Thread: Inviting friends to church Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020129
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
It is fairly easy to invite a friend to go shopping with you.
It is fairly easy to invite a friend to go to a movie.
It probably is quite easy to invite a friend to eat dinner, too.
But, why is it hard to invite a friend to go to church?
I ask this because I have been nominated for synod council and am being assigned to be on an evangelism task force.
I would like to get some reactions to consider how to approach the issue.
Thanks for your input.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
The comparison is just a tad bit invalid, I think. The friend who you invite to go shopping, see a movie, or eat dinner is most likely already "into" all of those things, and you know he or she would love to come along.
The friend you invite to church, on the other hand, may be unchurched from the get-go, or may have had a bad experience with church and so shuns it, or may have a variety of other reasons for not wanting to go.
And so the approach you use will be different for that friend as opposed to your shopaholic or movie buff or gourmand friend.
But it must also be said that perhaps your friend is of a different denomination and you are inviting him or her to come along with you to experience worship in your denomination. That, too, requires a different approach.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But, why is it hard to invite a friend to go to church?
People you invite to see a movie with you, or eat a meal, or go shopping, are people who tend to shop, eat, and watch movies. You're not asking them to do something new - you're asking them to do it with you.
People you ask to church are people who do not attend church - you're asking them to do something new. (It's easy to invite a church-going friend who is visiting your town to come to church with you; not so easy to invite the guys from the pub.)
To the extent that people are aware that churches exist, you're also asking them to do something that they have rejected. So it's not "here's this thing you've never heard of - come and do it with me, it'll be fun."
You're asking people to adopt a faith, not spend a morning in some enjoyable cultural activity. That's a much bigger question than "why not come with me on Sunday for a bit of a sing-song?"
If you invite someone to learn to play bridge with you, the point of the activity is playing bridge. But if you invite them to church, the point of church isn't the details of what you do on a Sunday morning - the point of church is Christ.
(If you sing in the choir, and are recruiting more singers, this might not be true. And this is born out by anecdote - it seems easier to invite someone to sing in the choir with you (where the primary intent is to come and sing, rather than anything to do with faith).)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
That is quite a task you are taking on. I hope you do not mind my coming in here with a few thoughts: If you are talking to a friend, then presumably you know something about their lives and beliefs.
What will a church service offer them? If the answer is something about music, company, a sermon, etc, they do not need to go to church to have those.
If the church is a CofE, how would they feel about standing up, sitting down, kneeling, bowing head, etc. What would there be in the service that you think might make them want to repeat the exercise??
If the service is in a cathedral, then they might agree to attend to hear the singing in such acoustics.
How will they feel about the seating?! If it is wooden chairs or pews, then that could well put them off! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
My answer to this would always be another question "why do you want to invite them to go to church"?
For most people, I would want to be a friend to them, listen to them, see what they are interested in. This is not as a way of getting them into church, just because they are another human being.
I would rather invite them for a meal, or to the pub. I would rather spend time with them, doing things they want to do. That is how you develop a relationship, a friendship with someone. And, in those discussions, my faith is likely to come up, as a part of who I am.
And it may be that at some point I would invite them to church. But I would do that if I felt that it would be something they would find useful. And it is not the end-game - there is no end-game. It is a relationship, a friendship. I hope it would go on a long time.
I do think some people feel that "getting people to church" is the limit of their evangelism. There is a sense that they have done their bit. Then it is down to the vicar or the church or God to do the rest. Which makes it more like a dodgy hard-sell scheme - the sort I would avoid like the plague.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
I love where I worship (two places) and often find myself excitedly asking friends to join me.
But as soon as they hear the words "Quaker" or "Mennonite," they act as though they can't decide if I've just asked them to do some sort of anthropological fieldwork.
So I wait until there is a special occasion (e.g., an art exhibit) at the Meeting/church and make my offer then. A couple I invited by this means have since joined my Mennonite church.
sabine
[ 27. March 2017, 17:43: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
an evangelism task force.
Evangelism is not about getting people to go to church.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
an evangelism task force.
Evangelism is not about getting people to go to church.
Thank you!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
(Just as Stewardship is not about increasing pledges and plate offerings.)
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
an evangelism task force.
Evangelism is not about getting people to go to church.
Thank you!
(Just as Stewardship is not about increasing pledges and plate offerings.)
While I generally agree with this statement, I do think that overemphasis on this point leads my church to near-disaster every year. We get all sorts of talks from vestry members about what the church means to me and why I pledge. Then they try to put together a budget from the resulting pledges, and find themselves very short. We get a follow up "we do really need X number of dollars to pay the priest and the electric bill" talk, and then the money shows up. I don't think that they should focus exclusively on paying the bills, but it's at least part of the point of the stewardship campaign.
So Evangelism isn't about getting butts into seats. We probably all agree on this point. But what is the task of the evangelism committee, and what might be a better tactic than telling everyone to invite a friend?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Granted, the task of any evangelism effort is to share the good news of Jesus Christ. Thank you for that reminder.
But, again, why is it hard for people to share the good news of Jesus Christ?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Invite women, their kids and mums to Messy Church and create community. Feed, clothe, comfort, share, shelter, rescue, protect. Their men will follow. You know, like the Donner Party. A matriarchal Islam.
[ 27. March 2017, 20:34: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Granted, the task of any evangelism effort is to share the good news of Jesus Christ. Thank you for that reminder.
But, again, why is it hard for people to share the good news of Jesus Christ?
What's that?
[ 27. March 2017, 20:43: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But, again, why is it hard for people to share the good news of Jesus Christ?
Perhaps because most people think they've heard it? We are (most of us) living in culturally Christian societies. People think they know about God, and that they don't need Him, or He doesn't exist.
And, frankly, Christians have a bad reputation. There are plenty of people doing God's work, but there are a smaller number of very loud people banging on about gays, abortion, contraception, and generally trying to bully people in the name of Christ.
Those are the loudest voices. To many of my colleagues, "Christian" means the Tea Party, not selling cakes to gay couples, and keeping trans kids out of bathrooms.
You have to get past that before you can get anywhere, and "that" is being continually reinforced in the news.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
The world is laminated against Christianity, by slight and partial, passive acquaintance which is mistaken for real knowledge. I really don't know what we do to penetrate the shrink-wrap. It's incredibly strong and flexible.
Seems to be true of most things I care about - I very much hope it's nothing personal.
