|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Bridges and new congregations
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Is the best way forward for growth in a church to offer new services for new congregations (aimed at specific targets eg unchurched, de-churched, young families, etc) alongside the traditional, so that there are various congregations making up one church, rather than to plug away at trying to make the traditional attractive to newcomers?
Is there a bridge that anyone has experience of between unchurched and churched congregations?
[ 10. January 2015, 16:52: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is the best way forward for growth in a church to offer new services for new congregations (aimed at specific targets eg unchurched, de-churched, young families, etc) alongside the traditional, so that there are various congregations making up one church, rather than to plug away at trying to make the traditional attractive to newcomers?
Is there a bridge that anyone has experience of between unchurched and churched congregations?
Not quite answering your question but I think the best approach is to focus on making disciples, and let God build the church. The Great Commission is to 'make disciples' - I've heard and read a few different authors, theologians etc. say that if we focus on making disciples then church will naturally happen as a consequence.
On the specifics in your question, I find the idea of having different church services happening in the same building under the same 'umbrella' all a bit weird, to be honest. For me, a church is a community of people seeking to demonstrate Jesus and extend his kingdom in their particular part of the world. So if there are two different congregations with little or no mixing between the two then I'd think of them as two separate churches really.
So, given all that, my personal take on it is that the whole church should gather together regularly. If that means changing some aspects of the service so it's more helpful and relevant for newcomers then make those changes. On the other hand, if there are other churches in the area that have more 'modern' style gatherings then maybe keep your services as they are and encourage new Christians or interested people to check out those other churches.
Making disciples is the key thing - introducing people to Jesus and helping them become his followers. Which church they join, or even whether they band together with a few other people and start a new church themselves, is far less important IMO...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
This is an interesting question. Some of the biggest growth in the Diocese of London has been among "cross-tradition" churches (there is even an official term for them now!). Some offer an early Sung Eucharist with a later morning informal service - St Peter's Bow, is one example. More common perhaps now is to find less formal evening services as an alternative to the traditional morning service. These seem particularly attractive to students.
A church near me has adopted this pattern so it's a smells and bells Sung Eucharist in the morning, and gentle charismatic in the evening with Holy Communion once a month (robes are only worn on these occasions). So a building previously closed on Sunday evening is now open and among their evening congregation of around 50 are a mixture of complete newcomers, several who attend both services, and local methodists who no longer have their own evening services. I understand the church community comes together for ocassional additional mid week celebrations that include elements of both traditions.
Clearly this can work if you have a Vicar that can embrace both approaches, a congregation willing to experiment, and a building that can easily adapt to accomodate both patterns.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Thank you Liturgylover. I can't see that it can be any other way if we're hoping to reach diverse groups of people and bring them together to worship.
I know what you're saying, South Coast Kevin, but istm that there are two arms with which we must embrace people, the 'go' mission arm which goes out to give people the good news, and the 'come' welcome arm which invites them into the fold, the community which worships together.
Traditional liturgy is gobbledegook to many an unchurched seeker, and the expectation of participation off-putting without the familiarity that comes with perseverance. The Fresh Expressions and informal services which may attract and keep newcomers are a good thing imv. Although some seem disappointed that they don't always migrate over time, I can't see why having two congregations in one church is any different from having two congregations in two churches, other than the fact that both will be under the same organisational umbrella. It would seem odd to go out to reach people and tell them to attend another church for worship, one that cares enough to cater for their needs while we don't.
I do however think that there needs to be bridges between the two congregations, to avoid rivalry and encourage cross-fertilisation of ideas, bring together the gifts of the spirit. Perhaps the fruit of the spirit in action in the community will do this, as individuals work side by side.
Just thinking aloud here. All comments welcome.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The only thoughts I can offer are thinking aloud ones ...
Our parish church has two services, one with a more traditional style at 9am which largely attracts older people and a more 'informal' one at 11am which tends to attract younger people with young families ...
There is some overlap but many - particularly the older people - feel that it has effectively split the church into two congregations. There is a coffee time in between the services where the two groups are meant to mix.
It doesn't feel a particularly satisfactory arrangement to me but numbers seem to be fairly stable at both ... with some 'fringe' people drawn in to each to a certain extent - although more so with the more 'interactive' (and I'd say, dumbed-down ...) 11am service.
Not sure what the answer is though.
I share South Coast Kevin's concern about effectively there being two separate congregations under the same roof ...
