|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What are cathedrals for?
|
MrSponge2U
Ship’s scrub
# 3076
|
Posted
This is an interesting thread.
I don't worship in a cathedral, myself. I grew up smack dab in a church that follows the modern Evangelical mindset that Leprechaun seems to be alluding too, where the focus of the Christian life is not supposed to be on buildings, but on Jesus and evangelising people to make decisions for Jesus. I can certain sympathise with this way of thinking, and it is valuable for many people. However, I also can sympathise with people who believe in the value of cathedrals, of quietness and awe in worship.
Modern society is very fast paced. Many people today tend to have a goal-oriented approach to life, to view everything in light of its economic impact, and don't like to slow down to spend time in contemplation. The modern evangelical model of seeker-sensitive mega-churches has done a good job in reaching these kind of people. However, people who don't have this mindset don't tend to respond to this model of evangelism. This is why we need cathedrals, because they represent something truly "counter-cultural" in this modern age, of the beauty of art, of a symbol of a faith that has been here for centuries, and a sense of mystery that transcends our personal goals, our programs, our "numbers-based" approach to quantifying how successful our churches are.
--------------------
sig? what sig?
Posts: 3558 | From: where two big rivers meet | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
these places are beautiful and should be preserved, while not being particularly useful any more.
I suspect that they seem quite useful to those for whom the Cathedral is their parish church. Or for those who supplement attendance at their own parish church with Cathedral attendance. Or those for whom the Cathedral is the mother church of the diocese, the visual symbol of Christian unity and the practical meeting place of people from around the region.
What are Cathedrals for? For the maintenance of the daily worship of the Church; a house of prayer for all people; to continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers; to proclaim the Glory of God and Salvific Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I spent many years of my life as a member of a cathedral community, and I can assure you that the cathedral was "useful" to me.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I went to a university in which a cathedral was a university building. At my university, the cathedral held poorly attended inaccessible services, for the benefit ISTM for the choir and a few fellows only. This was while students, young people, the homeless and the old flocked to two evangelical churches across the road.
At least some of the money given by members of those churches went towards the upkeep of the white elephant in the pretty cloister.
The only cathedral I know in the UK that could possibly be (mis) understood as having that king of relationship with the University is Christ Church, in Oxford. Which does have two evangelical churches across the road (well, not exactly, but close enough). If my deduction is wrong, what follows should be disregarded.
First, the cathedral has no formal relationship with the university -- Christ Church (the college) has a relationship with Christ Church Cathedral. I know the relationship is odd -- rather like the relationship between the colleges and the university itself.
Second, the cathedral when I was there (yes, yes, a long time ago) regularly drew congregations of 60-70 to weekday Evensong (and almost never were any of those attending "fellows" or choir families). Sunday morning wervices were usually nearly full (it's a small place, so we're talking 200-300) for both 10:00 Sung Mattins and 11:00 Sung eucharist. I was back this past summer, and the same seemed to be true -- except that a substantial congregation now exists with a council and so on separate from the college and the formal strcuture, reflecting the involvement of a large number of people outside the college and university.
Third, no-one could deny the good works done by St. Aldate's and St. Ebbe's. However, you need to know that I and many who were there at the same time ran from them both like the plague, and many students still do. Frankly, I am surprised to hear that either has a ministry among the poor and elderly -- the student focus was so strong that I always wondered who attended out of term -- because neither seemed to be a "town" church at all. Not denying what you say, just surprised that it has grown up -- certainly there used to be nothing of that sort.
Fourth, I doubt very much that a penny given by the good folk of St. Aldate's and St. Ebbe's goes to support the cathedral -- and certainly not its choir and services -- or indeed the bulk of its staff. Between endowments, the giving of its own congregation, donations from visitors and appeals, I guess not much is needed from the diocese. For example, I do know that the organ rebuild of a couple of years ago was paid for by an appeal to old members of the college.
Now just to make my position clear, way back when I did attend Christ Church (the college) and sometimes attended services in the cathedral apart from those done by the college (whose chapel it is). But it certainly was not then, and would not be today, my choice as a place to worship regularly, anymore than the two places across the road would be.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
If it wasn't for the Cathedral here, I probably wouldn't be a regular churchgoer.
It provides me with a beautiful setting for well-ordered modern and traditional liturgy, sermons which do not insult my intellect, superb music from a variety of visiting choirs as well as the 'professionals', and a large and friendly congregation who will, if I prefer it, leave me to my own devices.....
....and it's open and available for use all day, every day, no matter what - and even in the depths of winter, there's always someone in there, praying, meditating, just looking around and enjoying the peace. At times, there may indeed be a lot of apparently empty space, but that space is full of God......
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Chill.
If I wasn't involved in this discussion (and therefore not hosting it), you'd get a slap for posting in a smug and derisive manner.
But I am. So you won't.
Maybe it's good that you're not the host on this one, because it was hardly derisive and no smugger than your original.
quote:
Just because hardly anyone ever comes to faith in a church meeting anywhere (and I mean anywhere - cathedral, parish church or New Covenant Church meeting in a school hall like the one one of my lodgers goes to) anymore, it doesn't mean that its superfluous.
Churches in which hardly anyone comes to faith - die. I am not suggesting that people have to come to faith in a church meeting - although in my experience many people do - but the related activities of that church have to draw people into faith. Churches have to be open and supportive of non-believers, fringe believers or new believers - not just for the cognoscenti. Most Cathedrals are not doing that terribly well. They will cease to be places of Christian worship unless they get their act together. However I don't agree with Lep that the Church should hand them over. They are too valuable in terms of spiritual presence, memory, heritage and excellence to make them museums without a fight.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Churches in which hardly anyone comes to faith - die. I am not suggesting that people have to come to faith in a church meeting - although in my experience many people do - but the related activities of that church have to draw people into faith. Churches have to be open and supportive of non-believers, fringe believers or new believers - not just for the cognoscenti. Most Cathedrals are not doing that terribly well.
Genuine question - any proof of this? As I said further up the thread. I've heard it said on more than one occaision that cathedrals are one of the few places where congregations have grown over the last 10 years. This may be rubbish, but I'm sure that if any one has access to the figures to discredit or back up the statement you will have, Spawn.
quote:
They will cease to be places of Christian worship unless they get their act together.
What would "getting their act together" entail?
IME they're generally better attended than your average parish church. Again, no stats so I may be wrong.
quote:
However I don't agree with Lep that the Church should hand them over. They are too valuable in terms of spiritual presence, memory, heritage and excellence to make them museums without a fight.
Well, we agree on that.
Also, I'm interested you say they're valuable in monetary terms. That would discount one of Lep's objections. Any stats available to back that one up?
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
quote:
Originally posted by LydaRose:
quote:
Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
I concur with all above who marvel at the wonders of the Gothic arch. Our church is housed in a building with rather dumpy Norman arches, and has its own story to tell. However they do cost an arm and a leg to keep maintained and I think the problem with all these buildings is: are we actually being good stewards with our money when we could employ say another full time christian worker or feed and school a few hundred people in Africa with the money we spend maintaining them. We try to do both but struggle to find the balance
What springs to mind is the jar of expensive ungent lavished on Jesus' feet. Was it necessary, practical? Did it help the poor or gather more disciples? No. It was a statement of love in extravagance.