[ 27. March 2017, 20:49: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I was secular for 40 years. My impression of religion then, along with most I associated with, was that it was something I didn't want to get 'caught up in'.
I started going to Church because I felt moved to do so. My own commitment has since gone into decline, when I do go I see the once vibrant, (if not mature), congregation shtrinking dramatically year on year.
A friend if asked might come along once or maybe twice out of politeness, it won't stem the rot.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
LC. In the US, not the UK ... apart from the residual homophobia and sexism. The medium is the message. What the church does. Not bizarre stories about a magic man dying for our sins whom we must love or burn. The church is not known for loving those who turn to it in any meaningful way. Islam is.
[ 27. March 2017, 20:59: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've not taken an un-churched friend or un-churched family member to church for years and years.
When I have done the experience has rarely been positive.
Either something embarrassing happened or something was said that put them off ...
Mind you, I'd be put off these days by the sorts of churches that I once found attractive ...
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Granted, the task of any evangelism effort is to share the good news of Jesus Christ. Thank you for that reminder.
But, again, why is it hard for people to share the good news of Jesus Christ?
I think your terms explain this ideally. an "evangelism effort" - sounds like a programme to get more people into church to me. Because that is what it normally is.
"share the good news of Jesus Christ" That is what so many people feel they have to do. Whereas most people should just make friends, without some ulterior motive.
So, on twitter, there are a number of people I engage with who are not Christian, who have (sometimes) explicitly and deliberately rejected Christianity. I engage with them in all sorts of ways, and sometimes say that I will pray for them. And other times offer hugs and share how crap things are.
Far too much of the church is about results - if you are going to have an "evangelism effort", there is an expectation of some new people in church. If there is a "stewardship campaign" [as others have pointed out] there is an expectation that the church coffers will be improved.
Whereas the real "results" of an evangelism effort should be that people realise that they need to talk to other people, their friends and neighbours, and put other people above doing church stuff. The real "results" of a stewardship campaign should be that people use their time and money more thoughtfully.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
An evangelism campaign IMHO should be about training evangelists--that is, getting ordinary Christians to realize that they are already in fact witnesses for Christ (or against him), and here are some things they can do to improve (or at least avoid being jackasses). One of those things would be to rid them of the idea that getting someone in the church door is going to magically have some good effect on the person, and the inviter can now sit back and do nothing.
If you look at the Bible, you don't (well, I don't) see believers inviting others to come along to a worship service--certainly not often. I do see believers doing stuff like helping the poor etc. and pointing people in the direction of Jesus himself. Church service is not a decent surrogate for that.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The world is laminated against Christianity, by slight and partial, passive acquaintance which is mistaken for real knowledge.
What would you say is the 'real knowledge'?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How to lose friends and not influence people (or influence them badly): invite them to church.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I did invite a non-churchgoing friend with me to church recently. She loves jazz, so we went to a jazz Christmas carol service, and then the same band was participating in a service a couple of months ago, and she agreed to go to that. (The event was also recorded for 'Songs of Praise'. That was unexpected!)
She really liked the music, but the 2nd time around she didn't find the atmosphere sufficiently uplifting. (It wasn't to do with any hard sell, because these events aren't evangelical in origin.) She's considered going back again, but she reminded me recently that she's not a churchgoer, which I think is a reference to her sense of identity; attending church simply isn't a part of that.
I'm glad she was happy to go along with me, but I shan't mention it again. I'll leave her to bring it up herself, if she wants to.
[ 28. March 2017, 12:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Granted, the task of any evangelism effort is to share the good news of Jesus Christ. Thank you for that reminder. ?
I still don't agree. I think it is about establishing God's reign of justice and peace.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
They're the same.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I still don't agree. I think it is about establishing God's reign of justice and peace.
How would you explain that to someone you might invite to church, I wonder?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Why invite a non-believer to church?
Why invite a teetotaller to a pub?
Why invite someone tone-deaf to a concert?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why invite a non-believer to church?
Why invite a teetotaller to a pub?
Why invite someone tone-deaf to a concert?
Well, I've often been to pubs with people who didn't drink. They chat, play pool, and generally do everything I do in pubs except for drink beer.
And I have, in fact, invited non-believers to church, because they were curious about what went on. I didn't expect them to have a Damascene experience in the pews, but they wanted to see what went on, so I took them.
Oh, and almost every wedding and baptism I've been to has had a collection of non-believers.
But to address what I think is your point, how do you think someone should manage their transition from non-believer to believer? Suppose you begin with a person who has no faith, and over time, through conversation with Christian friends, reading, and whatever, that person starts to think that maybe it's worth considering whether there's something in this whole God business.
What do you think they should do? When would you think they should go to church?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Granted, the task of any evangelism effort is to share the good news of Jesus Christ. Thank you for that reminder. ?
I still don't agree. I think it is about establishing God's reign of justice and peace.
I still think this is too institutional. The purpose of evangelism is to be the presence of God in the world. An evangelistic effort is to convince the congregation that they can be the presence of God in the world.
Too much of the evangelism discourse makes it sound like a military conquest. The theological basis of this is dubious, and the success in real terms is even more so. But this is so entrenched in so many peoples concepts that it is hard to consider it as something different.
So am I an evangelist at work? Yes. Many people there know I am a Christian. I have had some interesting discussions with others. But there are also some who I talk to each week who don't know, because I am not pushy or overt about it. But I am not ashamed of my faith. When appropriate, I will talk about it. But never ever to force or convert - given that we have Hindus, Muslims, atheists and who knows what else, that is probably safest. And I have no desire to convert people to my particular version of faith. I have a desire, rather, that I can offer help and support and consolation to others.
Maybe if more people knew how to listen, rather than talk, an evangelism effort would actually prove more fruitful.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
So do we have any idea how many times Jesus went to temple and synagogue? Or any of the 12, or Paul? Most of our stories are about the gang being out with people. Doing stuff. Helping, teaching, arguing etc.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Er, sorry to deflate the rhetoric, but I ran across this last week:
On Jesus and Paul
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I still don't agree. I think it is about establishing God's reign of justice and peace.
How would you explain that to someone you might invite to church, I wonder?
Excellent question SusanDoris.
Anyone?
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Invite women, their kids and mums to Messy Church and create community. Feed, clothe, comfort, share, shelter, rescue, protect. Their men will follow. You know, like the Donner Party. A matriarchal Islam.
