been started.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I think a big flaw in the plan to have dialogue is that it is invariably the same people that are the fastest to respond or the most vocal or outgoing. It is also those who take opportunity to bring their personal bugbears into it. Tread lightly, for it is difficult to reign this in once it has been started.
Yeah, I agree - this is a really important point. Some of the 'simple church' theologians / pioneers would advocate for a from-a-distance support system (not unlike the 1st century apostles...) whereby each congregation seeking to meet in a more open, dialogical kind of way has the support of a person more experienced with meeting like this. The support person might lead the first few meetings, then stay for a while in a more withdrawn role, then leave the church to find their own way with regular communication (easier in our time than 2,000 years ago!) and occasional visits.
A key part of this support, so I gather from books I've read, is enabling the church to meet in a way that enables everyone to contribute; as Olaf suggests, things often don't quite work like this when meetings are opened up! I'm sure many of us have led workshop sessions, Bible studies or what-have-you where one or two opinionated, self-confident people have ended up dominating the session.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
One of our church leaders (when he was a regular speaker) used to end his Sunday Morning speaking bits with 'Any Questions?' and would take questions from the floor.
I like that - but its interesting that no other speakers are brave enough to do the same....
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm sure many of us have led workshop sessions, Bible studies or what-have-you where one or two opinionated, self-confident people have ended up dominating the session.
Exactly. Then one sometimes has a couple of extremely bright comments shared on a one-on-one basis by people who either couldn't get a word in edgewise, or who simply prefer not to speak out in the middle of the nave during the service.
I hear quite a lot of church leaders who, frankly, denigrate others because of their shyness or reservation. They seem to make it their mission to "fix" us. It's sad, really.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I think small group leaders need an awareness of group dynamics the better to prevent some individuals hogging the limelight and others not saying anything. Sensitivity is necessary.
The problem with not dealing with an imbalance in meetings is that you may be reinforcing negative attitudes. The quiet ones may be thinking: 'My thoughts aren't very important/Everyone's clever than me/I don't feel safe here/I don't want to make a fuss, etc.' Conversely, the talkers might simply assume that the quiet ones are uneducated, uninspired or unspiritual. And if the quietness/noisiness overlaps with racial or socio-economic (etc.) differences in the congregation then your acquiescence could be helping to make those divisions and prejudices wider.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Definitely, Olaf and SvitlanaV2. Doing church like this more often would certainly place greater importance on skills that are perhaps not seen as so key for ministers / priests / pastors at the moment. Conversely, academic training and knowledge would become less important if one moved away from the sermon model (where, at least to some extent, it's about the expert passing on their wisdom to those listening) towards a more discussion-based approach.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I would far rather listen to someone who knows what he or she is talking about, who has done the work of putting together a sermon of substance, and then discussing it, rather than one of those awfully embarrassing sessions where people who don't know anything are expected to discuss it together straight away. You do need the cud in order to be able to chew on it.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I hear quite a lot of church leaders who, frankly, denigrate others because of their shyness or reservation. They seem to make it their mission to "fix" us. It's sad, really.
I can relate. I feel generally fine in my current shack, but one or more of the parishes I formerly attended in other towns now seem like parishes of extroverts, or at least that's what they project on their websites. But I realize that might not reflect reality.
Makes me cringe to visit a parish site and see no photos of what the church looks like, or the liturgy or even the building, just groups of parishioners smiling almost maniacally. I wonder whether my "resting face" and quietness will be welcome there. Or will the liturgy begin with, "Good morning!" "Good morning." "I can't hear you!" "GOOD MORNING!"
Anyway, sorry to seize on just a small thread here...back to talking about things...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0