I think cathedrals are a tool for evangelism. Not in isolation, of course, but joined with the witness of thoughtful Christians. As people have mentioned, the unchurched visit cathedrals all the time. People who will run speedily from earnest proselytizers, I known to be seduced by a combination of beautiful surroundings, a quiet word of friendship, and time. Evangelism is not one-size-fits-all.
You can worship the builing rather than what it represents though second poem
Yeah, and I've known people who worship the rules and regs of the Bible without any evidence that I could see of the Spirit working in them- people with malicious spirits who drain the joy out of study and worship. And I knew a guy who was a hard drug dealer who was a pillar of his Bible church. And I've known people to go up to evangelical altar calls estatically only to drift away within weeks or months.
But obviously overwhelmingly evangelical churches give much support to their people old and new. But out of all the people proselytized by evangelicals many do decide, no. And of all the people who visit a cathedral, many- maybe most, will not inquire further about this thing called Christianity. Some may even consciously decide to reject the message while admiring the trappings. It happens.
So it just goes to show that conversion is not a simple matter because human beings are complex and conflicted.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boopy
Shipmate
# 4738
|
Posted
I'm a Baptist,but love to visit my local cathedral when I can. It always seems very busy yet calm, full of people yet spacious, and steeped in the presence of God. I can light a candle, think, muse, or help my children with the 'family quiz' which is a history-and-religion trail round the cathedral - they loved it last time. There's a refectory and bookshop staffed by friendy volunteers, and ever-changing exhibitions by local community groups. I never come away unrefreshed and think the cathedral is doing a great job being welcoming and interesting for a large number of diverse people. Don't knock it!
Cathedrals are places of public sacred space in the way that small churches are not. They fulfil a different function from one's local church very often and can offer new perspectives or times of refreshment. And just because their services may not be overtly evangelistic does not mean they are not a witness. There's such a thing as an implicit message, and a place for reserved unspoken evangelism. I think cathedrals do a lot of that.
Posts: 1170 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And you can say "utter rubbish" all you like - but is your friend that you took with you to Kings a Christian today? And if so is it REALLY because of his impression of God from that building rather than an encounter with the living Lord Jesus?
If you don't look at King's College Chapel and have an encounter with the ever-living Lord Jesus in all his wonder and majesty then I have nothing but pity for you.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
Genuine question - any proof of this? As I said further up the thread. I've heard it said on more than one occaision that cathedrals are one of the few places where congregations have grown over the last 10 years. This may be rubbish, but I'm sure that if any one has access to the figures to discredit or back up the statement you will have, Spawn.
I don't have time to look up the statistics now, but yes the folks at the Church House statistics office have been getting excited about the slightly greater numbers attending Cathedral services. As far as I know there's been no in-depth analysis of what this amounts to.
quote:
What would "getting their act together" entail?
IME they're generally better attended than your average parish church. Again, no stats so I may be wrong.
On one level doing better at what they do now. Further to this, using the kudos they have as Cathedrals to do the ministry of city-centre churches better than anyone else. By that I mean the entre they have into all aspects of civic, business life. They ought to be burgeoning at the seams for lunchtime services. They ought to be packed to the rafters at lectures on ethics, principles in business etc. They ought to be making a huge difference to the community in terms of mission and charitable activity. They ought to be centres of religious education (some of them are already) for schools. They also ought to be powerful centres for drawing the diocese together. I don't think overall they score very highly. Many American Cathedrals without the same grand history do a great deal better.
[this next point is addressed to Lep] Their best practice is already very impressive. I know people who've been very touched by occasional services for the victims of road deaths, or services which have been held to celebrate Golden Wedding Anniversaries. They have prime opportunity to get non-churchgoers back into church, or young people into church for the first time and very often they're using their position to do just that. It's just that they can do more.
quote:
Also, I'm interested you say they're valuable in monetary terms. That would discount one of Lep's objections. Any stats available to back that one up?
No I wasn't making the point in monetary terms. If we were starting from scratch in purely monetary terms we wouldn't build cathedrals.
But this value, again to Lep, is one of the vital reasons for keeping Cathedrals for witness to the nation. What would the Church be saying by handing over Cathedrals let alone our beautiful parish churches. We would be saying Christianity has retreated, we're no longer in the public square engaging with everyone. It would be a scandal worldwide if we refused our duty of service to the nation to maintain its heritage. We would be reneging on our witness to this country.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I would like to interject that the diocese/people of the Anglican Cathedral in Montreal solved some of the problem of paying for maintenance by having the building jacked up so that a complete shopping mall could be inserted underneath, connected to the Metro system and other shopping/business complexes by a rabbit-warren of tunnels (approrpiate to the Arctic nature of Montreal) Thus Mammon literally as well as monetarily supports the church. This means there is a quiet place with a worshipful atmosphere with direct access from shoppers' heaven.
In other words, outreach potential as well as active worship, all paid for by the "teeming, er, thousands"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't have time to look up the statistics now, but yes the folks at the Church House statistics office have been getting excited about the slightly greater numbers attending Cathedral services. As far as I know there's been no in-depth analysis of what this amounts to.
You seem quite dismissive of something that seems to be a Good Thing. Any reason for that?
quote:
On one level doing better at what they do now.
...
[snipped list of ways in which cathedrals can improve on what they're doing]
...
So, in line with most other churches, they should do what they do, but do it better. No argument from me there. We can all do better.
quote:
No I wasn't making the point in monetary terms. If we were starting from scratch in purely monetary terms we wouldn't build cathedrals.
So you weren't. I've just reread your post. Bizarrely I think I read "memory" as "money". Must be the gin.
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Cathedrals were built ad majoram gloriam dei 'to the greater glory of God' (I think I've got my Latin correct) and therefore it seems to me getting rid of them actually says something theological and not something I think that we ought to be saying. Maybe we wouldn't chose to build them now for monetary reasons but is that because we've lost the sense of doing things ADMG* and become utilitarian in our approach? Do we side too much with Judas when he questions the extravagance of the woman pouring ointment over Jesu's feet?
God was at work in those who built the cathedrals and continues to be at work today in and through them. The Cathedrals I know have a number of services a week (many more than 8 - although that's more than most churches). My parents have chosen to go to their local Cathedral rather than their very evangelical parish church for various reasons and it has a thriving congregation and Sunday School etc. Also, I've been to some amazing diocesan services at Cathedrals. In Liverpool, there is the biennial procession of witness at Pentecost between the Cathedrals.
Lep, you wonder about the value of the money spent on Cathedrals, I worry about value the money spent on the recent large scale mission at this university. I'm not sure how many converts they got and I fear that at least as many were pushed further away. Friends of mine have admitted to being scared of the CU and if Christianity means being like them not wanting to know. Different things attract different people, can we at least agree on that?
*Why does my brain remember the initials in the order ADMG but remember the words in the order that would give AMGD?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Thank you for the reply, Leprechaun. FWIW, in earlier years, I have sat in some Cathedrals and heard piss-poor preaching and had a good laugh at the preacher, wondering why he couldn't have preached the gospel 'properly'. My only contact with Cathedral ministry then was the occasional visit as a tourist, and the odd (very odd to me!) service. So I do have some sympathy with your view, honestly!