I think a 'mixed model' can work but it requires hard work.
I'm not so convinced that traditional liturgies are, in and of themselves, such a huge turn off to the previously unchurched as we think they are ... but I suspect that's because I've gravitated that way rather than remaining in the more 'informal' happy-clappy style of things that appealed to me in my yoof ...
The fact is, I had to become acclimatised to those too. They didn't immediately appeal to me, I was gradually enculturated into that way of doing things ...
It seems to me that whatever style we adopt there is a process of that kind ... no form of church is an immediate 'hit'. People don't simply walk through the door, get 'zapped' in some way and then stay the course ...
People are largely 'socialised' into the Kingdom and into church life.
I'm all for 'bridges' but I think they tend to work best where the 'architecture' of the bridge - if you like - mirrors to some extent the internal 'architecture' and style of the community that the bridge is leading towards ...
I'm using the term architecture in the figurative sense of course, not in terms of bricks and mortar ... although that can come into it.
So, there'd be no point in having a 'bridge' constructed of metal girders and steel hawsers that leads to a church/community constructed of mellow Cotswold stone ... or, conversely, an arched pack-horse bridge with cobbles and setts that leads into a warehouse type structure full of mixing desks and amps ...
The bridge must arise organically out of the style/tradition of the community itself. That should be the starting point. Any innovation should be in keeping with the community and its values.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I find the idea of having different church services happening in the same building under the same 'umbrella' all a bit weird, to be honest. For me, a church is a community of people seeking to demonstrate Jesus and extend his kingdom in their particular part of the world. So if there are two different congregations with little or no mixing between the two then I'd think of them as two separate churches really.
They are two separate churches. Indeed, this is the point; for example, Fresh Expressions aim to reach a different group of people from the group who meet at the 'normal' time and in the 'normal' way.
In reality, churchgoers are often unwilling to make the necessary changes to be able to worship together effectively with the target group (be that to do with age, ethnicity, culture, or whatever). A former Methodist President of Conference criticised older Methodists who mainly wanted to attract young people in order to give their congregations a psychological boost and to provide the manpower for their inherited form of church. This isn't going to happen, except in the case of young clergy whose see their role as ministering to elderly congregations.
From the bluntly pragmatic perspective of someone who knows about struggling mainstream congregations, I'd say that the transformation and diversification of one congregation must be more manageable (although very difficult) than trying to run two congregations on limited funds and manpower.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is the best way forward for growth in a church to offer new services for new congregations (aimed at specific targets eg unchurched, de-churched, young families, etc) alongside the traditional, so that there are various congregations making up one church, rather than to plug away at trying to make the traditional attractive to newcomers?
TBH, I don't see that creating a single 'traditional' congregation is possible in most places. Even those parishes who describe themselves as 'traditional' will probably have an early Sunday service of Matins or Saud Eucharist, followed by a later 'parish service' and perhaps Evensong. In few cases will the various congregations even meet, let alone worship together. YMMV.
All mission must start and end with God - but I would expect it to offer different things to different people.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The best place I've seen bridging work is where there is a well-established social programme. Although people may worship in different groups, they can come together for meals, fun evenings, study nights, away days, etc.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I have seen bridging most effectively applied in a francophone RC parish across the river from Ottawa, where they have at least three congregations, Latin Mass, mainstream guitar, and semi-charismatic. They have a strong social outreach and catechetical programme and the curé tells me that his real pastoral job is seeing that it is well-staffed with volunteers-- he tells me that while the parishioners might not like to speak with each other, as long as they work together he thinks it's a good start.
I have also spoken with clerics who feel that the existence of different congregations in their parishes is a tragedy and, in one case, he decided to close down the early morning service to ensure a greater turnout at the 10.30. Some research showed that the 20+ of the early service simply went to an early service at another nearby parish. I still don't see what the problem is with a multi-congregational parish. More people, therefore more volunteers. Not everybody likes the same thing. It also provides a reception point for developing ethnic ministries which can, in some cases, be great reviving forces in aging parishes.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I'm strongly of the opinion that there should only be one liturgy in any given church that everyone attends. Converts receive catechism which includes getting used to and learning about the liturgy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm strongly of the opinion that there should only be one liturgy in any given church that everyone attends. Converts receive catechism which includes getting used to and learning about the liturgy.
But aren't you coming from a different premise to some others here? That is, they're saying "Have different liturgies and worship styles that will appeal to different kinds of people" while you're saying "The Church has one Liturgy that has remained static over the ages, people need to adapt to that"?