So who eats whom a la the Donner party?
More seriously organize something that is useful and at least somewhat neutral as far as religion/denomination and invite others to help out. I know one local church was running a temporary homeless shelter during the wettest/coldest months of the year and asked for volunteers from the local community as well as the church (and those actually staying in the shelter) to provide meals and help each day getting the church setup and packed away. Have an event to raise money for something useful for the community and not specifically for the church. You might not gain any new adherents but you will affect how people perceive Christians (plus most importantly helping people). In other words invite by your way of life.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I still don't agree. I think it is about establishing God's reign of justice and peace.
How would you explain that to someone you might invite to church, I wonder?
Excellent question SusanDoris.
Anyone?
I think if you get them to come to church for long enough, they too will start using meaningless jargon.
I work in IT. I know all about meaningless jargon.
If it isn't about making the world a better place, and the world for a particular person, with their perspective, then it is meaningless. As in IT, I can write code with all of the latest tools, tricks and frameworks. If it is unusable, it is irrelevant.
A theological understanding of what it is all about is fine. But if that doesn't produce people who are caring, concerned, and passionate for others (not just for getting others into church) it is irrelevant.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I still don't agree. I think it is about establishing God's reign of justice and peace.
How would you explain that to someone you might invite to church, I wonder?
Why invite them to church?
I'd invite them to a peace rally or other demo - as i often have.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I appreciate the discussion. You are making very good points. My internet is touch and go at this point, but I hope to be able to ask follow on questions shortly.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why invite them to church?
I'd invite them to a peace rally or other demo - as i often have.
However, the OP was particularly about inviting a friend to church ...
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
If it was ever going to work, then it would be the other way around.
I.E. a friend might ask a friend,who already frequents Church, -- May I come with you to Church as I have been thinking things through and have a strong feeling that I would like to get into worshiping God in a Church setting--
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
At every church I have attended I have heard calls form the pulpit to invite friends, family, etc., to come to church, often couched with the statement that "We (Roman Catholics or Episcopalians, given my church attending history) do evangelism, too. And it is our duty as Christians, you know." The preacher will always differentiate this from the aggressive proselytism that is associated with stereotypical Christian evangelism.
That said, I confess that I have never invited anyone to Church other than for a special celebration (Christmas, Easter, etc.), or if I am visiting them and attending a nearby church while in town, or in order to hear or participate in a choir or other musical group or event.
Who here actually has invited people to church and how have you done it? How many people do you think actually do this, especially in the RCC, Anglicanism, and Mainline denominations?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Excellent question SusanDoris.
Thank you!
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think if you get them to come to church for long enough, they too will start using meaningless jargon.
I work in IT. I know all about meaningless jargon.
That is an interesting take on the language of religions. I had never thought of it like that before, but I shall bear it in mind in future!
That is how I read your post, but please let me know if I have read wrongly.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I've also heard many, many times over the years that some large percentage of parishioners originally started attending church because they were invited by someone. Personally, I don't know of any (except those who were invited as boyfriends/girlfriends and might or might not now be spouses). I really wonder where those statistics come from.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
My (newlywed) parents were invited to the church they still attend 45+ years ago by a neighbour. They'd attended as children various other places in other towns, but here they were. Maybe my forthcoming arrival had something to do with it.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I invite friends to things like our carol service or if we're having something special like a Christmas Oratorio or similar.
Most of my friends are already churchgoers and/or sing or play in a church, so most of us are already in our own place on a Sunday.
I do make a point of inviting wedding couples I see to attend on Sundays before their banns are read and before any final decisions are made on music because IME it can help those unfamiliar with the building to (a) feel more at ease in church, and (b) get a clearer idea of how things may sound when the building is full of people. To the surprise of our vicar this has resulted in 3 couples becoming regular (twice a month roughly) worshippers.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
The only time I have invited a friend to church was a graduate student in music to choral evensong, with bells, whistles, incense, lots of Tallis & Dowland. It was the first time that she (a Calgary-based Jain) had ever been in a church-- she only knew church services from channel-surfing by TV-evangelical services, and said that it was really not what she thought it would be like. In any case she had a great chat with the organist and several of the choristers and went off with a stack of sheet music. She declined the parish bunfight, saying that her temple had far better food.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think if you get them to come to church for long enough, they too will start using meaningless jargon.
I work in IT. I know all about meaningless jargon.
That is an interesting take on the language of religions. I had never thought of it like that before, but I shall bear it in mind in future!
That is how I read your post, but please let me know if I have read wrongly.
The thing is, it isn't actually meaningless jargon, but most people who use it don't understand what it really means, and couldn't explain it. So it is jargon as used by most people. It is not uncommon - there is a lot of it. Usually explained to them by someone who understands it a little bit more, and some people take the terminology and use it with even less understanding. But it sounds good.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Perfick.
@Pigwigeon. I've known two very sweet little old ladies out of half a dozen congregations. They were lonely.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It's not part of mainstream church culture to invite friends to church. Even the clergy who politely ask us to do it make it seem like an optional, marginal thing. They offer no advice as to how it might be done without embarrassment.
But institutions that can't bring themselves to invite outsiders (and also find it difficult to hold on to their own members, especially the younger ones) inevitably experience decline. An individual congregation might benefit from various factors that make it successful regardless of wider trends, but many others will end up seriously compromised. As has already happened around Britain and elsewhere.
I'm not saying there's a simple solution. I just think that on a thread about this subject there should be at least a passing reference to this problem.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
This past Sunday I was the worship assistant. I noted that a 12-year-old boy had invited a friend (who happened to be a girl) to attend church with his family. She even assisted during communion.
Then as I was distributing the bread/body I noted that one of the college-aged women brought came forward with a male friend. I spoke with him right after worship. He said they had met last year in the dorm.
It seems that as I look back on the newcomers who have come in the past year most of them have been invited by young people. They just don't seem to have any qualms about inviting friends.
I just read an article "I Love to Tell the Story" (Helga Jansons, Cross Connection, Apr 2017, p. 4). She points out that, while trying to remember the whole Bible or all of Christian theology, the main question that needs to be answered is "Why is God central in your life?"
If asked, I would think Christians would be open to answering it.