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Just to let you know. I am not an Anglican now. But I used to work for a large Anglican church within a stone's throw of a cathedral. I went to a university in which a cathedral was a university building. I now help to run a church plant within a stone's throw of 2 cathedrals (which probably gives away where it is), and before we set up I did actually do quite a bit of looking in to what they did in the area.
At my university, the cathedral held poorly attended inaccessible services, for the benefit ISTM for the choir and a few fellows only. This was while students, young people, the homeless and the old flocked to two evangelical churches across the road.
At least some of the money given by members of those churches went towards the upkeep of the white elephant in the pretty cloister.
So because, in your opinion and maybe also in truth, a cathedral you know of isn't working up to capacity, this means all cathedral communities should disband? Anecdotal evidence is always interesting and usually proves a point, but in this case it only proves the point that in your opinion one cathedral isn't doing the job you think it should be doing. No doubt there are others. Do they cancel the effective ones out?
I'm impressed, btw - and while we're into anecdotes - that the two evangelical churches attracted the homeless and the old. In one particular Cathedral city I know, the homeless went to the Cathedral - not usually for worship it has to be said but for the boilers, which they would lie beside, during the day, all the time the Cathedral was open. Also, cadging food off the cathedral staff. The most 'successful' evangelical church in the city, otoh, a very lively place was peopled conspicuously by the young, professional and well-off. But I don't think any the worse of that church, nevertheless ![[Biased]](wink.gif) !
quote:
When I worked for a church, the nearest thing the cathedral did to an evangelistic event was to have J John speaking on the 10 commandments, which quite frankly I would rather chew my arm off than take a non-Christian to hear.
I don't know how I can keep repeating what I and others have said already without sending people to sleep but: 'evangelistic events' aren't the be-all and end-all of evangelism within the church. If one knows nothing about the pastoral mission and ministry of a specific congregation, making any comment about how effective their witness is to Christ carries little weight.
quote:
One of the cathedrals I work near now sponges off the government agency I work for for the upkeep of its poor design, holds 8 services in a week, which according to its own report 250 people attend altogether, and, by the record of the collection they give something like 25p each to its upkeep. I have been to services in the other, and it was very beautiful choral music, but the speaker made no mention of Jesus.
I hope and pray this is not the case for every cathedral in the country,
You no longer have to hope and pray, Leprechaun. You can read this thread and see for a fact it isn't the case. I don't want to be rude, but are you reading and believing what people are posting here? Or maybe you think people are inventing their replies just to annoy you and be contradictory?
quote:
but my experience of cathedrals is that they are very beautiful and historic centres for culture. Nothing more.
Okay, so in your experience God can't be seen in the faith, lives and work of a Cathedral community. So you only manage to see the building without becoming conscious of the rest of the ice-berg beneath the 'tip'. So maybe in time your experience will widen to include other people's experiences, such as the ones expressed on this thread, as being equally as valid as yours in some way. Particularly those who have told you explicitly why Cathedrals are important and what they're for - just as you asked. (So we should all hope to live so long !)
quote:
In fact, nearly all my friends at university went to visit the cathedral at some point, and none ever had the response of considering the person of Jesus, and his claim on their life.
And I, on the other hand have many, many friends who have been touched by God, who have heard, seen and felt the gospel powerfully witnessed to in Cathedral life and worship. So once again, do your friends' negative experiences cancel out the good God has done through my friends' positive experiences? Does your cathedral anecdote win over my cathedral anecdote?
quote:
I am glad that there are those who are helped by the ministry of cathedrals. I have been encouraged to find out about them on this thread. But while "I don't like them" is not an argument for their closing "A very small minority of people are helped by them" is not a good enough argument,IMO, for keeping them open when the C of E is obviously in such financial dire straits.
By that logic, all churches should then be closed, as a very small minority of people go to church across the country. How big is the population of the town you live in, Lep? Calculate the percentage that attend the church you're involved with - and then, by your own lights, get the 'For Sale' signs out. When are we ever going to get away from these silly number games.
quote:
At Christmas I received the one and only correspondence I have ever had from my parish church. It made no mention of God, and asked for money (not knowing anything about me) for the church roof.
Suitably damning of the local parish church. I'm sure it provided much opportunity for righteous ire and the, no doubt, reluctant condemnation of a group of people you don't know (apart from the Treasurer who was after your money ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ). If you're offended, write and complain. Otherwise, throw it in the bin and move on. But the relevance of that to this thread is what?
quote:
If this is the case, and, ISTM cathedral style worship does very little, if anything to bring committed Christians into the church, then I have no problem selling the cathedrals to museum hood, and the congregation meeting in a school hall, so that all the non-Christians in my street don't have to get a one off begging letter from our church that makes no effort to share the Gospel.
Of course you would have no problem in breaking up entire worshipping communities to satisfy your interesting theology. Perhaps if you could see beyond the building to the people; or beyond the event of worship to the effect on people's lives throughout the week, you would, however. But presently, it seems, you don't know the community involved, you just see some architecture and a worship style that personally does nothing for you.
You're entitled to your belief that the people involved with Cathedrals aren't as good Christians as the ones in the busting at the seams churches of other denominations; you're entitled to believe their music, style of worship, theology etc, are godless and ineffective.
You're even entitled to hold the opinion that they should be worshipping where you think they should be worshipping, singing the music you think they should be singing, and conducting their church business in a way that you personally approve of. Although, entitlement to an opinion is no qualification of that opinion. And to me it just comes across as pure judgementalism based on a lack of knowledge and some bad experiences.
quote:
You will note in my OP, I was asking for reasons why I shouldn't take this view. I want to be convinced.
Then it'll be useful for you to hear that you come across as someone, who far from wanting to be convinced, has got a real problem with how Church of England worshippers manage their finance and fabric, and enable their particular tradition of worship. It really, really seems to matter to you for some reason.
quote:
But, as I have said " a few of us like pretty stained glass and choral music under gothic arches" is not good enough. Some people have told encouraging stories about how the ministry of cathedrals has helped bring them to Christ. I am glad. But my question is still - is this model of ministry, which, compared to so many other models seems numerically insignificant, one that the church should be subsidising considering its manifest failure to reach today's culture, and its obviously over stretched resources?
'Manifest failure'? Oh, you mean according to your ideas of what they should be doing. Again, the Church as a whole (and I would suggest that might just include your own) generally fails to appeal to secularist society if numbers are anything to go by - and I appreciate that for some people statistics are, in fact, everything to go by.
Posters on this thread I think have fairly conclusively proved that there is still a place for Cathedral ministry, where it is effectively done. And intelligently questioning the priority of financial resources on buildings is needful and sensible. For example, I think that cathedrals do need to somehow 'justify' the expense that they are to their people, and other organizations which support them; but I also believe that many, if not most, Cathedrals actually do this.
I don't question your right to be outraged that people who worship in cathedrals are happy to fundraise for the building and upkeep. Or even that you seem to have a problem with how Anglicans worship in cathedrals, or exist as Christian communities focused on the cathedral. All of us approach the thing that is antipathetic to us with a certain uncharitableness, it's only natural.