I can see pluses and minuses in both approaches.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Yes, I come from a different premise, though I wouldn't quite describe it as you have. I find the idea of a beginners (include in that children's) liturgy condescending, doctrinally suspicious and contrary to unity.
[ 12. February 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
FE is not about producing "beginner's liturgy". FE is not about providing "ways in" to "real church" at all. It is about being church, but doing it in a different way. Any service put on to try to to draw people in but then funnel them into the "real service" is not an FE at all. FEs aim to be real churche, or congregations, in and of themselves.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Then we get into arguments and discussion as to what constitutes 'real' church, of course. Something like Messy Church, for instance, wouldn't constitute 'real' church in Ad Orientem's book.
Nor would a bunch of people meeting in Starbucks to discuss spiritual issues.
It all depends on what we mean by 'church' and whether we take a 'reductionist' approach to that - 'where two or three gather in my name' - or a maximalist approach which asserts that certain non-negotiables have to be in place for it to be considered church ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I'm trying not to be partisan here. Neither is my point about liturgy v non-liturgy (though naturally I do have certain views regarding this, which everyone probably knows). It is about everyone worshipping together as a body, rather than seperately with different modes.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm trying not to be partisan here. Neither is my point about liturgy v non-liturgy (though naturally I do have certain views regarding this, which everyone probably knows). It is about everyone worshipping together as a body, rather than seperately with different modes.
I don't see why they have to.
While I would like to recreate the early church with the worshipping community around their bishop, presbyters helping out and deacons primed to serve the community, but with a number of different congregations in the same city, that model's been gone for a few centuries. Having sold that pass about 13-14 centuries ago....
That there might be different congregations in the same building and parish structure would seem to me to be just a variation on this.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm trying not to be partisan here. Neither is my point about liturgy v non-liturgy (though naturally I do have certain views regarding this, which everyone probably knows). It is about everyone worshipping together as a body, rather than seperately with different modes.
I don't see why they have to.
While I would like to recreate the early church with the worshipping community around their bishop, presbyters helping out and deacons primed to serve the community, but with a number of different congregations in the same city, that model's been gone for a few centuries. Having sold that pass about 13-14 centuries ago....
That there might be different congregations in the same building and parish structure would seem to me to be just a variation on this.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I don't buy that. There's no reason why that should not be the case now and indeed, my experience from my own tradition confirms that: everyone attends the same liturgy at their nearest Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
I've seen first hand that the model of a church with two or more services (especially where one is traditional and the other contemporary in style) can be successful. One in particular, where my wife used to work, had two traditional services, at 8:30 and 11. Concurrently, and in a different part of the church, they had two contemporary services, at 9 and 11. For about a year they also had a third contemporary service at 11 that met about two miles away in an old skating rink. (No, they didn't wear skates, although it was suggested several times.)
This type of thing can work, and United Methodists do it often. It's almost always a larger church (150 avg. attendance or larger) that is situated in a suburban or urban area, where there are many younger families. I've seen churches in rural areas try to start something like that, and there usually aren't enough people -- both congregants and leaders -- to sustain it past the first year or so. Usually when the pastor who is behind it is appointed elsewhere, it begins to fail.
I think that to be done well it requires several things. First, the contemporary and the traditional services need to be markedly different. "Blended" is the latest fad around here, and honestly it's such a chimera that it just doesn't do well. It is better to have either one or the other, and if choosing to do one or more of each, make them distinctive.
Second, those churches where the senior (or only) pastor preaches at both would do well to learn the differences. Preaching at a traditional service is going to be different than preaching at a contemporary service. For one thing, preaching at the contemporary service is going to be more informal, more conversational. I find preachers who read manuscripts don't connect as well with the contemporary audience, unless they are excellent readers who do not ever sound as though they are using a manuscript. But it is usually better to be able to use no notes or an outline.
Finally, there needs to be things in common between all the various congregations that make up the church. One of the best ways is an outward-looking vision that bases everything the church does around a common local mission project. For instance, one shipmate is pastoring a church whose mission is "no child in [town] in need." Everything that church does goes first through the net of that premise. So there is a sense of shared ministry. With Bible studies, Sunday School classes (American, not UK), mission opportunities, and so forth there is a way for everyone who attends to grow closer, no matter which service they prefer.
