Thread: MW 3201: Hillsong, Bermondsey Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008501
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Just to say that if ken, the Ship's leading Millwall fan, were still with us, he would surely give at least a [Eek!] to the MWer's statement that 'opposite the church is a large football ground'. That's not just any large football ground, that's The Den!
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Link to report.

In fairness to the reporter, the original draft reads: "Opposite the church is a large football ground, The New Den, home to Millwall FC."

Which means nothing to me. Sorry.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Hmmmm...

conversational angles?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

In fairness to the reporter, the original draft reads: "Opposite the church is a large football ground, The New Den, home to Millwall FC."
So why was it changed?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Having spent 5 or more years conducting field research amongst the (then) new community churches, of which Hillsong would now be numbered, I was fascinated to read this report. It is well over 20 years since I was familiar with these churches and I have to say, on the basis of this Report, little may have changed.
The MW’er is to be commended on the graciousness shown in the Report towards the congregation. I think that the reception Ken T. Poste received was typical of some such churches, the larger ones, but untypical of others, those who are actively seeking to welcome people (often from other churches) so as to grow their numbers.
I well remember the noise, the darkness, the focus on what is going on at the front, the never-ending standing to sing and the rather thin theological basis for the churches and their existence.
Perhaps other similar churches have changed since the mid-1990’s?
Thanks to the MW’er for an excellent, interesting report.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just what is it that draws such numbers of people to such a ghastly environment? Frankly, it sounds like one of the more unpleasant circles of Hell...

...O, I know - it's because they don't wear vestments, especially not cassock-albs!

IJ
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I would find it hard to recognise this as a 'church' in any meaningful sense. And if I'd been the MWer I think I would have put this in the 'other place' section: 'There were very few references to scripture in the entire service, and any that were there tended to come as isolated verses, used without context. The only time a particular version was referenced, it was to the Amplified Bible, which (Wikipedia tells me) "is designed to 'amplify' the text by using additional wording and a system of punctuation and other typographical features to bring out all shades of meaning present in the original texts."'

Presumably most of the Christians who prefer to worship like this would describe themselves as evangelicals. I may be a bit thick, but I thought one of the characteristics of being evangelical was a love of scripture and a determination to engage with it. Not to plunder it for purple passages to illustrate ones own prejudices.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just what is it that draws such numbers of people to such a ghastly environment?
I know you asked the question with your tongue firmly wedged in your cheek - but it's a good one. There is clearly "something" which these churches are doing right to engage with a younger demographic - and it isn't this. But do "traditional" churches have to render up their souls (and leave their collective brains at the door) in order to be "successful" in this way?

It seems to me that the gap between "old church" and "new church" is wider than ever. Although the leaders of places like Hillsong will say that God is blessing them (and the leaders of traditional churches must get their heads out of the sand), one must ask some very serious questions about the future of church in places like Britain.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
I wonder whether Eutychus can help to explain why people join these churches?

I was always amazed at the number of people with university higher degrees - doctors, psychologists, solicitors and so on - who appeared to be fully emersed in the worship and leadership of such churches. One explanation, in my opinion, would be that the exuberant worship is a form of escapism from a stressful life and/or work environment: after all, as someone said (not for the first time!) you can leave your brain at the door.
I know of one church where a man who was prominent in leading services was a highly skilled doctor whose task it was to attend accidents that involved serious injuries: I clearly remember it being stated publicly by an elder that this man especially needed the prayers of the congregation.
People need to 'let their hair down' and this form of worship offers one way for some people to do that. The friendship amongst members appears to be strong, although the pressures to conform and live close to one another(sometimes literally to facilitate things like car-sharing and baby-sitting) are strong.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Speaking of doors, I've heard it said, regarding such churches, that as many people leave by the back door (i.e. abandon the church) as come in through the front door (i.e. join the church).

Anecdotal, perhaps, but I wonder if it's true, or partially true, and what happens to those who do leave.