An old saying I once heard, I heard, and liked, describes evangelism as where a hungry person tells another hungry person where to find food.
t
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's been failing since it was new. Unless you're born to it, your chance of converting to anything is about 1:1000
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's been failing since it was new. Unless you're born to it, your chance of converting to anything is about 1:1000
Actually, I've read that that's not quite true. Christianity has grown most rapidly where focused efforts have been made to convert outsiders. When groups begin to rely purely on faith transmission to their own children their numbers slide downwards.
But you're right in the sense that British church membership figures as a percentage of the surrounding population for most denominations have been falling for a long time.
[ 29. March 2017, 22:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What outsiders? Where? China? Japan? India? Indonesia? Pakistan? Bangladesh? Burma? Thailand? Malaysia? Israel? Egypt? Turkey? Iran? The secular, unchurched in Europe? America?
It grows in Catholic America and black Africa. With the population. That's all. Any local exceptions prove the rule. Evangelicalism is dying everywhere apart from where it poaches from Catholicism.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I didn't say that Christianity was growing everywhere, nor at all times. I was referring to rapid growth, not growth that simply occurs along with the population. It's fairly obvious that churches are more likely to grow where there is significant and long term engagement in evangelism.
I also accept that demographics are very important: evangelicals often have more children, and defections are therefore balanced by those who stay. Liberal and mainstream Christians have far fewer children, so defections plus the reluctance to evangelise are much more of a problem.
As for poaching from the RC, I suppose it depends on what you mean by being RC. I understand that many South Americans are RC in the sense that many English people are CofE; they're not devout. So for some individuals who become evangelicals there it won't be a matter of swapping one form of devotion for another. As for Africa, does evangelical conversion on that continent occur mainly at the expense of the RCC? That's surprising.
From what I've read, evangelical Christianity worldwide isn't dying, and conversion is still important to its growth (see p. 11 of this document). That whole essay does acknowledge that there are very many challenges. But then again, moderate and liberal Christianity faces even greater challenges.
When church members are routinely unwilling or unable to introduce their friends or family to their church community that's a significant challenge for the religion at a pretty basic level.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's not part of mainstream church culture to invite friends to church. Even the clergy who politely ask us to do it make it seem like an optional, marginal thing. They offer no advice as to how it might be done without embarrassment.
*snip*
Depends on the local mainstream. I have found, when visiting my wintering-south-of-the-border mother in Florida, that inviting one's friends to church is a major phenomenon--- I do not know if this is so elsewhere in the US. There is much discussion on this, and when a new person arrives in the neighbourhood, colleagues and neighbours will often invite them to join them on Sunday morning.
As well, this happens in some parts of Canada. A financial bureaucrat of my acquaintance, Rwandan in origin, francophone, and limply RC, was transferred to Calgary, and within two weeks had four church-going invitations. Flustered, he called me and asked me if this was normal. It was a form of local hospitality, I assured him, while the music might be frightful, he would be well-fed, and he might meet an interesting young woman.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Ah. Perhaps it's a North American thing.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
An old saying I once heard, I heard, and liked, describes evangelism as where a hungry person tells another hungry person where to find food.
t
I have also heard that, but I think the problem is often that the church person seems to be far more in need of food than the person they are telling. So why follow them to food when they seem to be sick all the time? Sort of.
The comparison with being invited out for a meal is not really accurate. It is more like "would you fancy coming to our lodge meeting tonight?" which, I suspect, would prove as difficult and problematic.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
SvitlanaV2. Robust as ever, but show me please. Where net growth is anything other than by birth. Growth from the unchurched, the secular, the nominal is, order of magnitude, 1:1000 From other religious an order of magnitude less.
And in another place.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why invite them to church?
I'd invite them to a peace rally or other demo - as i often have.
However, the OP was particularly about inviting a friend to church ...
But it was also about 'evangelism' and not everyone equates evangelism with 'bums on pews'.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I have seen reports that the German church is growing due to conversions from Muslim refugees. The conversions are largely due to the perceived failure of Islam for its adherents.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's some claim.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Martin60
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/muslim-refugees-converting-to-christianity-in-germany-crisis-asylum-seekers-mi grants-iran-a7466611.html
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Thank you Gramps49. Fascinating. But predictable in hindsight. Water finding its own level. Out of a million people I'd expect a thousand to convert. I wonder what the 'apostasy' rate has been for Turkish migrants over 60 years?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
SvitlanaV2. Robust as ever, but show me please. Where net growth is anything other than by birth. Growth from the unchurched, the secular, the nominal is, order of magnitude, 1:1000 From other religious an order of magnitude less.
Well, firstly, I'm not sure if we disagree as much as you think we do.
I've already said that there are incredible challenges for the Christian religion in many places. I've accepted that transmission from parents to children is important for maintaining churches, and that growth is likely when large numbers of children are born to Christian parents.
I also accept that converting people who already have a knowledge of the faith may be easier - although some say that it can also be harder, because such knowledge (even if it's very hazy) can also act as a kind of inoculation against anything more meaningful. In fact, you could argue that such inoculation has been the standard European 'Christian' response to revivals and evangelical overtures across the centuries.
However, it doesn't seem controversial to state that evangelistic effort is likely to create more conversion growth than not. The article I linked to above is by a respected statistician, and it states that evangelistic efforts are significant.
Morever, I've just read that the countries where evangelicalism is growing fastest are not primarily those where lots of lapsed RCs or other nominal Christians are present. The growth is obviously occurring from a very low base in many such countries.
As for Britain, having studied the experience of the Presbyterian Church in Wales John Hayward, the owner of the Church Growth Modelling blog, claims that the falling membership of British churches from the late 19th c. onwards is particularly due to a drop in the rate of conversion (which is a variable term, of course). The defection of members' children has always occurred, but the author doesn't think it had a severe impact even into the 1960s, although I'm sure that since then it's become more significant.
Hayward sees the absence of revival as problematic, since revival is about increased enthusiasm, evangelism (no doubt including inviting friends to church) and hence conversions, but he does accept that revivals are cyclical.
So, if you're saying that Christians are often highly ineffective at sharing their faith then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But to say that evangelism is irrelevant, that conversion is just a matter of RCs and various Protestants playing musical chairs seems to be something short of the truth.
Finally, we might agree that many churches as they are today aren't the best places to invite friends to. It would be interesting to consider whether there are certain churches that are much more accessible, and why.