I come from a church background that is connectional. We are all different parts of one church, no matter if we are in West Podunk, AL or way out in rural Nigeria or on the upper east side of Manhattan. It's really no different for a church with only one service to be connected to the whole than it is for those of several services at one church to be connected to the whole -- both the local church and the global Church.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, I come from a different premise, though I wouldn't quite describe it as you have. I find the idea of a beginners (include in that children's) liturgy condescending, doctrinally suspicious and contrary to unity.
Agreed.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Slag it off, call it "beginners liturgy". Call it dumbed down. Do whatever makes you feel suitably superior. Fact is, without these alternatives, our family would not be attending church at all. I think some people here would actually prefer it that way.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't buy that. There's no reason why that should not be the case now and indeed, my experience from my own tradition confirms that: everyone attends the same liturgy at their nearest Church.
Hm. Perhaps we are talking about different things. I was referring to the early church model, such as we read about at the time of S Cyprian, in every place where there are Christians, there is a bishop with a single church, celebrating at the liturgy on Sunday with the clergy and people around him. The historically-odd film Agora gives you a good visual.
When population grew, local parishes came to form, and this picture changed. Let me give you an example. In my own city (Ottawa, pop 883,000), there are about 50,000 Anglicans, currently using around 25 churches-- I suppose on a Sunday about 3,000-4,000 or so are in church. To bring them together in one place from an area of 50km by 30km is not practical.
Even if we focus on a non-Cyprianic model, some of us live in places where there is a multiplicity of languages. If I were RC, my nearest 5 churches are francophone (2), Polish, German, or Croatian. And my nearest Anglican church houses two distinct parishes, one using Cantonese and the other English. So nearest wouldn't work for anglophone RCs on my street.
The model you describe is one which I think most of my friends among the clergy and those active in congregations would love. However, we live in a society where a single service and a single model of of services and a single schedule would not likely well serve a very diverse population. While I'm not sure what does that best, we perhaps need to be flexible for a while.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Slag it off, call it "beginners liturgy". Call it dumbed down. Do whatever makes you feel suitably superior. Fact is, without these alternatives, our family would not be attending church at all. I think some people here would actually prefer it that way.
But if you consider there to be one objectively correct way of doing church services (one liturgy etc.), then the experience of your family and everyone else in the same boat is by the by.
It's not necessarily about feelings of superiority, rather it's about considering something to be a settled fact which others (including you and me) consider to be up for spirited discussion and negotiation.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Slag it off, call it "beginners liturgy". Call it dumbed down. Do whatever makes you feel suitably superior. Fact is, without these alternatives, our family would not be attending church at all. I think some people here would actually prefer it that way.
But if you consider there to be one objectively correct way of doing church services (one liturgy etc.), then the experience of your family and everyone else in the same boat is by the by.
It's not necessarily about feelings of superiority, rather it's about considering something to be a settled fact which others (including you and me) consider to be up for spirited discussion and negotiation.
Actually, I think some of the posts on this subject, here and in the past, have positively reeked of superiority, not to mention smug disregard of those to whom the posters feel superior, and I'm frankly sick to the back teeth of it, to the "well fuck you, then" level.
[ 12. February 2014, 13:26: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can certainly understand those sentiments - and hope that I'm not one of those responsible for inducing them ...
Without wishing to 'take sides' or diss anyone's theology, ecclesiology or experience ... I wouldn't be surprised if, sooner or later, the Orthodox and other more conservatively liturgical forms of Christianity have to introduce 'bridging' techniques of one form or other if they are to stand any chance of gaining converts in an increasingly post-Christian society.
That needn't mean that they compromise the Liturgy etc ...
But it is a fact that the Orthodox Liturgy is an acquired taste and generally speaking, one can only 'clock' what's going on if one already has some kind of familiarity with Anglican or RC liturgies or the broad shape of what such a liturgy looks like ...
I'm sure there are previously unchurched people who can engage with it but only after a fairly lengthy period of exposure/assimilation.
I think that's true, though, of any church service to a greater or lesser extent.
I don't know what Karl Liberal Backslider and his family found so objectionable about previous church affiliations but I'm happy they're happy where they are now ...
I may or may not have found the alternatives objectionable. I don't know. I'm not Karl nor am I his family. I would have to walk in their shoes to understand the issues.
That said, I do worry a bit about an endless plethora of supposedly 'fresh' ways of doing church ... surely to goodness there can only be so many ways of organising a church service or meeting of whatever description ...