IJ
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Speaking of doors, I've heard it said, regarding such churches, that as many people leave by the back door (i.e. abandon the church) as come in through the front door (i.e. join the church).

Anecdotal, perhaps, but I wonder if it's true, or partially true, and what happens to those who do leave.

IJ
Yes. I have no idea where the leavers go.

Only a few years ago, I challenged an elder of a New Frontiers' church about this. He agreed - I thought. But when we continued the conversation I found that those who go out the back door go because they 'won't accept the teaching of the church' and some of these people 'wanted to introduce new ideas'. [Ultra confused] For me, that 'said it all'!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... some of these people 'wanted to introduce new ideas'.
That sounds suspiciously like an old church mentality!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Speaking of doors, I've heard it said, regarding such churches, that as many people leave by the back door (i.e. abandon the church) as come in through the front door (i.e. join the church).
Again, I don't know if that's true - it could be a negative rumour put out by leaders of traditional churches, or purely a natural consequence of younger people moving employment, residence and relationships pretty frequently.

However some (by no means all!) "new churches" really don't seem to last for very long (?possibly because they are highly predicated on one charismatic leader). There could also be the factor that something which really wows you one week will get samey over time and so you need to go elsewhere to renew the excitement.

Or perhaps I'm just being a crusty old fuddy-duddy!

[ 24. July 2017, 14:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just what is it that draws such numbers of people to such a ghastly environment? Frankly, it sounds like one of the more unpleasant circles of Hell...

...O, I know - it's because they don't wear vestments, especially not cassock-albs!

IJ
[Overused]

The one thing that struck me in a good way was the huge sign saying "WELCOME HOME" above the entrace. It doesn't make up for the lack of personal welcome, but by itself it's a nice touch.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... some of these people 'wanted to introduce new ideas'.
That sounds suspiciously like an old church mentality!
Put that way I'd say it's a church mentality - but then I would, wouldn't I?

To go back a bit - many of the churches I researched were strongly controlling / authoritarian. This suits some people, of course. But, IMO, it's not healthy.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating in this context, I think, if only to be fair. The 'new churches' did empower their members to be more out-going (for want of a better way of putting it). But, and it's a necessary big but, that empowerment only went so far - as far as the point at which members became a threat to the leadership.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

The one thing that struck me in a good way was the huge sign saying "WELCOME HOME" above the entrace. It doesn't make up for the lack of personal welcome, but by itself it's a nice touch.
I disagree. That notice would say to me 'This is where you should be, nowhere else, nowhere else can be your home. This is the end of your journey, no need to look anywhere else'. But maybe that's just me.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
But, and it's a necessary big but, that empowerment only went so far - as far as the point at which members became a threat to the leadership.
True of many churches - and other organisations where the leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

[ 24. July 2017, 15:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
That notice would say to me 'This is where you should be, nowhere else, nowhere else can be your home. This is the end of your journey, no need to look anywhere else'. But maybe that's just me.
I think it shows hat notices can be read in different ways by different people. For some people with a great sense of spiritual homelessness or "anomie", the poster may be very positive. You and I would find it too "final".
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I'm not sure where I heard it, but I recall a snippet (maybe Radio 4's Sunday programme??) referring to a report that said researchers in New Zealand had found that if you looked at places like HTB, Hillsong or similar over an extended period you found that people dropped out of attendance after about 10 years, especially those who joined up when at university or in their early 20s.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
The questions then are:

- why? Is it, for instance, because they get married, move house and get out of the church habit; or because work commitments become too onerous; or because they have to spend Sundays caring for aged parents; or because dislike the theology and style and/or get burned out by the pressure of church life?

- how does this compare to people, especially of similar age, in traditional churches?

This link may lead you to the research referenced (I have the book on my shelf, though I haven't opened it for ages!)