However, there has been some good apologetic here for why Cathedrals - both community and building - can be, and in many cases are, a good thing. I still haven't seen anything equally as convincing from the other side of the argument. Sorry.
[ 10. May 2004, 23:43: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Cathedrals were built ad majoram gloriam dei 'to the greater glory of God' (I think I've got my Latin correct)
Almost, my dear. Ad majorem gloriam Dei would be more like it. The comparative degree of most adjectives uses what we pendants call the third declension.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Cathedrals were built ad majoram gloriam dei 'to the greater glory of God' (I think I've got my Latin correct)
Almost, my dear. Ad majorem gloriam Dei would be more like it. The comparative degree of most adjectives uses what we pendants call the third declension.
And anyway it's usually ordered "Ad majorem Dei gloriam". So there.
Anselmina, your last post was gloriously to the point.
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Without wishing to be pedantic, just what is Amanda pendant from?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Without wishing to be pedantic, just what is Amanda pendant from?
Depends.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
So posting in the way you actually talk is smug now, is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Just because hardly anyone ever comes to faith in a church meeting anywhere (and I mean anywhere - cathedral, parish church or New Covenant Church meeting in a school hall like the one one of my lodgers goes to) anymore, it doesn't mean that its superfluous.
Churches in which hardly anyone comes to faith - die. I am not suggesting that people have to come to faith in a church meeting - although in my experience many people do - but the related activities of that church have to draw people into faith. Churches have to be open and supportive of non-believers, fringe believers or new believers - not just for the cognoscenti.
I'm not saying that they should be for the cognoscenti, and you're totally failing to get my point here.
I'll put it in short sentences.
1. People do not come to faith in church services much. It's rare and it's getting rarer. Your experience is baffling and totally counter to my experience and the experience of everyone I know (unless you go to one of the few evangelical SuperChurches that are out there - HTB, All Souls Langham Place, etc - which are very much exceptions to the obvious rule. Or your church is a freak).
2. This DOES NOT EQUAL people not coming to faith through churches. Yes, of course they come to faith through churches. People come to faith through the witness of churches and individual Christians, as expressed outside of the service. I'd have thought that you of all people would realise that.
[ 11. May 2004, 07:53: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I'm not saying that they should be for the cognoscenti, and you're totally failing to get my point here.
I'll put it in short sentences.
I don't think I'm failing to get the point and I can do without being patronised. You were underplaying the evangelistic element in church services and to my mind separating unhelpfully aspects of the Christian life. But on the other hand, I don't think our views are diametrically opposed.
quote:
1. People do not come to faith in church services much. It's rare and it's getting rarer. Your experience is baffling and totally counter to my experience and the experience of everyone I know (unless you go to one of the few evangelical SuperChurches that are out there - HTB, All Souls Langham Place, etc - which are very much exceptions to the obvious rule. Or your church is a freak).
2. This DOES NOT EQUAL people not coming to faith through churches. Yes, of course they come to faith through churches. People come to faith through the witness of churches and individual Christians, as expressed outside of the service. I'd have thought that you of all people would realise that.
Let's agree first of all that becoming a disciple of Christ isn't necessarily about a Damascus experience, but is more normally a process of change and acceptance and being accepted. You and I can probably also agree that the overwhelming experience of conversion these days is that of belonging before believing in Jesus and following him. This is true of a number of people close to me and some of those have had powerful spiritual experiences which were lifechanging in Church. This happened for the people I am talking about more normally in charismatic worship, but in one case when they were being confirmed and in two other cases through attending Cathedral evensong (one of whom felt called also to ministry at the same time).
I happen to think that churches of every complexion should revisit their prejudices against bringing out an evangelistic element in their church services. Charismatic churches have helpfully pioneered times of ministry during and at the end of services for people to be prayed with and for and have hands laid on them for healing. Many evangelical churches, mainly of the non-conformist variety these days still invite people to make decisions during services. There is nothing wrong with these practices, in fact, any church with a fringe should be explicitly inviting people in a non-pressurised way into an encounter with Jesus through preaching and the sacraments.
[ 11. May 2004, 08:29: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Anselmina,
Phew - epic!
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
In one particular Cathedral city I know, the homeless went to the Cathedral - not usually for worship it has to be said but for the boilers, which they would lie beside, during the day, all the time the Cathedral was open. Also, cadging food off the cathedral staff. The most 'successful' evangelical church in the city, otoh, a very lively place was peopled conspicuously by the young, professional and well-off. But I don't think any the worse of that church, nevertheless !
I really am glad to hear that is the case. Nevertheless, a very expensive, and not exactly user friendly homeless shelter?
quote:
I don't know how I can keep repeating what I and others have said already without sending people to sleep but: 'evangelistic events' aren't the be-all and end-all of evangelism within the church. If one knows nothing about the pastoral mission and ministry of a specific congregation, making any comment about how effective their witness is to Christ carries little weight.
But Anselmina, they are something, if not everything. If the only attempt a church makes at "proclamation" out reach are tokenistic, when as many have said here, non-Christians flock through the door on a day by day basis and hear nothing from the guides about Jesus, the cross or trusting him, then is it not fair to question what this enormous edifice is for? The fact is for 90% of visitors to the cathedral, it was a museum, and the building staff seemed to think it was ok that having all these people in the building and not telling them about Jesus, as long as money was being raised for the next roof reconstruction or whatever. You have told me this is merely anecdotal evidence, but I do like culture, I like cathedrals. I go and sit in the one near my house regularly. But none I have ever been to seem to be doing any job effectively of spreading the message of Jesus, and I could just as easily go and sit in it if it was a museum. Except then it would be free.
quote:
So maybe in time your experience will widen to include other people's experiences, such as the ones expressed on this thread, as being equally as valid as yours in some way. Particularly those who have told you explicitly why Cathedrals are important and what they're for - just as you asked. (So we should all hope to live so long !)
Anselmina, I HAVE read and considered what people have said about cathedrals here. I understand what they are SUPPOSED to be for. I even see that, on some rare occasions they do what they are designed to do. Praise God. My point is that they are a very expensive precious way of doing it, aimed at, ISTM an ever decreasing class of people who are interested in architecture, art and choral music. I am not saying they should all be bulldozed. I am not even saying that their congregations should be disbanded and sent to easier to run churches. I am saying I see no reason why the church should continue to use its vastly overstretched resources to fund the interests of a small group of people who are largely already Christians. Now, you have suggested that cathedrals do make a financial case for themselves. That is certainly not true of the ones I have lived near, or indeed the one my agency has just given 30 million pounds to. If that is not the case, then there needs to be some reason more than "some people find it helpful", or "the church has a responsibility to protect heritage" when the are a million more cost effective ways of the church fulfilling its many ministries.
That's where the rubber hits the road with this:
quote:
Calculate the percentage that attend the church you're involved with - and then, by your own lights, get the 'For Sale' signs out. When are we ever going to get away from these silly number games.
If something is very expensive, and fails to pay for itself, then other models of it functioning have to be considered. So if my church was costing more to run than it could collect, I would close it down. The Charity Commissioners would probably do it for me in fact.
