quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian:
hmm. maybe the church *is* beyond saving if all we can do is debate authority & power structures. there's a lot more to being church than fitting in with the power structure of your chosen denomination.

surely we're gonna have to think beyond these confines if the church is to ever re-engage with the real world?

---

I think you're right Adrian ( did I really say that? ). I think that the church is worth saving, both in the sense of the denominational structures and the people. But I also think that the church needs to change radically in its approach to being church. We need a new ecclesiology, because the old one is not working any more. But in as much as the church can and will change, it will survive. But very different from what it looks today, both in terms of structures and in terms of its place and role in the community it serves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosemary:
Although I don't think big numbers are the be and end all, it seems to me that something must be wrong when we are down to 7-8 per cent of the population and many people who are leaving are people who would define themselves quite strongly as Christians.

---

Yep - I agree ( Now I've read to the end of the thread ). The problem is not numbers as such, but about where people are finding their spiritual home. If people are leaving the church ( as they are ), but still wanting to be Christians, then surely the church is failing in one of its primary purposes, to be the gathered body of Christians.

I know many CofE parishes that are not only doing the traditional church things, but also reacting to Post-Modernism. However many are not, and I am fairly convinced that the Idea of church as insular community is something which won't work in the future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:

Im very tempted to start a new website "FutureShapeOfChurch.co.uk" to look at different models for doing church.

---

quote:

---

different models for doing church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Fashioned Crab:
What an ugly phrase. Sounds like a bodily function.

---

I think the Church as it is at present is beyond saving and deservedly so. There seems to be an over-emphasis on worldliness and a grasping for more money to keep the church building open; vicars complain of near-poverty when they know nothing about poverty (they ought to try living on the minimum wage indefinitely WITH rent to pay!); maybe I'm going to the wrong church, but mine seems to be nothing more than a mildly religious social club for gentlefolk.

Seriously, I have sympathy with your points, to an extent. But I also agree that your view of the early church is as much coloured by 21st Century perspectives as anything. The early church was not ( necessarily ) poor, but they did excercise come degree of community living.

The church today can be a social club for the middle classes, but it doesn't have to be. Clergy are often poor, although ( quite rightly ) not at poverty levels. But their expenses can be high.

quote:

---

Clergy are often poor, although ( quite rightly ) not at poverty levels. But their expenses can be high.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
unfortunately some of the blame in my generation has to be placed at the housechurch leaders' door - they conducted a concerted campaign back in the 1970s to knock the CofE (and other established denominations) as much as possible, to persuade young worshippers to switch to their brand of Christianity which supposedly was more 'alive'. The trouble was, they were very effective at the church knocking but not so effective at the permanent recruiting, therefore far more people were persuaded to leave the church than to change to a different denomination. The church does not get saved by other Christians rubbishing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Of course, it would be silly to claim that this was anything but a minor reason for people leaving the church in general - after all, far more people are leaving the church than are going to other denominations.

---

Of course it would, Wood (!), but much of the growth alleged by housechurch leaders was actually a shifting round from other denominations. If someone was not a Christian ( in their view) until they demonstrated either an emotional religious experience or speaking in tongues, then they could claim people were converted.

However, what I find more disturbing was the influence the housechurch had on the charismatic movement within the Anglican church. My perception of renewal in the 70's was of a gentle movement within the Church, which took account of both suffering and joys in the life. This was hijacked by a far more aggressive and triumphalist approach which seemed to major on joy and downplay the role suffering/coping with everyday life figures in spirituality. Therefore when people came across difficulties, they could not admit to them, and dropped out of church. Not the only reason for the decline of the church, but an important one nevertheless.

One of the big plusses of alt worship IMO is that both suffering and joy can be incorporated, because it is very much about where you are with God, and leaves a lot more room for individual response to God because the framework is much looser. Similarly, there are more linkages with spirituality and life outside church issues e.g. Urban Mass, and Adrian's stuff on the Holy City.