Whatever the case, though, none of us have the apparent luxury of being monolithic here in the UK nor in the West in general.
You could be monolithic if your Church was the only game in town - other than some heretics and schismatics here and there ... but we're way, way, way past that stage in the West (and increasingly in the Orthodox East too) and we can't shut the stable door once the horse has bolted.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure there are previously unchurched people who can engage with [the Orthodox Liturgy] but only after a fairly lengthy period of exposure/assimilation.
I think that's true, though, of any church service to a greater or lesser extent.
But with some churches, I think it is true to a much lesser extent. Which, in my view, is something thoroughly worth aiming for, so that newcomers and 'seekers' aren't presented with an unnecessary barrier to joining in with the community of Jesus-followers.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
IME, it's not whether or not one can engage with the liturgy. It's whether or not one can feel an accepted part of the church community. If one is a bit alternative, subculturally different from the local church community norm, or just too young, then that's where the problems come. Or did for us, anyway. Service style wasn't actually the issue, at least not insurmountably; acceptance and belonging were.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure there are previously unchurched people who can engage with it but only after a fairly lengthy period of exposure/assimilation.
And that's exactly how it should be. Such are catechumens. Perhaps it's precisely because the catechumenate is non-existant in most churches that converts are unable to assimilate?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure there are previously unchurched people who can engage with it but only after a fairly lengthy period of exposure/assimilation.
And that's exactly how it should be. Such are catechumens. Perhaps it's precisely because the catechumenate is non-existant in most churches that converts are unable to assimilate?
Converts? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I don't see what is so funny, that is, unless you're saying that there are no such thing as converts?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't see what is so funny, that is, unless you're saying that there are no such thing as converts?
Well, I don't see very many of them around here. But IME the people who are turned off by existing congregations are seldom converts - they're more often those on the church fringe or disillusioned folk from within the church. Converts by comparison, IM (some time ago when I last saw one) E dive enthusiastically into whatever congregation they're converted into.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Thank you all for sharing your experiences, and for illustrating so beautifully the issues churches are facing.
The 'converts' question is one of the interesting aspects of the problem. Do people usually become converts before or after they are drawn into any church? My conversion came first. Can those who are 'churched' begin to comprehend what it is like for an unchurched adult to walk into a church for the first time, and to attempt to join in with the worship?
It's not 'dumbing down' but 'reaching out' to embrace new people into Christianity and its language with sensitivity that is surely called for? This means breaking down any barriers that tradition has forged, as per the example of Jesus, doesn't it?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Can those who are 'churched' begin to comprehend what it is like for an unchurched adult to walk into a church for the first time, and to attempt to join in with the worship?
I imagine this experience is different depending on personality of the visitor. We tend to imagine that everyone comes in wanting to understand everything and participate fully from the first moments. I think most visitors want to observe first and want to experience an authentic service (what's normally done in that place), and they expect there will be at least a few things that will take some time to learn about.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
People with young families do see things differently - I remember doing so myself (and temporarily going to a different church in order to keep going through those busy and somewhat difficult years). But not everyone has a young family and sometimes require something deeper than a Messy Church experience. Those whose young families grow up may start yearning once again for what they valued in the years B.C. (before children!) So you are always going to need more than a one-size-fits-all approach.
In my experience, the church was starting to head that way rather well, ten to twenty years or so ago. But then the crisis happened where churches started to find it difficult to even offer one service a week, let alone two or more (particularly in smaller, more rural churches) - due to overstretched staffing levels. Only a few really large churches are able to offer more than one main service each Sunday. So the danger is ending up with a mish-mash, with which nobody is satisfied.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I think most visitors want to observe first and want to experience an authentic service (what's normally done in that place), and they expect there will be at least a few things that will take some time to learn about.
What's normally done in that place at that time will make all the difference regarding any second visit, as will the reception as others have pointed out.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IME, it's not whether or not one can engage with the liturgy. It's whether or not one can feel an accepted part of the church community. If one is a bit alternative, subculturally different from the local church community norm, or just too young, then that's where the problems come. Or did for us, anyway. Service style wasn't actually the issue, at least not insurmountably; acceptance and belonging were.
Apologies, I've got the wrong end of the stick to some extent. What you're describing is worse, though. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Even if the rituals and practices are off-putting / weird, a church community should be welcoming and friendly. Sheesh.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Can those who are 'churched' begin to comprehend what it is like for an unchurched adult to walk into a church for the first time, and to attempt to join in with the worship?