Hence my comment about my parish church - if the C of E is so short of money that it needs to compromise its witness by asking people who have no church connection for money, then it needs to save money somewhere. Cathedrals may be a place where it can do that. (and, as I have said, I am ready to stand corrected).
quote:
Then it'll be useful for you to hear that you come across as someone, who far from wanting to be convinced, has got a real problem with how Church of England worshippers manage their finance and fabric, and enable their particular tradition of worship. It really, really seems to matter to you for some reason.
It matters to me that people's impression of "the church" is of a national cultural centre/begging bowl. It matters to me very much.
quote:
for example, I think that cathedrals do need to somehow 'justify' the expense that they are to their people, and other organizations which support them; but I also believe that many, if not most, Cathedrals actually do this.
If this is true, that most Cathedrals are making an effort to reach out to their community AND are not a financial drain on the church as a whole, and as such are an effective ministry model, then I have absolutely no problem with them. This was the case to be made that I was looking for. But is there any HARD evidence, apart from, as Spawn says, a small growth in attendance?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think I'm failing to get the point and I can do without being patronised.
You don't patronise me, I don't patronise you back. If you ask to be patronised, you get patronised. You want to argue about my attitude further or give me more attitude, you know where the Hell board is.
quote:
Let's agree first of all that becoming a disciple of Christ isn't necessarily about a Damascus experience, but is more normally a process of change and acceptance and being accepted.
With you there.
Although, FWIW, I had a Damascus experience. In an Indian restaurant.
quote:
You and I can probably also agree that the overwhelming experience of conversion these days is that of belonging before believing in Jesus and following him.
Yep. And this is why things like Alpha (and the various strategies that have sprung up in its wake) are so valuable.
No matter what people might think of the actual Alpha course (in the one I helped lead, people spent most of the time going, "but it's not that simple"), the style is dead right. People belong first, they are heard, they are discoursed with.
This is a Good Thing. But you have to belong first. Gone are the days where you could expect people to walk in and understand what the hell it was about. Even the basic stuff - like the very act of standing up and singing together - is alien to most normal people under the age of 40.
quote:
I happen to think that churches of every complexion should revisit their prejudices against bringing out an evangelistic element in their church services.
Problem is, I go to an evangelical Baptist church where we have regular "friends" services. They don't work. See my comment above. They still maintain the basic assumptions of a church service - we sing, people pray, there's a sermon.
But then, if these things weren't there, would it be a church service? The leaders of my church say no.
The fact is, it doesn't matter what the style of worship is, people who aren't "churched" don't get it. To most people, a charismatic praisefest is just as confusing and alien as a Non-Communicating High Mass.
When people say "rubbish! People understand the Anglo-Catholic style" or "people find it easier to get into choruses", what they're actually saying is "I can't understand how people don't find my favoured style of worship as easy to comprehend as I do".
The word "relevance" gets bandied about a lot, and often gets a bad press (as people seem to think that those who want "relevant" services want choruses and charismatic worship), but the fact of the matter is that a church service, the Biblically ordained act of meeting together as Christians in communal worship, which is essential to our joint witness because it's where we are fed.
Now I'm not saying that church services shouldn't proclaim Jesus - it's what we do in communion after all - but I'm saying that services which arte for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Problem is, I go to an evangelical Baptist church where we have regular "friends" services. They don't work. See my comment above. They still maintain the basic assumptions of a church service - we sing, people pray, there's a sermon.
Now I'm not saying that church services shouldn't proclaim Jesus - it's what we do in communion after all - but I'm saying that services which arte for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.
Not a rant about cathedrals this time. But I see the type of services you talk about Wood as part of encouraging belonging and believing. So we run an Alpha equivalent at someone's house, food, chat, video, questions, thoughts etc. But we also do "guest services" which do "preach for a response" as such. But they are still about belonging, by saying to people - "this is the way we do things round here, join in if you feel able, don't if you don't". Its just like a normal service, but with more space for people to sit at the back with coffee if they want, and with everything we do being explained. Some people have become Christians in those services, but its been part of a longer process.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
to fund the interests of a small group of people who are largely already Christians.
You don't think the church should be ministering to Christians? Have you read the New Testament?
You've been accused previously on this thread of treating Christianity as a contagious disease: get "saved", go "save" other people. Is Christianity just a ticket to heaven, entirely irrelevant to our earthly life? Apart from your complete dismissal of the many people who have posted here about the place of cathedrals in coming to Christ as part of an "insignificant" minority, you have seem to have completely failed to engage with the fact that "winning converts" is not the only part of the Church's mission.
So, in your view, what is the earthly good of Christianity? (and yes, I mean all those words literally).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
The fact is for 90% of visitors to the cathedral, it was a museum, and the building staff seemed to think it was ok that having all these people in the building and not telling them about Jesus
Leprechaun: I repeat what I and others have said - A cathedral is built to the glory of God. Every leaflet describing a cathedral I have ever seen says this, or something like it, somewhere. There are usually people on the door to hand out such leaflets and welcome people. Mention is also made of how the cathedral has been a pace of worship for X-hundered years. Service times are prominently displayed.
How is this not talking about God?
If every cathedral greeter said "Hello, welcome to Evangelicaltown cathedral. Have you accepted Christ as your personal savoiur?" I would probably walk straight out, I guess most people would never even step inside.
Can you even contemplate that allowing people to see a cathedral for themselves, and come to their own conclusions and ask their own questions if they wish to can be good evangelism?
To my mind this is the best evangelism - allowing people to experience God without forcing it down their throats or insulting their intelligence.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I see the type of services you talk about Wood as part of encouraging belonging and believing.
Believing, perhaps. Belonging, no chance. They still operate on the basic assumption that people are going to "get" the entire concept of a church service.
quote:
But they are still about belonging, by saying to people - "this is the way we do things round here, join in if you feel able, don't if you don't".
Do you really think that's what they say? Really?
It's been ten years since I converted to Christianity, but I still very clearly remember what it was like not to be a Christian. I have friends who have nothing to do with church to keep me on the planet.
What the people I know hear from these things is more along the lines of "join us. Because you want to join us. Because we're not a bunch of weirdoes, oh no," while at the same time singing songs, talking to someone who isn't (apparently) there.
quote:
Its just like a normal service, but with more space for people to sit at the back with coffee if they want, and with everything we do being explained. Some people have become Christians in those services, but its been part of a longer process.
It's that last sentence that gets me - "it's been part of a longer process". Am I right in thinking that what you mean is, they've had to be acclimated to this whole church service thing as part of the process? Or what?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
You don't patronise me, I don't patronise you back. If you ask to be patronised, you get patronised. You want to argue about my attitude further or give me more attitude, you know where the Hell board is.
Wood let's agree to leave this personal crap out of it. I have no intention of calling you to Hell and I don't think anything I've said has indicated that I want to do that.
quote:
The fact is, it doesn't matter what the style of worship is, people who aren't "churched" don't get it. To most people, a charismatic praisefest is just as confusing and alien as a Non-Communicating High Mass.
When people say "rubbish! People understand the Anglo-Catholic style" or "people find it easier to get into choruses", what they're actually saying is "I can't understand how people don't find my favoured style of worship as easy to comprehend as I do".