But if people are too browned off with church, it can be a big step back even into alt worship, which again, means numbers can be low, especially if the existing group is small and taken up with planning worship, and therefore may have little time to nurture and fan the flames of hope alive in those who are burned out on church.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosemary:
Of course it would, Wood (!), but much of the growth alleged by housechurch leaders was actually a shifting round from other denominations. If someone was not a Christian ( in their view) until they demonstrated either an emotional religious experience or speaking in tongues, then they could claim people were converted.

However, what I find more disturbing was the influence the housechurch had on the charismatic movement within the Anglican church. My perception of renewal in the 70's was of a gentle movement within the Church, which took account of both suffering and joys in the life. This was hijacked by a far more aggressive and triumphalist approach which seemed to major on joy and downplay the role suffering/coping with everyday life figures in spirituality. Therefore when people came across difficulties, they could not admit to them, and dropped out of church. Not the only reason for the decline of the church, but an important one nevertheless.

---

Well done, Rosemary, this was pretty much what I was trying to say, only you said it so much better.

This whole debate reminds me of that between Dr Lloyd-Jones and Stott 40 odd years ago, where the Evangelicals couldn't decide (or fell out about at least) to stay in or out of the traditional denominations. I think Alt.Worship having the same argument is a bit sad and suggests the church hasn't really grown up that much.

My vision for church is compatable with the established church. It might work outside of it as well.

I want church to be in the community, rather than just a community or instead of the community.

I want worship to be multisensual and interactive, open and explorative in its various forms.

I want tradition to be the wider story that we are part of, that what we do is part of a larger whole.

I want ministers who are guides and representatives not leaders and managers.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Well done, Rosemary, this was pretty much what I was trying to say, only you said it so much better.

What is interesting is the different conclusion you have come to: you use this as a basis for putting forward alt.worship as the next step; I on the other hand decided to reject the message that the Cof E was rotten and beyond redemption (which I happen to think was a very warped view borne out of bitterness of the housechurch leaders at that time) and consequently made an effort to stay within the established church. Probably was much easier to do this than for people who have gone right away to then come back - a huge step for some.

---

it's funny the way we discuss being in/outside the Church. to me it's important to keep in mind the distinction between the Church as the Body of Christ and the Church as the sum total of denominations and organisations. right now the two are nowhere near the same thing. we are the Church, in one sense, in so far as we are believers at all, so we don't 'leave' it by moving outside the usual structures. i'm not one of those who sees the structures we've inherited as being ordained by God to be the only correct containers for believers - i think they're more fallible and contingent than that, and can therefore be challenged or stepped outside if necessary.

but i mean this in a different way to how the house churches, or other seceding groups in history, saw it. they stepped outside the existing structures and then damned the people still in them as 'not real christians'. and in doing so, [among other faults] they perpetuated the identification of the Body of true believers with such-and-such an organisation - except it was their organisation now that embodied true belief not someone elses. but for alt worshippers any separation from the usual structures is a practical move to gain space to do something that seems necessary, not a claim to be the new true Church of Christ. OK we may rubbish the structures, but we're not thereby rubbishing people's faith - just suggesting that that faith could be better expressed through different [maybe not totally different] structures.

speaking for grace, we just do what we do and don't worry about our position wrt the denomination except on those occasions when there's a direct conflict. and when that happens we're more inclined to kick the powers-that-be to change their ways than secede from them. i suspect this might be an anglican position, because it assumes that 1. you can belong to the denomination from a wide range of theological positions and practices and 2. that the denomination ought to make space for you to be different or move about. some other denominations take a more restrictive view, and those who won't fit in have to leave. i don't think it's any accident that the majority of worship experiments are in the c of e.

quote:

---

but i mean this in a different way to how the house churches, or other seceding groups in history, saw it. they stepped outside the existing structures and then damned the people still in them as 'not real christians'. and in doing so, [among other faults] they perpetuated the identification of the Body of true believers with such-and-such an organisation - except it was their organisation now that embodied true belief not someone elses.