[ 24. July 2017, 15:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
But, and it's a necessary big but, that empowerment only went so far - as far as the point at which members became a threat to the leadership.
True of many churches - and other organisations where the leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
I think this points-up the ‘smallness’ of new churches. In general terms elders arise from within the congregation (not withstanding what I said about empowerment) as individuals prove themselves to be accepting of the beliefs and practices of the church leaders. They may subsequently move to be elders in another branch of the church but I guess that is not too common unless they are planting a new group under the auspices of the parent organisation.
In ‘mainstream’ churches, it seems to me, leaders will be glad to encourage members to go into training to become ministers, for example, and therefore they will not be a threat to their home church.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just what is it that draws such numbers of people to such a ghastly environment? Frankly, it sounds like one of the more unpleasant circles of Hell...

...O, I know - it's because they don't wear vestments, especially not cassock-albs!

IJ
Yes, but it sounds like the kind of place where if they did wear vestments, cassock-albs would be what they'd wear!
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
something which really wows you one week will get samey over time
There's something to be said after all for liturgical seasons and the liturgical calendar, isn't there?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Presumably most of the Christians who prefer to worship like this would describe themselves as evangelicals. I may be a bit thick, but I thought one of the characteristics of being evangelical was a love of scripture and a determination to engage with it.
This is speculative, since I have no particular knowledge of how Hillsong works.

There has always been a tendency among some evangelical church to separate "worship" (meaning singing songs, often with times of open prayer, short messages of encouragement, in more Charismatic settings tongues, prophecy etc) and "teaching". It's a form I've always struggled with, and I've never been comfortable in those forms of church. Most places I've known would, however, have had a preacher giving a message that was very Scripture heavy as a defined period of teaching between times of worship.

Many large churches would have their main periods of teaching happening in smaller groups mid-week. I assume that Hillsong would also have a programme of midweek meetings. In which case it could be that they have pushed the separation of "worship" and "teaching" to an extreme where they have a Sunday "worship" with minimal teaching, and midweek "teaching" so they don't even both happen during the same event.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
something which really wows you one week will get samey over time
There's something to be said after all for liturgical seasons and the liturgical calendar, isn't there?
Yes, and some variation in the style and format of worship, too.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
it sounds like the kind of place where if they did wear vestments, cassock-albs would be what they'd wear!
Oi!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Speaking of doors, I've heard it said, regarding such churches, that as many people leave by the back door (i.e. abandon the church) as come in through the front door (i.e. join the church).
I've read that high octane, revivalistic, demanding Christianity does tend to involve revolving doors. But it's always been this way.

John Wesley's movement lost a lot of people who couldn't or wouldn't live up to his high expectations. Indeed, he sent a lot of people away because of this. Not for him the idea that church should be a place for challenging the leadership and developing your own perspectives.

Then as now, it also seems that some people are drawn to these environments out of curiosity, attracted by the lively communal atmosphere. If the attraction never goes much deeper than this, though, then these people might not stay for the long haul. And young people just find it easier to move on from everything these days.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is clearly "something" which these churches are doing right to engage with a younger demographic [....]But do "traditional" churches have to render up their souls (and leave their collective brains at the door) in order to be "successful" in this way?

It seems to me that the gap between "old church" and "new church" is wider than ever. [...] One must ask some very serious questions about the future of church in places like Britain.
Lots of commentators have asked questions and tried to provide answers, but the many challenges must seem overwhelming to many ordinary churches - and also to ordinary clergy. No doubt it takes a special kind of personality to run the sorts of churches that appeal to young people.

But there's also the obvious point that new churches have to be more committed to evangelism, because otherwise they'd have no members. The historical churches are further away from the stage at which evangelism was their way of being so it's harder for them.

I'm a bit concerned by your implication that 'brains' (i.e. the intellect) must remain a priority for the old mainstream churches. This is problem, because the postmodern person might want to experience something, not simply give weekly assent to a range of intellectual propositions emanating from the pulpit.

A high level of theological education among the clergy is not necessarily beneficial to their congregations, nor to evangelistic endeavour. Still, I'm not trying to knock education. I just think that we need to strike a better balance.