[ 01. April 2017, 12:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
First class SvitlanaV2, thank you. I read the previous link. I accept the analysis that thanks to growth in the developing world some of the evangelical tribes are growing within static proportion Christianity. In the UK they are marginally growing in collapsing Christianity and will become the largest part of the irreducible minimum mid-century. Less than 1% of the population. I still conclude that revival is not possible in secular, developed societies; that conversion is a function of rapid development and stops with that. Demographically Islam can't lose initially throughout Europe by next century.
[ 01. April 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Several of the nons that replied have said they are turned off by the church, and there is the comment that church is not a place to invite people to. This leads to the question:
What is it about church that turns people off?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
My church has tried to set up regular occasions that the wider community can come to. The used book sale, the Easter egg hunt (my God, what a mob scene)-- these are intensely popular. The hope is to get people used to the idea of showing up.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
The same thing applies to Our Place's jumble/rummage/book sales, Christmas/Summer Bazaars, Quiz Night etc. We used to have about 10 various events during the year, but have now slimmed this down a little to 6-7.
The amount of £££ raised is unimportant - having the doors open, the kettle on, and the bacon sizzling is important. Attendances are often low, but there's usually at least one or two pastoral conversations/baptism enquiries happening, and a few of our now-regulars have come to us through one of these social events, as we think of them.
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
When the regular congregants have to carve through a seething waist-high horde of happy children, this is actually a good thing for a church. (We assure each other.)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
What is it about church that turns people off?
Where I come from the traditional rural church scene is 50 years beyond it's sell by date. The whole edifice and culture has changed beyond recognition. People have drifted away, congregations have evaporated. Not through any great act of defiance but more, one only can presume, as a gradual response to the general de-sanctification of Sundays.
There is a charismatic scene in nearby bigger towns which, as far as I can gather, can sometimes pack a hall. But I suppose the question you ask is better answered by the modern majority who appear to want no truck with Christian worship whatsoever, in any shape or form.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I accept the analysis that thanks to growth in the developing world some of the evangelical tribes are growing within static proportion Christianity. In the UK they are marginally growing in collapsing Christianity and will become the largest part of the irreducible minimum mid-century. Less than 1% of the population. I still conclude that revival is not possible in secular, developed societies; that conversion is a function of rapid development and stops with that. Demographically Islam can't lose initially throughout Europe by next century.
Globally Islam is destined to overtake Christianity by 2070. But it'll only be the faith of 10% of people in Europe by that point. So what do you mean when you say 'Islam can't lose' demographically in Europe? I think it's important to try to be accurate here, because quite a number of Islamophobes on the net are stirring up fear and potential aggression by predicting an Islamic future for Europe.
What could happen in the British case is that we find a higher number of committed Muslims than committed Christians; but the vast majority of inhabitants wouldn't be committed to either religion. This situation is developing in Birmingham, for example, and Islam is already a more prominent spiritual and cultural force in that the city than Christianity. We don't know what the societal outcome of this changing landscape will be.
With regards to revival, I don't think it's currently possible here mainly because most Western Christians don't really want it. Christianity has become a private religion in our culture, and we expect to engage with it for our own personal reasons. We may worry about church decline, but that in itself isn't the foundation of revivals. I should think they grow out of an urgency born of a deep spiritual burden, but I don't sense that in the churches I know, although they're doing various things as outreach.
But non-religious modernising societies aren't inevitably barren territory for Christianity; the faith has grown massively in China, despite having a relatively small presence. But in Communist China Christianity benefits from being a cause to be fought for, to live and die for. I don't think Christians in Europe normally perceive their religion in this way.
[ 01. April 2017, 20:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
What is it about church that turns people off?
You see, for me, it leads to the question "Why are we so focussed on church?"
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It'll take a while, but I cannot see how Islam can't completely demographically subvert Europe within the same timeframe it took Christianity to subvert the Roman empire. As you realise, it will be the only religious show in town above the Pyrenees, Alps, Balkans, west of the Oder, Wherever there are folk religions, they will survive a while.
Look at its resurgence throughout the former Soviet empire. Its character is hardening in Indonesia and Turkey.
Christianity in China has always waxed and waned since the Tang dynasty. It's had its day again.
Nothing in the West can facilitate significant Christian revival apart from its collapse prior to its Islamicization. And that would just be a cycle of folk religion.
Nothing but something new. Emergent. Something that can subvert Islam.
Make a good Children of Men + type social sci-fi scenario.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Because it goes to the original question?
Because there is the hope that when a person is invited, they will benefit from the experience and become Christian.
Because it is estimated a majority of nons will likely accept an invitation to church.
Because a third of new Christians will say the invitation to church was the beginning of their conversion.
Church is a place where people share their faith through worship and fellowship.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Several of the nons that replied have said they are turned off by the church, and there is the comment that church is not a place to invite people to. This leads to the question:
What is it about church that turns people off?
I think rolyn has summed it up. Before all the home-based visual entertainment, starting with TV for a few hours a day and giving us all that we have today, church attendance was something many people did as a matter of course and to question the rightness of this or whether religious belief had any facts under-pinning it was absolute taboo. quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
But I suppose the question you ask is better answered by the modern majority who appear to want no truck with Christian worship whatsoever, in any shape or form.
I agree with this, but the grand events which involve all the pomp, colour and ceremony would leave a big hole if they disappeared; so I think a pragmatic approach is required!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nothing in the West can facilitate significant Christian revival apart from its collapse prior to its Islamicization. And that would just be a cycle of folk religion.
The demographic collapse of Christianity in Europe in particular is highly likely, but I don't know what this has to do with Islamizisation. You haven't provided links to any studies that show a connection. Neither have you provided any supporting material to bolster your earlier claim that Christianity will collapse worldwide. What you've mainly done is re-emphasise your desire to see the destruction of evangelicalism.
Myself, I have wondered if large-scale church collapse in the UK might beneficially lead to a kind of renewal among the remaining Christians. But I feel that this would have to include Christians becoming more willing and able to share their renewed faith with other people - it would have to involve the spiritual burden of inviting friends to 'church', however re-defined, at some stage.
Good works alone have been tried with conviction by the moderate mainstream (and I've been a member of such churches!) and they must obviously be a part of any outpouring of Christian love and care towards the world, but we must face facts and state that they haven't halted church decline; and in some cases this singular focus has deflected churches from their role of mutual spiritual nurturing, and left them with little to offer spiritual seekers. This should give emerging evangelicals pause for thought!