---

uh... this is fairly sweeping. And perhaps also inaccurate and judgemental! Not that there are no house churches like this - I know there are. But my experience has been entirely different; in fact apart from the odd alt worship thing (which still seems steeped in anglicanism, and as such is often difficult for me to relate to) the people that i know who do think outside the box about the nature and structure of church and do re-examine the whys and wherefores of the community of faith are invariably from a house church background. Whatever context you find yourself in, there are extremes; some house churches will be so many miles up their own arses they won't be able to see truth or worship in any other christian tradition, but that is also true of some anglicans. And house churches and anglican churches may find themselves being really open-minded and experimental and drawing on and accepting of a spectrum of traditions. I don't think any sweeping can be done!

quote:

---

1. you can belong to the denomination from a wide range of theological positions and practices and 2. that the denomination ought to make space for you to be different or move about.

---

And perhaps there is a warning for us all in that any movement that starts off something new can easily become institutionalised in a very short space of time.

Having just said a whole load of stuff about how Alt.Worship is a myth or is just about Worship I seem to recall that we were chucked out of our house church not because we did Alt.Worship type things in a our Cell group, but because this lead to some logical conclusions about what Leadership should really mean ..

Of course for me being Anglican is a radical act of Post-Modern defiance. i bacame an Anglican by accident and by choice, but soo discovered that in the tradition i was in many people were excited and supportive of experimental worship.

Whatever "the Church" may be as it expresses itself today seems so far removed from whatever we can glean from Jesus' life and teaching via the gospels that it doesn't seem worth saving.

Question I often ask myself is: WHAT exactly are people trying to "save"? My (admittedly cynical) suspicion is that people want to save power structures, hierarchical systems, comfortable traditons. In other words, most - possibly all - of the things that Jesus seems to have found objectionable, and which conspired to kill him in the first place.

And yet, there is also much that is worthy ...

However, since today I still believe in resurrection, I have no fear whatever for the safety of the Church. My greater suspcion is that what passes for Church today actually needs to cark it, so that something decent and worthy can be raised in its place.

MacIain

quote:

---

"Sicut Patribus sit Deus nobis."
"Yes, but they didn't have electricity - or computers."
"Good point, dude."

---

When I was stationed here in my first post as a minister one of the 'attributes' that the church were looking for in their minister was some who was community minded.

Now on one level that makes perfect sense I am in a rural setting and we all live almost in each other pockets (with fields between). But ... as time has progressed I have come to realise more and more that I am not seen as Caistor Methodist's Minister but as Caistor's Methodist Minister.

I know to many that is a subtlety in typo but in reality it offers me access and in roads into the lives of all of the folk in this area and not just the church goers or the schools.

I am welcomed into the homes and lives of people from all walks of life - believers and not, seekers and contented landers, all denominations or non ............

quote:

---

MacIain assured us:
[QB]However, since today I still believe in resurrection, I have no fear whatever for the safety of the Church. My greater suspcion is that what passes for Church today actually needs to cark it, so that something decent and worthy can be raised in its place.

---

Welcome to Small Fire MacIain, if no-ones already said that.

What shape do you think this 'decent and worthy thing' might take?

I notice I am coming to this thread late, and the rest of y'all are argued out, but the question is practically calling to myself to respond, and at legnth.

I humbly ask your forgiveness, first of all, because I come from a California United Methodist background, and I have little idea what the situation is in Anglican circles. I am also rather conservative in style for someone in their 20s (not conservative in politics however, just ask my girlfriend).

When I attended university four years ago, I immediatley joined the local church and choir. I was the youngest in the choir by about 20 years. Being in a uni town, and seeing a college-age woman, in a town notorious for partying and worldliness, actually coming looking for spirituality, my pastor tried several times in my tenure there to start a college-aged group. Usually it was myself and her, sitting in her office, wondering where those who promised they'd be there were at.