Your statements are overgeneralised. You seem to be suggesting that overtly evangelistic church services are aimed at recruiting the unchurched. I don't think so, they are aimed at the fringe, at drawing people into deeper commitment, or those who are seeking spiritually. That implies a prior interest and often some kind of familiarity with churchy things. There remain large numbers who've been to church in childhood, or at least had contact. Significant numbers of people dropped out of Sunday School and many more had familiarity with worship as a result of going to a church primary school. On the other hand, I probably agree with you that for the entirely unchurched, a church service is not necessarily going to be the best starting point for the 'process'.
quote:
Now I'm not saying that church services shouldn't proclaim Jesus - it's what we do in communion after all - but I'm saying that services which arte for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.
Again an overgeneralised statement which is patently untrue in the experience of other Christians. This is back to the level of anecdotal experience and whether my anecdote trumps yours. My belief is that there are many ways for people to come to faith and overtly evangelistic church services can be part of the process - and a major part for some people.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
Apart from your complete dismissal of the many people who have posted here about the place of cathedrals in coming to Christ as part of an "insignificant" minority, you have seem to have completely failed to engage with the fact that "winning converts" is not the only part of the Church's mission.
So, in your view, what is the earthly good of Christianity? (and yes, I mean all those words literally).
I never said "insignificant". I said "small, and using a lot of resource". If it is small it doesn't stop it being significant. Neither does it stop it being expensive.
What is the earthly good of Christianity - to glorify God. Which is most effectively (but not exclusively) done through people coming to know and trust Jesus, but also through displays of his character in the life of his people. This, ISTM is primarily to do with love, rather than architecture.
Tell me this. And sorry if you feel you have answered this already, I have re read the thread but can't see it - but what ACTUAL part of the church's mission do cathedrals effectively (rather than as a by-product) contribute to, that could not be done in a better way?
Corpus - I am by no means suggesting that people should be challenged to accept Jesus there and then on the doorstep. But there is imagery and wording all over cathedrals that points to the Gospel (altar, Bibles, pictures of Jesus and apostles ministry) in a much less anodyne way than "this is for the glory of God". I have never yet been on a cathedral tour where this was explained. And the sad fact is, that most of our unchurched nation do not pick it up just by looking.
(I have been on a tour of an historical church where it was all clearly and respectfully explained, and it was excellent -I'd happily pay money out of my own pocket to keep that one going)
[Edited for quote UBB.]
[ 11. May 2004, 10:40: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Thanks for your considered reply, Leprechaun. You were very patient in wading through my humongous post! I'll be kinder with this one ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) .
I think we must see the work of the Body of Christ in different ways, and that perhaps colours how we post. Ministry, to me, is more than proclamation as important as that is, and I would see Cathedral ministry as very much at the point where meets that potentially stuffy institutional 'clubby' and exclusive church membership - as represented by all those churches where 'belonging' is essential for acceptance - and those who simply drift in the direction of God because of who knows why. (He does move, after all, in mysterious ways !)
It's an area that many churches - regardless of denomination or churchmanship - rarely inhabit because they don't have the far reaching appeal and role that Cathedral churches often have, by virtue of the fact that they exist and function in such a unique way. For example, many people will assume that in order to attend a certain church they actually have to be a certain kind of Christian first. What use proclamation then?
Cathedrals are a different 'voice' of God, to the voice he uses when in other kinds of churches. But still singing the same tune, if only we could recognize it being played in a different key, or on a different instrument. Not a better voice, necessarily, but different. Only better insofar that human beings respond to different ways of being 'sung to'.
There are issues of expense and good use of resource and fidelity to the gospel, as you quite rightly point up. I think, however, that unless the very different and peculiar nature of a Cathedral community is understood and appreciated, it's quite difficult to come to a reasonable assessment of its effectiveness for the Kingdom.
Thanks for the discussion. I've found it really interesting and will, I promise, look around the next Cathedral I wander into with slightly different eyes!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Wood let's agree to leave this personal crap out of it. I have no intention of calling you to Hell and I don't think anything I've said has indicated that I want to do that.
Then shut up about it.
quote:
Your statements are overgeneralised. You seem to be suggesting that overtly evangelistic church services are aimed at recruiting the unchurched. I don't think so, they are aimed at the fringe, at drawing people into deeper commitment, or those who are seeking spiritually.
Since when? Every single evangelistic meeting in every church I have ever been to in the last ten years, while it may have had a subsidiary aim of bringing the fringe people closer to God, is there for the express of purpose of getting converts.
quote:
That implies a prior interest and often some kind of familiarity with churchy things. There remain large numbers who've been to church in childhood, or at least had contact. Significant numbers of people dropped out of Sunday School and many more had familiarity with worship as a result of going to a church primary school.
If that were true, I'd totally commend it. But in a church like mine where the Gospel is preached in the sermon in some way every single week, one really has to conclude that regular church services should be bringing everyone - including the fringe people - closer to God every single week. Certainly, the "friends services" we have are specifically for the unchurched (in a way that would be hilarious if it weren't so frustrating).
quote:
On the other hand, I probably agree with you that for the entirely unchurched, a church service is not necessarily going to be the best starting point for the 'process'.
At last! Some progress!
quote:
quote:
I'm saying that services which are for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.
Again an overgeneralised statement which is patently untrue in the experience of other Christians.
But not, weirdly, the experience of almost every Christian I know. As I said, I'm baffled that you're arguing the toss on this.
quote:
This is back to the level of anecdotal experience and whether my anecdote trumps yours.
Maybe. If it was down to my own experience, I might concede this point.
quote:
My belief is that there are many ways for people to come to faith
OK, with you there.
quote:
and overtly evangelistic church services can be part of the process - and a major part for some people.
...but usually the last part, after the process of acclimation (or maybe institutionalisation) is done. And since they're usually not primarily intended for people who have been brought in gradually, one has to ask... why?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
English Ploughboy.
Ship's tiller
# 4205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LydaRose:
And I knew a guy who was a hard drug dealer who was a pillar of his Bible church.
I hope he got his just deserts and was turned into a gargoyle!
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[Edited out extra citations and code.]
[ 11. May 2004, 22:04: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
Christmas: celebration of un-created love let loose upon a needy world,
Posts: 386 | From: Sussex and Rwanda | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
English Ploughboy.
Ship's tiller
# 4205
|
Posted
No one has yet mentioned what an improvement dropping a few hundred tonnes of incendary bombs can make to the message of a Gothic Cathedral. I am thinking of course of Coventry. The modern cathedral is certainly no match for the gothic splendour of the old but the two sat side by side speak volumes about the Christian message, death and resurrection, winning through against disaster and adversity, and of course their wonderful work with peace and reconciliation. A wonderful worldwide work is being done from there and I do not think that anyone could visit without being profoundly moved,truly a place for our time. I am not however advocating this for our cathedrals in general.