You'll no doubt disagree with this, from your position as a former evangelical. But your talk of cycles does apply here; many of today's moderate churches were once evangelical, and many of today's evangelicals are tomorrow's moderates. Things move on. Just be aware that the cycle then moves towards institutional death, and the birth of new evangelical movements. There's no precedent for the wholesale death of evangelicalism and the consequent rise of a kind of liberal Christian, works-focused, Islam-defying spirituality!
[ 02. April 2017, 00:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Because it goes to the original question?
Because there is the hope that when a person is invited, they will benefit from the experience and become Christian.
Because it is estimated a majority of nons will likely accept an invitation to church.
Because a third of new Christians will say the invitation to church was the beginning of their conversion.
Church is a place where people share their faith through worship and fellowship.
But what of those for whom the invitation or the experience is negative? For whom it confirms their view that Christianity is outdated an irrelevant? Who will be far more reluctant next time, which might have been a more appropriate situation?
I am sure that for many, they mark the point of their faith journey from being invited to church. but, given that they have stayed, I suspect the course was started with friends talking to them, with care and consideration before the invite. It is not the invite that makes the difference, it is the context.
It is always bad to assess a strategy purely by those it has worked for. Especially without knowing the full scale of the strategy. What if those who came and stayed were just 1% of those who were asked? Does that make it a success? Does that make it a reasonable strategy? Probably not.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
SvitlanaV2 thanks again. The collapse of Christianity in northern Europe has been underway for two centuries. Now the population is collapsing. Germany has had to import a million and a half Muslims to sustain its age structure. Post Brexit in two years England and Wales will have critically insufficient hospitality, agriculture and health sector workers. It's all about indigenous population dynamics.
I don't want evangelicalism to collapse, I want it to transcend, to metamorphose in incarnational synergy with Islam and the faithless.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Because it goes to the original question?
Because there is the hope that when a person is invited, they will benefit from the experience and become Christian.
Because it is estimated a majority of nons will likely accept an invitation to church.
Because a third of new Christians will say the invitation to church was the beginning of their conversion.
Church is a place where people share their faith through worship and fellowship.
How is that estimated?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Scholars do disagree as to the dating of Christian decline in Europe, certainly with regards to the UK. Some take a gradualist view, others think it was far more recent and sudden thing.
However, I'm not sure how either position really helps your cause. The gradualist view surely presents an even stronger argument against any kind of sudden transformation of evangelicalism into the kind of Christianity you imagine.
As for the European population, it is indeed in demographic decline, but although I live in a strongly Muslim area I'm not convinced that Muslims in particular are going to make up the shortfall. I'd be grateful for links to any (non-Islamophobic) material which seriously has that as a projection.
And it's hard to see how a large number of mostly young Muslims are going to be converted by a small number of aging, liberal Christians. (For a start, the two groups frequently live separate lives, although there is some interfaith work going on in the citiest.) It just doesn't seem very realistic to me - no more realistic than the prediction of a worldwide evangelical revival.
But I accept that we all have to have our own vision for the future.
[ 02. April 2017, 11:46: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I agree completely SvitlanaV2. I have no truck with Islamaphobia, but cannot see how Europe cannot be ethnically Islamicized within a couple or three centuries.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Do you see islamisation as inevitable in Europe and elsewhere?
I foresee a more Secular future with most religions having laspsed followers the longer time goes on.
Or would this be a vacuum of degeneration that must be filled with the order that only religious adherence can provide?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I agree with this, but the grand events which involve all the pomp, colour and ceremony would leave a big hole if they disappeared; so I think a pragmatic approach is required!
The Royal Family will start to look increasingly out out a limb as UK Christianity CofE style, continues to decline. I guess it will all end up as a pageant of props with no real substance, other than the hopes and dreams that folk normally carry around in their heads.
On a separate note I suspect we already have a situation where only a minority could name the ABC, and that's with modern media.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Do you see islamisation as inevitable in Europe and elsewhere?
I foresee a more Secular future with most religions having laspsed followers the longer time goes on.
Or would this be a vacuum of degeneration that must be filled with the order that only religious adherence can provide?
Aye, I see it as absolutely inevitable throughout north west Europe. From France to Germany all the way on up. Nothing can temporarily secularize Islam apart from communist suppression and that can never repeat in west Eurasia.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Martin60 said:
I don't want evangelicalism to collapse, I want it to transcend, to metamorphose in incarnational synergy with Islam and the faithless.
I think ISWYM, but could you unpack this a little, and tell us what we Christian remnant should do about it (if anything)?
IJ
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[I ] cannot see how Europe cannot be ethnically Islamicized within a couple or three centuries.
If the current minority of Muslims in Europe are to overtake all other people on the continent within 200 years then birthrates alone won't do it, because there aren't enough Muslims here now to give birth to them all. It'll either have to be through increased immigration from Muslim counties, or through vast numbers of conversions. Neither is inevitable. Countries are able to control the number and the origins of the immigrants they take - if they want to. And although there have been some conversions, these haven't occurred in high enough numbers to change the wider community.
OTOH, the predicted secularisation of British Muslim Asian youth as mentioned by rolyn hasn't really come to pass. In fact many of them have become more religious (or more radical) than their parents or grandparents. The reality of white flight from certain cities and large towns also means there's less social integration of some Muslims into the secularised European mindset, and this may continue to be an issue as the Muslim populations in those places increase. Muslims are also less likely to marry out. But it depends on which Muslims we mean and where in the country they live.
It's apparently very likely that non-white people will be in the majority in Britain by 2100. (This finding appears to be referenced in quite a few scholarly texts, such as here.) But that doesn't mean that most of them will be Muslims.
[ 02. April 2017, 16:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The same author talks about Europe and its Muslim population here.
France has a high Muslim population, but it's also a highly secularised one, with many Muslims marrying out, and many maintaining a birth rate similar to the rest of the society.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Of course, the Holy Spirit may have other plans.
Best not to forget Her, or leave Her out of your oh-so-gloomy prognostications.
IJ
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I agree with this, but the grand events which involve all the pomp, colour and ceremony would leave a big hole if they disappeared; so I think a pragmatic approach is required!
The Royal Family will start to look increasingly out out a limb as UK Christianity CofE style, continues to decline. I guess it will all end up as a pageant of props with no real substance, other than the hopes and dreams that folk normally carry around in their heads.