Because of my personal spiritual journey, I felt corporate worship, in a building with liturgy and an organ and all that were what I needed to aid in my growth. But I was always on the lookout for more. One of my specialties at Uni became Comparative Religions. Something I discovered in all my studies was that when another religious tradition had an aspect that appealed to myself (Buddhisim and meditation, Wicca and respect for nature, etc.), I could find a correlation in my own tradition (Centering prayer, St. Francis' writings, etc.).

I believe that the key to 'saving' the church (bringing people together to grow spiritually together) is fourfold:

1) Educational opportunities: Discover the history and richness of tradition.
2) Accessibility: Allow people to meet on neutral ground, off of church property, to learn, then invite them to other events, such as Sunday Morning/Afternoon/Evening.
3) Attention to population: Is the church surrounded by pubs? Have a late Saturday service. Is it surrounded by suburb where everyone commutes to the city? Don't plan events during business hours.
4) Advertisement: Spend a little cash on flyers, let the people know what you are doing, when you are doing it, and who's invited. Do you know what trouble I am having to find a church in my new area that will impose ashes for Ash Wednesday?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosemary:
My feeling is that if the vicar was more of an enabler who taught people how to feed/learn/develop their spiritual lives themselves, rather than being a teacher/leader, this might be one factor which reduces the flow out of the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Fashioned Crab:My vicar lives in a nine bedroom house alone!

---

*jaw drops*

Good Lord, how many children do they have?

quote:

---

Good Lord, how many children do they have?

---

[fixed fever induced typo's]

quote:

---

it seems to me that something must be wrong when we are down to 7-8 per cent of the population and many people who are leaving are people who would define themselves quite strongly as Christians.

---

Darn, we never DID get a nice big house. ut then the vicars we know who do have, shut several rooms in the winter as they can't afford to heat them!

quote:

---

But... aren't they 'church'?

---

i totally agree, gill. i think we'd get quite a shock if we could see the actual contours of the Church [as Body of Christ] compared to the contours of the Church [as institutions]. the big question is, what do the 'structures' [i use the work loosely] of mutual support and community among the faithful need to be for the 21st century?

quote:

---

We have had cold houses, but we've always had food.

---

even wealthy people lived like this before the 20th century. queen victoria's houses were notoriously, bitterly cold. visiting politicians had to walk the corridors to stay warm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QUOTE]qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
[QB]Those vicarages left are often where it is simply impractical to build a new vicarage close enough to the church. Must admit I always thought a big house was one of the few perks of such a lowly paid job.
QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian:
you being sarcy ed?
what is the average stipend these days, about £16,000?
that's quite a good wage round these parts.

---

the last lot of discussions I have read have all centred around the Church of England --- for goodness sakes what about the others!

Church to my mind is deifined as a gathering of people it is NOT I REPEAT NOT limited to the Anglican trdaition - and Blow what you think of the stiopend seeing as most ministers / vicars/ pastors work on a 24? 7 basis for that amount I think they do well to survive given the calls on their times the numerous attitudes, arguments, debates and other criticisms they face from all quarters and having to deal with downright pig headed individuals who leave theirt local c grpouping on a whim becuase of some small reason which ahs little to do with Jesus quite often at the end of the day.
Ministers and the like are only trying to do their best under God - and at least God loves them even if the worshipping people round them take affront.

YOU HAVE MADE ME REWALLY CROSS AND THAT TAKES SOME DOING!!!!!

Widen your horizons and practise some charity along the way --- and GET REAL.

I'm glad you feel better Umbrella, although I would have preferred you to vent in hell.

There are two issues you are raising.

First is the Bias towards the Church of England. I think this is a fair criticism, but it is true that the CofE very clearly exhibits the sort of problems we have been discussing: It has a lot of failure and a lot of success and is big enough to take criticism. It doesn't claim to have all the answers, although certain factions within it do. We could all pick on the Methodists, the URC, or a House Church denomination if you would prefer .

Second is the clergy issue. There are good and bad clergy and wages vary. I don't think we are picking on them.

If you have something more measured to contribute please go ahead.