--------------------
Christmas: celebration of un-created love let loose upon a needy world,
Posts: 386 | From: Sussex and Rwanda | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What is the earthly good of Christianity - to glorify God. Which is most effectively (but not exclusively) done through people coming to know and trust Jesus
Agree completely. Where I think we disagree is how we understand that word "know". It's a pretty ambiguous word, covering a whole range of meanings. By "know", you seem to mean what would be rendered in French by faire sa connaissance - "make the acquaintace of" carries the meaning in English, but with an undesirable cursory connotation. You seem to mean making a first encounter.
This is but a small part (albeit an important part) of what I mean by "know[ing] Jesus". I mean connaitre; I mean the formation and the maintenance of a relationship; I mean approaching an ever deeper knowledge of the face of Christ that draws you in, consumes you, utterly transforms you. I hope the witness of people on this thread from many different traditions (and comments made on the MW thread about Coventary cathedral's new charismatic service) can show you how important cathedral ministry (in which I include simple cathedral presence) can be in this.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Since when? Every single evangelistic meeting in every church I have ever been to in the last ten years, while it may have had a subsidiary aim of bringing the fringe people closer to God, is there for the express of purpose of getting converts.
You failed to understand my last post. I don't know about your experience in your own church which seems to frustrate you, but most churches which have overtly evangelistic services recognise that they are reaching the fringe and the spiritually interested rather than those who have no experience of church. I tend to credit church leaders with a little more sophistication than you seem to. On the other hand, we could be talking about entirely different things. I am talking about 'seeker services' or whatever individual churches call them, rather than evangelistic rallies or missions, although in my experience these have their place as well.
I get the sense we're both banging our heads against a brick wall here in trying to communicate with each other. It is still my sense that you are being far too dogmatic about one of the many appropriate means of outreach.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
quote:
Originally posted by LydaRose:
.. And I knew a guy who was a hard drug dealer who was a pillar of his Bible church.
I hope he got his just deserts and was turned into a gargoyle!
Amen, brother! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[Edited out extra stuff.]
[ 11. May 2004, 22:08: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Since when? Every single evangelistic meeting in every church I have ever been to in the last ten years, while it may have had a subsidiary aim of bringing the fringe people closer to God, is there for the express of purpose of getting converts.
You failed to understand my last post. I don't know about your experience in your own church which seems to frustrate you, but most churches which have overtly evangelistic services recognise that they are reaching the fringe and the spiritually interested rather than those who have no experience of church. I tend to credit church leaders with a little more sophistication than you seem to. On the other hand, we could be talking about entirely different things. I am talking about 'seeker services' or whatever individual churches call them, rather than evangelistic rallies or missions, although in my experience these have their place as well.
I understand you perfectly. I just happen to think you're wrong.
Show me a church we're they've really thought about it that much and said so, and I might give you some ground.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I have nothing to add to the excellent comments made on this thread so far, simply to say that I myself have long felt God in the beautiful architecture of cathedrals. It is not wrong to give our best to God in art and architecture. For me, the CofE architectural tradition was a powerful pull for me in the direction of Christianity when I was not a Christian. However, it is impossible for this ever to be registered statistically.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Judging by ....the people who hide in the shadows... 'insignificant and forgotten folk'....the people on their own...the silent and hurting...people who turn up and can barely even think, much less string a sentence together....the people who stand and listen, or sit, or kneel.
Judging by the very many people who turn up at a cathedral Just in time for the prayers-on-the-hour, or evensong.
Judging by that little lot, I think Cathedrals do a fantastic job.
Where else can I go and sit/stand/kneel through a superb corporate act of worship that centres on Jesus and not get talked at...interupted...helped or ministered to?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
I recant. (I feel like Cranmer.)
If I were Rowan Williams I would not hand them over to the National Trust. Not immediately anyway.
Thanks especially Anselmina and ACOL-ite for explaining so much to me. I still have my reservations, but I understand much more. If a cathedral near you burns down soon, it won't have been me. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, Leprechaun, yesterday York Minster was a place I went to pray for my father-in-law, who is dying of cancer. So it has some uses, even for mothers of young children who don't worship there regularly.
Today I can look out of my living-room window and see its towers in the distance and remember the Christians who have lived in this place for almost two thousand years, especially the mediaeval ones who gave their life savings and their labour and (in some cases) their lives to make it. It's a witness to the glory of God in stone which is visible for miles. Every time I look at it I see the Church rooted in time and space, terrible as an army with banners (to paraphrase C.S. Lewis and the Song of Songs slightly). It makes its presence felt over a much wider area than the street evangelist who stands in St Helen's Square sometimes telling people about God: halfway up Stonegate and you're out of earshot. I think you take a far too narrow view of evangelism.
Jane R
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I recant. (I feel like Cranmer.)
If I were Rowan Williams I would not hand them over to the National Trust. Not immediately anyway.
Thanks especially Anselmina and ACOL-ite for explaining so much to me. I still have my reservations, but I understand much more. If a cathedral near you burns down soon, it won't have been me.
You're very welcome, Lep. Thankyou for forcing me into writing about my feelings - it's helped me to a better understanding of my relationship with God.
It's been a difficult day, but your post has made it feel much better.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Now I feel I do have something to add to this thread although it is not of my own opinion.
I love cathedrals. They're one of the (few) things I miss about England having emigrated about three years ago. NZ hasn't much of an architectural heritage, and current architectural theory is based around the "elegant shed" concept. Not good. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
But the point has been raised that cathedrals have great symbolic importance, they have been houses of prayer for centuries, they are the culmination of the worship of God through art. And they keep God in the marketplace, so to speak - every city in the UK has its cathedral which are as often as not some of the most important features of the skyline - such as St. Paul's in London.
Yet one might argue that this can be taken the other way...
The person who would flog them off to English Heritage could argue that their symbolic importance is very much a two-edged sword, reminding all and sundry of the 'Christian' excesses of the Dark Ages. I guess the only way to deal with that problem would be to demolish them all.
Houses of prayer: well, yes, although one could argue instead that this is of no particular importance as we can and should pray anywhere and everywhere. Or, perhaps argue that this is the point where the tradition of the church stops guiding and starts chaining.
Finally, a big empty cathedral, seen in the public eye as a magnet for tourists and scarcely as a place of worship illustrates nothing more than the decline of Christianity.
I think those who would decommission cathedrals look to a church free of the temporal shackles of rude brick and mortar, so that the church is better able to concentrate on its mission without having to worry too much about replacing the West Window.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I think it is the very fact that cathedrals are seen as a magnet for tourists that makes it seen as okay for some people (who would not normally feel comfortable going into a church in their own community) to visit. Rather like Princess Diana's death (another big picture) gave 'permission' for ordinary people to grieve.
If you come from a community where it is seen as soft to have spiritual needs, you can hide behind the tourism excuse to visit a cathedral and privately gain a lot of benefit from it.
I see it as no coincidence that, whereas churches have an increasingly aging membership, those visiting cathedrals are of very mixed ages, including those largely missing from the churches.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace*
Shipmate
# 4754
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir George Grey.:
Now I feel I do have something to add to this thread although it is not of my own opinion.
I love cathedrals. They're one of the (few) things I miss about England having emigrated about three years ago. <snip>
But the point has been raised that cathedrals have great symbolic importance, they have been houses of prayer for centuries, they are the culmination of the worship of God through art. And they keep God in the marketplace, so to speak - every city in the UK has its cathedral which are as often as not some of the most important features of the skyline - such as St. Paul's in London.