[ 25. July 2017, 01:43: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

The one thing that struck me in a good way was the huge sign saying "WELCOME HOME" above the entrace. It doesn't make up for the lack of personal welcome, but by itself it's a nice touch.
I disagree. That notice would say to me 'This is where you should be, nowhere else, nowhere else can be your home. This is the end of your journey, no need to look anywhere else'. But maybe that's just me.
I can see that. I guess I took it more as a statement that you're welcomed unconditionally as if you're at home with family. Of course that's presuming a lot about one's family!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
. Still, I'm not trying to knock education. I just think that we need to strike a better balance.
Yes, I'm sure you're right. Personally I like the forensic/didactic "Reformed" style but I realise that it's not for everyone. Many folk indeed do want a worship "experience" which of course could be an aesthetically-beautiful cathedral service or an Orthodox liturgy just as much as a high-octane praise session. The question then must be whether the churches in fact need to bow to this post-modern god of "experience" if they are to grow; and, if so, what then happens to churches that simply can't offer it. (Or to ask whether this is nothing more than capitulation to the predominant culture of the age?)
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
The last point (parenthesized) is I think critical - and an area of strength to the Orthodoxen who will have no bar of modernizing compromise. I suspect the more trad forms may see a renewal of interest in the next two decades and the world of "relevance" [Projectile] dies its death and transcendence regains its hold in human longing
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The question then must be whether the churches in fact need to bow to this post-modern god of "experience" if they are to grow; and, if so, what then happens to churches that simply can't offer it. (Or to ask whether this is nothing more than capitulation to the predominant culture of the age?)
I think churches should do well what they do most authentically. If my liturgically MOTR Episcopal parish were to try the "praise music with band" style it would totally phony. I don't even know where we'd put the screen up as the architecture doesn't allow for it (why didn't they foresee PowerPoint in 1920?). It's probably best for us to be the best, most joyful organ-and-choir hymn-singing, Anglican-chanting congregation we can be.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
The last point (parenthesized) is I think critical - and an area of strength to the Orthodoxen who will have no bar of modernizing compromise.
Yet, paradoxically, the very "otherness" of Orthodoxy is what attracts some people.

quote:
I suspect the more trad forms may see a renewal of interest in the next two decades and the world of "relevance" dies its death and transcendence regains its hold in human longing
I wish I shared your optimism, but I think such a radical shift has taken place that I'm not sure we will be able to turn back that particular clock - at least for a large proportion of people.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I'm sure you're right. Personally I like the forensic/didactic "Reformed" style but I realise that it's not for everyone. Many folk indeed do want a worship "experience" which of course could be an aesthetically-beautiful cathedral service or an Orthodox liturgy just as much as a high-octane praise session. The question then must be whether the churches in fact need to bow to this post-modern god of "experience" if they are to grow; and, if so, what then happens to churches that simply can't offer it. (Or to ask whether this is nothing more than capitulation to the predominant culture of the age?)
One thing I've noticed recently is that there seem to be a large number of worshippers at various types of church across the range of styles (from say Cathedral liturgical through to Charismatic) who seem only to be interested in consuming the worship experience and nothing else.

It's almost like they're full-time Mystery Worshippers and once it is over they leave. Presumably to go home and write notes about what they liked/disliked about the service..
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I don’t understand the sentence in the report “Every part of the service seemed planned down to the minutiae”.

I have no first hand experience of Pentecostal worship, but I thought it was meant to be spontaneous.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:


I have no first hand experience of Pentecostal worship, but I thought it was meant to be spontaneous.
Hahaha. "And now lets have a spontaneous round of applause.."

Almost nothing is spontaneous.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don’t understand the sentence in the report “Every part of the service seemed planned down to the minutiae”.