On a separate note I suspect we already have a situation where only a minority could name the ABC, and that's with modern media.
Actually,. I've been thinking: bearing in mind the increasing choice for namings, weddings and funerals, of Humanist Celebrants, those who organise all the state stuff could work out a non-religious form of words which would suit everyone!
On the whole, the British are quite good at doing that sort of thing!
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Or, of course, we could do away altogether with that ridiculous nonsense known as The Monarchy And The Royal Family....
...I'll get me coat, before the Beefeaters arrive to haul me off to the Tower.
IJ
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Islam is ~5% of UK population, with the most in England. France has 10%, though only about 4% indicate that they practice the faith. Germany may be about 5% as well. In Canada, it's about 3%.
People always seem to over-estimate the proportion of the population who are Muslim. In all our countries.
Our experience in Canada, which has the highest foreign-born population of the G8 countries, is that the generation born elsewhere adheres quite tightly to their religion, language and culture. Their children struggle between the 2 worlds - that of parents' country or origin and the new country. The third generation loses most of the language and culture. Totally gone by the 4th. All successive generations tell the previous ones to eff off in increments. We are relatively early on in the Islamic immigration.
A boring, but possibly informative story.... My province of residence (Saskatchewan) has for origins: 13% Ukrainian, 30% German, 7% Norwegian and 3% Russian for example. Except for the First Nations (indigenous peoples) everyone is an immigrant before 4 generations ago (90% of us). Three and four generations after settlement, we do hear the term "it smarts" for pain, people eat periogies, shisliki, herring and holodets and but no-one speaks the languages any more except a few grammas and aficionados. There are similarly empty Ukrainian Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Old Colony, and Mennonite churches. People go to weddings where it's all fusion. The go to school and paint pysanka. Scottish kids take up Ukrainian dancing.
Give a few generations and the Muslims will do what everyone does: marry Filipino catholics, do the butterfly at Ukrainian weddings, play hockey with Pakistanis and everyone celebrates Gung Haggis Fat Choy.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Exactly, and in a generation or so the whole human population will be coffee-coloured...(but don't tell the UKippers that).
IJ
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
The self-flagellation on here is so predictable and boring.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
To whom do you refer? Do tell....
IJ
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[I ] cannot see how Europe cannot be ethnically Islamicized within a couple or three centuries.
If the current minority of Muslims in Europe are to overtake all other people on the continent within 200 years then birthrates alone won't do it, because there aren't enough Muslims here now to give birth to them all. It'll either have to be through increased immigration from Muslim counties, or through vast numbers of conversions. Neither is inevitable. Countries are able to control the number and the origins of the immigrants they take - if they want to. And although there have been some conversions, these haven't occurred in high enough numbers to change the wider community.
OTOH, the predicted secularisation of British Muslim Asian youth as mentioned by rolyn hasn't really come to pass. In fact many of them have become more religious (or more radical) than their parents or grandparents. The reality of white flight from certain cities and large towns also means there's less social integration of some Muslims into the secularised European mindset, and this may continue to be an issue as the Muslim populations in those places increase. Muslims are also less likely to marry out. But it depends on which Muslims we mean and where in the country they live.
It's apparently very likely that non-white people will be in the majority in Britain by 2100. (This finding appears to be referenced in quite a few scholarly texts, such as here.) But that doesn't mean that most of them will be Muslims.
Given both of those main observations, worst case we'll end up with Indian style communalism. I know from my neighbourhood that Islam is a very broad and deep church. Our diversity is remarkable and hopefully contributes to our pluralism and binary communalism just can't happen.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Of course, the Holy Spirit may have other plans.
Best not to forget Her, or leave Her out of your oh-so-gloomy prognostications.
IJ
Sophia can plan all She likes, She won't show Her hand any more than She has in 1950 years.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
No dear Martin. We'll end up with increased brand-name worship. Brands are the tribal god images of the 21st century. Much more so than countries.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
No dear Martin. We'll end up with increased brand-name worship. Brands are the tribal god images of the 21st century. Much more so than countries.
Indeed. More people have heard of Nike than have heard of Manitoba or, looking at sovereign countries, Mauritania or Uruguay.
No Prophet's flag picture is slightly different in those provinces with diverse school systems, such as Ontario, and Québec. For this reason, the immigrant churches likely have another generation's life, but our weather crushes all attempts at lasting ethnic enclaves, as does high school life hammering into oblivion traditional male/female roles in many communities. In the meantime, we have a whole new general of hockey maniacs, for this appears to be the religion to which all comfortably take their neighbours.
[ 02. April 2017, 22:08: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Give a few generations and the Muslims will do what everyone does: marry Filipino catholics, do the butterfly at Ukrainian weddings, play hockey with Pakistanis and everyone celebrates Gung Haggis Fat Choy.
This is probably more likely in Vancouver than in, say, Birmingham or Bradford. The demographic elements are probably different. For example, the rates of intermarriage among Pakistani Muslims here are still low, even after three generations. After all, they frequently live among other Pakistani Muslims.
But it's true that other groups are intermarrying at high rates.
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Of course, the Holy Spirit may have other plans.
Best not to forget Her, or leave Her out of your oh-so-gloomy prognostications.
IJ
I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, but the question is, what does the Spirit want? Does the Spirit work entirely independently, or does she expect us to do our part?
The Spirit has blessed us in many ways, but I fear that the Spirit is not particularly pleased with us at this time. We don't seem to be in a fit state for revivals - and if our churches aren't places that we want our friends to visit then what use are our churches to revival anyway?
The Spirit allowed the early churches in North Africa to be almost entirely extinguished in due course, so there is a precedent for that outcome. Fortunately, I don't follow Martin in believing that Christianity worldwide will collapse, but neither can I believe that the Spirit will randomly bestow special power upon some kind of post-evangelical spirituality.
If we had more fear and trembling among us it might feel as though something were in the air. Maybe I'm missing something. Does anyone else here feel something in their bones? Does anyone have a prophecy concerning their children's children? Or are we hiding from the truth, which is that the Spirit isn't going to lead the likes of many of us to greater things?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Would the Holy Spirit bestow power on a kind of 'pre-catholic' spirituality?
We talk about post-evangelicals, but for the first 1500 years of Christianity most Christians were pre-evangelicals ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, Martin seems particularly concerned about what happens to evangelicalism. He doesn't seem so exercised about the other historical expressions of Christianity. He feels, I think, that because many of them have grown even weaker than evangelicalism they have little to offer to the transformed and transformative Christianity that he hopes will develop in the future.