An utterly vital question to think about, IMO. What signals do we send by the way we do things in our church services; the welcome we offer, the extent to which we explain what's going on (be it genuflecting at various objects, or singing in tongues), the way we treat people who 'get it wrong' in terms of the behavioural norms, the extent to which we seek to include newcomers in the social aspect of the church community...
For a lot of people, going to a new place with a group of strangers to do something unfamiliar is a big deal. Us folk already in the church community should think hard about how we can make it not such a big deal, I'd say.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's not 'dumbing down' but 'reaching out' to embrace new people into Christianity and its language with sensitivity that is surely called for? This means breaking down any barriers that tradition has forged, as per the example of Jesus, doesn't it?
I see this argument a lot and I'm not convinced by it by any means, simply because Christ "broke down the barriers" within the context of the law, not the prayer of the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think culture and subculture and so on do come into these things ... but I'm finding it hard to envisage what kinds of cultural/subcultural issues would make it difficult for Karl and his family to be accepted in most congregations ... given that he is clearly articulate and 'middle class' in the broad sense of that term ... just like most people on these boards - or out in most churches indeed (other than ethnically defined ones) ...
You seem to fit in well here, so I find it hard to envisage that not being the case elsewhere, but then, as I've said, I'm not you nor your family so it's difficult to comment ...
Mind you, perhaps all of us here are misfits to a greater or lesser extent ...
Be all that as it may, on the people walking into church thing and feeling at 'home' or wanting to participate ... on the whole I think people be they catcheumens or converts - tend to be drawn in by the people they know and knock around with socially ...
It's rare for someone to simply walk into a church service and think, 'This is for me ...'
I stand by my point that most people are socialised into involvement with churches and that would apply if it was an RC mass or a Fresh Expressions group meeting in Starbucks ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I hasten to add that my comments in no way seek to diminish the sense of unwelcome and alienation that Karl and his family clearly felt in the past ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The 'converts' question is one of the interesting aspects of the problem. Do people usually become converts before or after they are drawn into any church? My conversion came first. Can those who are 'churched' begin to comprehend what it is like for an unchurched adult to walk into a church for the first time, and to attempt to join in with the worship?
Of course it's difficult at first. It's strange and a bit bewildering. Goodness knows, it was difficult enough for me going from Rome to Constantinople, yet I can't stress enough the importance of instruction, or what we would call the catechumenate, with the help of a spiritual father. This precisely what it is for: to learn about the life and faith of the Church.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Unwelcome? No. I was even on the PCC. But I never felt I belonged. It's hard to articulate. Couple that with being the only family there with children; indeed, the only people under about 70...
You're just not One of Them.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think people who've never attended struggling and demoralised churches find it very difficult to imagine what it's like. Being the only one or two 'younger' people in a congregation made up of the elderly is a great challenge - especially if you've seen other young families and young professionals leave. And people leaving is probably more noticeable and significant in a small congregation than in a larger one.
And I really don't care for sermons about how it's our duty to support the church rather than look to satisfy our own personal needs. It's a dishonest message, because almost everyone is satisfying some kind of personal need when they attend church. Moreover, preachers are usually happy to receive new members from other churches, even if they regret their own members walking away!
Getting back on topic, though, I imagine that engaging jointly in social projects, fundraising, community work, etc. would enable old and new congregations in one setting to maintain links with each other. In spiritual terms there might be some joint small group meetings, although that would require careful organising and reflection.
[ 12. February 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I think one's attitude to older people comes strongly into play here. If you can look beyond age and just see 'people' rather than 'over 70s' then there is a wealth of opportunity to get to know some wonderful, and very experienced, individuals, some of whom will become firm friends. If not, then it's going to be difficult.
For some strange reason, I always find it easier to get on well with those older than me rather than younger, so I fit right in with the more normal CofE demographic. Because of that, I'm much more likely to attend services where the majority of the congregation are older, even though I can see the need for other services which attract younger people. Perhaps I will start to find it a problem when I'm 90 and EVERYONE is younger than me(!) but at the moment I can't see it.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, but you're not Karl and his family, Chorister and neither am I ...
I think it would be difficult - but not impossible - to fit into a church where everyone is different to you in some way - whether due to age, culture, socio-economic differences and so on ... that's just the way things are. I wouldn't judge or criticise anyone for not feeling that they fitted in ...