I have no first hand experience of Pentecostal worship, but I thought it was meant to be spontaneous.
I'll go with the Mw'er - but I bet Hillsong wouldn't. I'm a bit surprised that the church hasn't commented - perhaps they need to have 'the mind of the Spirit' first (as agreed by the elders / bishops / apostles or whatever hierarchy they have).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I have a book on my shelf called "Liturgy and Freedom", written by a Baptist Minister working in a charismatic Anglican church (about 15 years ago). He describes worship (and I quote from memory) as something like "a spontaneous planned Spirit-led happening" - which I like!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There seem to be a large number of worshippers ... who seem only to be interested in consuming the worship experience and nothing else.
Which means it's all about "them" rather than about God. Is that inevitable in today's society; if so, should the churches "pander" to it or challenge it? Not easy.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have a book on my shelf called "Liturgy and Freedom", written by a Baptist Minister working in a charismatic Anglican church (about 15 years ago). He describes worship (and I quote from memory) as something like "a spontaneous planned Spirit-led happening" - which I like!
Each to their own - but to me claiming that something is spontaneous when in fact it is so organised as to be essentially liturgical is dishonest.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I tend to agree - although none of us is quite as spontaneous as we think we are because we are all influenced by trigger factors we may not be aware of. Not the same as planning something and then saying it's spontaneous, I agree.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One thing I've noticed recently is that there seem to be a large number of worshippers at various types of church across the range of styles (from say Cathedral liturgical through to Charismatic) who seem only to be interested in consuming the worship experience and nothing else.
I think doctrine is a problem. People don't particularly care to be told what to believe; that's now down to personal choice.

This is true for moderate Methodists, who no longer attend class meetings, as much as for Pentecostals, whose movement was never focused on the minutiae of doctrine, or for the 'broad church' CofE, or for RCs, who'll take communion but don't care much about the sermon, or any church pronouncements about family life.

And the cynical pew-sitter in me often feels that theology exists primarily as a hobby for the clergy, and for other cerebral churchy types. It's not what most people want religion for.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... A high level of theological education among the clergy is not necessarily beneficial to their congregations, nor to evangelistic endeavour. Still, I'm not trying to knock education. I just think that we need to strike a better balance.
But Svitlana, is there anything beneficial, evangelistic or edifying about a message that is ill-prepared, by somebody who may be well-meaning, may even be fervent, but appears not to have the ability to think perceptively about the things of the kingdom, and which doesn't hold water intellectually?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The preacher was perhaps poorly prepared. I wonder why. Was she stepping in for someone else? Perhaps she was in training. It's a shame the MW wasn't able to ask anyone about this over coffee after the service.

Still, the MW didn't say the preacher was incompetent, or that she'd been dismissive of Scripture. I've heard many 'mainstream' sermons, and not all of them have made careful reference to Bible passages. My main issue here would have been the length of the sermon; a 47 minute monologue from someone who admits straight up that they don't like preaching would have been painful for me to sit through.

The lack of welcome for the MW was a shame, but not uncommon in churches, sadly. The upside, though, is that some people want to disappear at church, and large congregations make that easier.

It also occurs to me that this report is excellent proof that sermons aren't much good at changing people's habits, as John Wesley and many others have realised. Telling people to be friendly to visitors isn't the same as showing them how.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
*Rips off mask*
It was I that wrote this particular report. Let’s see if I can answer a few points or add clarity.

First, when it comes to questions like “why do people join these churches” I would urge caution against ‘Othering’. The people who choose to be part of a church like Hillsong are, in my view, our brothers and sisters. They may not belong to the same part of the wider Church as Anglicans, Baptists or Methodists, but one is reminded of 1 Corinthians 12. Different ways of doing church will appeal to different people; if there is a genuine desire to find out why, my best suggestion would be to go along and try to talk to the people there. Speculation from afar off or listening to the sour grapes of those who’ve left is perhaps not the best substitute for first hand testimony. That is, if someone is willing to talk to you. [Roll Eyes]

I’d echo Alan Cresswell, in that I did get the impression that more of the teaching was done “behind closed doors” in small groups or other meetings that don’t take place during Sunday mornings. The main concern I did have was that the “I have decided” course was quite short (4 sessions). But then again, maybe it was meant more for spiritual milk than meat; for that, I could not begrudge them.