OTOH, as we know, Christianity will belong increasingly to the global south. The distinctions we make between evangelical and pre-/non-evangelical in our Anglophone Western environment don't seem to work in quite the same way in other very different settings. And regardless of what problems exist in churches elsewhere can we expect ordinary global Christians in their pews to give serious attention to Western-based approaches to faith that have hardly maintained themselves on their home territory? The secret is surely out by now.
Ultimately, it's hard not to see Martin's notion of some glorious post-evangelicalism as just a moderate-liberal, social justice-focused, rational theology writ large - an extension of what you can already find in many declining 'traditional' Western congregations. But what's going to make the new version more irresistible than the current one? Are its affiliates going to be any better at inviting friends to church??
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I agree with that ... But is it all about 'inviting friends to Church'?
I don't know what the answer is. I don't envisage any great and glorious future any more than I believe there was ever a Golden Age in the past.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Martin60 said:
I don't want evangelicalism to collapse, I want it to transcend, to metamorphose in incarnational synergy with Islam and the faithless.
I think ISWYM, but could you unpack this a little, and tell us what we Christian remnant should do about it (if anything)?
IJ
It looks like SvitlanaV2 has shot my fox!
Gamaliel too.
I agree there is not even a hint of strong benevolent incarnationality in Europe apart from the odd Oasis. That Christianity is not going to embrace the other - Islam above all - without compromise. I.e. it must not compromise the creed any more than Islam can its. And it must embrace Islam. Although that's impossible now in Birmingham, Leicester, Derby, Manchester, Blackburn, Preston, Leeds, Bradford. Its arms aren't big enough and never will be again.
Not without subversion. Of schooling and all the community activity that gyrates around that.
The South (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa) has nothing to offer but numbers by birth. It has no emergent theology. It oppresses Islam (Nigeria), gays (Uganda).
If the Holy Spirit is going to start leavening anywhere, it's in and from Waterloo. Whose caravanserais do reach the South.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Lo and behold.
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
Takes guts, faith and leadership
Steve Chalke
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is it all about 'inviting friends to Church'?
I'm assuming that 'inviting friends to church' can be extended to mean sharing the Good News with others in any way we feel we can.
But the invitation itself is surely theologically valuable in its own right, in the sense that existing as part of a mutually supportive worshipping, teaching and 'performing' community is important in a religion which, by many readings of the Bible, demands such an existence.
Of course, many don't see it that way now. We try to talk up the positives in 'believing without belonging'. But is Christianity a religion that can function meaningfully if there aren't ever-replenishing groups of people who do share a belief system and who are willing to inconvenience themselves by giving large amounts of money, time and effort to maintain a communal way of being and engage in various useful activities?
Maybe we need to be honest about Christianity as a 'multilevel faith', in which 'fuzzy' non-churchgoers should be treated not so much as a group to be 'invited' to church, but as part of the body of Christ who contribute something worthwhile but from outside church life? Some people do argue that non-churchgoing believers are an underutilised resource.
The challenge is that church leaders in the mainstream have to keep just enough Christians interested and committed so that congregational life can be maintained, while also putting a positive spin on the normality of non-churchgoing. Once again, the CofE do it best. IMO it's all about the money.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The South (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa) has nothing to offer but numbers by birth. It has no emergent theology. It oppresses Islam (Nigeria), gays (Uganda).
If the Holy Spirit is going to start leavening anywhere, it's in and from Waterloo. Whose caravanserais do reach the South.
I accept what you say about Uganda, but more broadly I find the above passage distasteful. Maybe that's just me.
Moreover, as I've said, I don't believe that the South offers only 'numbers by birth'. It seems particularly bizarre to lay this claim at Africa's door when between 1900 and 2000 apparently 40% of the continent's population switched from animism to various kinds of Christianity.
And it seems that apart from Indonesia Africa has seen more converts from Islam than anywhere else in the world.
One amateur researcher also estimates that between 30-50% of Christians alive today may be converts.
I feel, however, that your particular agenda means we're not going to agree on this. Never mind.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I suppose my question would have been better posed as, 'Is it ALL about inviting friends to church?'
I'd agree with you that it is partly to do with that - but not exclusively ...
We do need 'plausibility structures' of course, and whatever our ecclesiology any concept of the Body of Christ has to include people meeting together in some way ...
Those 'plausibility structures' obviously include the local congregation - as well as, in some traditions, monastic or 'base-communities' and so forth.
I'm not challenging the concept of congregational gatherings of believers.
I strongly believe in those. And yes, I see the 'purpose' of the Church (any church) to be the proclamation of the Gospel by word and action and that involves creating and developing disciples.
The issue then becomes how we do that and what form the communities that result from such an enterprise should take.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye SvitlanaV2. Claims about Christianity abound within its maintaining its 'share' whilst Islam increases its. I'm sure in the swathes of nominal, denominational converts there are truly incarnational Christians. Not engaging in the marginalization of Islam in Nigeria, whence Boko Haram.
I don't see any examples of strong benevolent generous orthodoxy bar one above the surface in Africa.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I didn't say that Islam wasn't increasing its share. I'm aware that it's due to surpass Christianity by the end of the century.
I'm very impressed with the RC priest in the Central African Republic, but it's probably unwise to imply that all other Africans are horrible people. Would this African man want his work to be used as a stick with which to beat others? I think not, though I'm sure he would urge greater harmony and togetherness.
In the British context, there is interfaith work going on all the time.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I didn't say you didn't.
I completely agree, most unwise.
The Pope was on top Interfaith form today. Strongly benevolently generously orthodox.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
A friend posted this on her facebook page today. This is why I would argue it is okay to invite friends to church
Three years ago, on good friday I had coffee with a very unhappy young man. A very talented, kind and loving young man. Things were mixed up for him and his future seemed cloudy at best. I invited him to join me at Trinity Lutheran Church for Good Friday services. He came, shared in the program and went up to light candles. It was touching to see. Today he is a very happy young man, flled with joy and a loving girl friend by his side. I will never forget that day and that night. Reaching out to someone and in my small way impacting that young man's life has meant the world to me. Blessed Good Friday to you Kyle Johnstone and may your life be filled with all the love you have to give and in return all the love that is your's to be received.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0