However, I do have an issue with segmented churches that 'target' particular demographic groups and so on ... such as youth-churches or churches where almost everyone is in their 20s and 30s and which tend to be 'people like us' churches ...
But then, the opposite is a problem too ... churches where everyone is elderly because all the younger people have left.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IME, it's not whether or not one can engage with the liturgy. It's whether or not one can feel an accepted part of the church community. If one is a bit alternative, subculturally different from the local church community norm, or just too young, then that's where the problems come. Or did for us, anyway. Service style wasn't actually the issue, at least not insurmountably; acceptance and belonging were.
That would be my experience, as well. I am probably a little bit higher than the average Anglican and one of the interesting things about looking after a rural parish where the tradition was Village MOTR was that when I acquired a nice set of sanctuary bells I was able to sell it to the PCC (quite truthfully) on the grounds that the children who served loved them. The older members of the PCC abstained and the people with young families voted in favour. I was totally made up about this because a) Sanctuary Bells! Next Stop Smoke and GIN! and (more importantly) b) because a bunch of old people accepted something they disliked to oblige children and, by extension, their parents. A lot of C of E churches appear to be run on the principle that they are a social club for the elderly whilst the members plaintively complain that young families don't join.
I suspect that where traditionalists on this thread have a point is that if, for some reason, I turned up at an Orthodox service or a Latin Mass with my six year old daughter people would welcome us and look after us. So you don't need Fresh Expressions and so forth because the culture says "welcome and nurture these people". You can question this as a missionary strategy, but I can see where they are coming from.
The damning indictment of the Church of England is that in a lot of churches they simply aren't interested in making themselves accessible to young families whilst simultaneously claiming it is a priority. It's the ecclesiastical equivalent of claiming you want to lose weight whilst never saying no to Mr Doughnut, drinking four pints of lager a night and never doing any exercise.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Chorister
Actually, I do get on better with the elderly than I do with those the same age as me. I've had much more experience with the elderly, especially in church.
But I think it's unrealistic to expect all churchgoers aged under 50 or 60 to feel this way. I'm not typical of my age group, but people who are more typical will probably want to spend at least some of their 'church time' on issues that are particularly pertinent to their generation. It's true that many elderly people have youthful minds and concerns, but this isn't more likely for elderly churchgoers than it is for the elderly in general.
I agree there should be more opportunities for the young to learn from the wisdom and knowledge of the elderly - bridges could be built there. Although elderly churchgoers aren't always as wise as they should be, IME.....
[ 12. February 2014, 16:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, the elderly in those churches would have been young once, and presumably involved with church at that time too ...
I s'pose that they were left high and dry when the tide went out ... and we can argue the reasons for that until the cows come home, but the CofE lost almost a third of its active members during the 1960s ...
The attrition rate has been considerable ...
On the thing about being made welcome at RC or Orthodox services ... well, from what I've heard neither of these are particularly welcoming - not because they're unfriendly particularly, but they don't tend to pounce on visitors but leave people alone unless they give some indication that they want people to engage with them ...
I've always felt reasonably welcome on my visits to Orthodox services and my occasional visits to RC ones ... but that's generally been because I knew people there and because I'm a reasonably outgoing person (which covers over an essential shyness) and don't mind engaging complete strangers in conversation ...
That comes of growing up in South Wales and spending a great deal of my adult life in Yorkshire where it's more common to chat to people on buses, at bus stops, on trains and in shops and so on than it is in some other parts of the UK ...
I think what you do get in RC and Orthodox circles is a system/process of catechisation for newcomers and converts - and yes, there are converts in both - but it's rather more understated and not as immediately apparent as some evangelical Protestant efforts, such as the Alpha course.
Generally speaking, though, you have to ask and make enquiries and from what I've heard clergy in both these traditions can play hard-to-get to a certain extent ... they like to make sure that people are serious. They tend not to receive or 'chrismate' enquirers willy-nilly without some kind of indication that they are serious and likely to stay the course ... although that can't be guaranteed in every instance any more than it can in Protestant circles.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, the elderly in those churches would have been young once, and presumably involved with church at that time too ...
Not necessarily. A lot of people's first encounter with church is in middle age or when they retire; maybe a bereavement or simply looking for a purpose in life brings them in. Of course, many of these might have been involved as teenagers or young people, but not all.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure ... but generally speaking ... particularly in semi-rural areas such as where I am now ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