Yet one might argue that this can be taken the other way...<snip some more>
Finally, a big empty cathedral, seen in the public eye as a magnet for tourists and scarcely as a place of worship illustrates nothing more than the decline of Christianity.
With that being said, a cathedral with a beautiful facility and central location which is active in the social life of its community (weekday opening hours and services, hosting concerts/lectures, interfaith services, various good works) is, in my opinion, very much a force in the community for witnessing to the Good News of God's love for us. Generally a quiet one, but I've been on both sides of it so I know.
Charlotte
--------------------
.sig on vacation
Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
With that being said, a cathedral with a beautiful facility and central location which is active in the social life of its community (weekday opening hours and services, hosting concerts/lectures, interfaith services, various good works) is, in my opinion, very much a force in the community for witnessing to the Good News of God's love for us.
That is very true of the cathedral in my town, which is an exceedingly active center of this religious community. It is in constant use, and is frequently filled to capacity.
Its role as a magnet for tourism is somewhat in conflict with this, but the two roles coexist peacefully most of the time.
In times of tragedy, such as 9/11, places such as this are where many people turn for prayer and reassurance. During that time our cathedral was completely filled every day, mostly with strangers, for services just because it was a well known local house of worship.
Although it is in America, and is only 100 years old, it is very similar to many European cathedrals I have visited, in both feel and function.
A cathedral has a very deep emotional effect on people, being so often the scene of many significant life events. I have seen people come back to ours after some years away and just sit and weep with emotion. I have done this myself. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
While Leprechaun makes some reasonable points about use of resources in the C of E I think cathedrals are a very bad example to use in this context, for the following reasons:
i. As others have noted, some cathedrals have seen noticeable increases in attendance in recent years - I don't know if these are transfers from other churches or whether this will be sustained - but the pattern is more positive in cathedrals than in many other churches (including some evangelical churches)
ii. Cathedrals attract far more visitors than average parish churches, they are probably more likely to have visitors at their services, they host many civic services and events which attract non Christians, etc. The cathedrals I've visited all advertise courses, lectures, study groups, etc. - so there are plenty of opportunities for discipleship - I don't know how many people take advantage of them.
iii. I'm no expert on cathedral finances, but I would expect them to be in a better position to maintain themselves than many churches - many charge for admission, and they would presumably have greater access to grants from english heritage/the lottery/charitable trusts.
I would close large numbers of parish churches before closing a single cathedral.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
As Black Labrador says, cathedrals are very special and have a special ministry at which they appear to be very successful. In addition, there are many parish churches, particularly in areas where there are no cathedrals, which run on a small-scale cathedral style, for example, Minsters, Abbey churches. They too have daily services, good choral foundation and act as a central resource for area festivals (which cannot be held in smaller churches due to size, lack of parking, etc). I would argue that in more far-flung areas these churches act as 'cathedrals' for their deaneries and thus also do invaluable work. I go to a similar one myself - our nearest cathedral is about 45 miles away. Because of this, many people do seem to use our church as they would a cathedral: to light a candle, sit and pray, listen to the music, be anonymous for a while, because it is the closest thing they have got.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
No one yet has mentioned the place that the choir schools play in the expenses of a cathedral.
If The Choir by Trollope is true-to-life, it is a considerable expense indeed. The main conflict in the story was between a dean who wanted to close the choir and its school in order to redirect these expenses to the upkeep of the building, vs. various supporters of the choir who were aghast and grieved by this proposal. In this case, the choir survived, and the author made an eloquent case that the choir ought to survive and the dean was mistaken in his priorities. As long as children sing daily to the glory of God in our cathedrals, they are alive. If you want to see a dead cathedral, try France.
Over on the American side of the pond, I find it very impressive how much better known and honored the English cathedral and collegiate choirs are now than they were thirty or forty years ago when I was a student. Then, the Schwann catalog listed only a relative handful of recordings from them, and these were mostly from King's and St. John's Colleges. There were one or two from Westminster Abbey, a couple from St. Paul's, a couple from Salisbury. Anyone wanting to go beyond that would have quite a sleuthing job on his hands.
Although the classical record market as a whole is in increasingly dire straits, one finds today a relative cornucopia of recordings-- entire series, in fact-- from various English cathedral choirs. Their musical standards have palpably increased in most cases. They are now appreciated as groups of the highest caliber in the musical world at large-- belatedly IMHO, but it is a very gratifying thing to behold. Their singing serves as a model and an inspiration to many choirs in this country, and presumably all over the world.
Now back to the expenses of cathedrals, about which so much objection has been expressed in this thread: insofar as the choirs figure prominently as an expense, I must point out that this expense actually goes largely to the education of children: the choristers' remuneration is applied directly or indirectly to their schooling. Hence it is a significant charitable outlay and an investment in people. Without the opportunity to sing in the cathedral choir, these boys and girls would in many cases not be able to enjoy such a good education.
The lay clerks and organists, too, aren't usually among our wealthier citizens. They may be university students trying to pay the rent. They may be schoolteachers. Or they may hold their positions largely as labors of love-- living where they are living solely in order to sing in the choir, and trying to make ends meet from some part-time job or other that doesn't happen to conflict with their service and rehearsal schedules.
I can understand questioning whether the church is spending too much money on bricks and mortar. I can even understand questioning whether she is spending too much money on music per se (hypothetically: I doubt that any church spends too much these days in practice). But I find it very hard to see any goodwill in questioning money spent on the education of a child. Please let us bear in mind that the cathedrals are in this line of work significantly.
Children are among the poor we make so much noise about wanting to help as an alternative to "spending money on cathedrals." They are also among the souls that we wish to evangelize. The issue raised is, to that extent, purely a false dichotomy.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It is also worth remembering, lest anyone think that cathedrals are only interested in an elite of independent education, that they work extensively with schools in the state sector as well, holding festivals, exhibitions, study days, for any church or secular schools which wish to come along.
(Added to which, any child with a good, clear voice can be offered a choral scholarship - and many places are heavily subsidised so that children are not barred because of lack of parental income).
I have many happy memories of attending Exeter Cathedral as a child, for a schools' festival, where art, music, history and faith all combined to make a very special day out. I'm glad to see that these events are still counted as very important.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ange_joyeux
Apprentice
# 6719
|
Posted
To me, cathedrals are glorious channels through which we touch the past, similar to the pyramids of Egypt. I love the beauty and cultural significance of the stained-glass panes in many cathedrals and I think of them as beautiful historical art pieces that are hung in a church instead of an art museum.
For me, the true immense, powerful and lasting testaments to the glory of God, are the Cascade Mountains that rise in majesty in my front window and the magnificent and vast Pacific Ocean sparkling in my back window.
Driving thru British Columbia and Alberta several years ago, I was blown away by the grandeur of the Canadian Rockies as a stunning panorama greeted us at every turn of the highway. Miles and miles of majestic beauty that I believe that are the true monuments of the work of our Lord; God’s own temples.
Ange
--------------------
It is better to entertain an idea than to take it home to live with you for the rest of your life.
Posts: 5 | From: Pacific NW USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