As for the statement that the sermon was theologically thin, again I would urge caution. We are called to love God with all our heart, soul and mind; some churches might emphasise one of these over and above the other. I certainly saw more passion in one morning at Hillsong than I’ve seen in a year’s worth of an FIEC Baptist church. I sometimes wonder that if we do love God and our neighbours, how important is theological exactitude? I can find points on which to disagree with just about anyone, but why bother, when you can embrace them as sibling in Christ? [Biased]

Venbede – there was almost nothing spontaneous here. In this respect, though different in style, it was quite reminiscent of high Anglo-Catholicism, where there is an idea of doing things “the right way” which invariably involves some kind of stage management. In this respect, Hillsong seems quite unlike other Pentecostal churches. A criticism made by charismatics (among whom I count myself) is that having scripts and carefully choreographed proceedings means there’s no room afforded for the Holy Spirit. Though having been to some truly free-for-all services, I can appreciate the need for a modicum of planning and order.

SvitlanaV2 – I got the impression that the preacher was quite experienced at public speaking, but that experience didn’t bring any great level of comfort. She said that she was speaking about something that had been on her heart. It clearly wasn’t part of a series that many churches might do, whether going through a particular book or a theme. It felt very much like a one-off.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Perhaps the speaker is being a little (or more) disingenuous in an attempt to get people on her side.

It's a bit like those speakers who apologise at the start for the message they are going to preach about (not prepared, very tough, new thinking etc). IMHO if you don't like preaching, don't do it plus you should never apologise for God's word ...only if it turns out being your own.

My own recent experience of attending some well known evangelical churches is that they are lighter on scripture than I would expect. Preaching seems to be moving to "lifestyle" and away from "life".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
IMHO if you don't like preaching, don't do it
I'm not sure about that. I think most people at some point in their life are "called" to do something they don't like. I don't particularly like public speaking, yet I have a job where that is part of what I'm expected to do. I have had too work hard, with some help from courses on public speaking, to overcome my inherent reserve and dislike of being the centre of attention. I have been an occasional preacher for several years, because there were times when the church I was at needed someone to preach (initially during the ministers sabbatical, then while we were without a minister, and now where we have a full-time minister for a group pastorate of three congregations so can't preach every week). Though it's not something I particularly like it is something I can do, and there's a need I can fill.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Actually, there maybe another reason why the speaker was poorly prepared. There is a tradition in English Nonconformity where preparation of sermon is seen as distrust of the Holy Spirit.

Thus the fact that she came across as badly prepared would be a sign of her virtue rather than a criticism.

Please note I do not subscribe to this view but am aware that it exists, in fact, was normative among nonconformists about two centuries ago.

Jengie
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There certainly is that tradition in many churches, but since the report says she was reading from notes doesn't seem to be the case here.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Actually, there maybe another reason why the speaker was poorly prepared. There is a tradition in English Nonconformity where preparation of sermon is seen as distrust of the Holy Spirit.

Thus the fact that she came across as badly prepared would be a sign of her virtue rather than a criticism.

Please note I do not subscribe to this view but am aware that it exists, in fact, was normative among nonconformists about two centuries ago.

Jengie
Strange. The report doesn't state she was poorly prepared. Where did you take that inference from?

As someone whose spent 30+ years in and around nonconformist churches, the idea of a lack of preparation being seen as a virtue is a new one on me.

In the baptist church I grew up in, the preparation of the sermon was the single largest piece of work the pastor did in a week. He'd cross reference scripture, various commentaries and a selection of theologians (with a preference for Martyn LLoyd-Jones and Charles Spurgeon). Contrast this with the first time I went to Anglican church and the sermon consisted of the vicar holding up newspaper headlines and saying "As Christians, this is what we should think about this".
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Wayward Crucifer (# 152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don’t understand the sentence in the report “Every part of the service seemed planned down to the minutiae”.

I have no first hand experience of Pentecostal worship, but I thought it was meant to be spontaneous.
Although the conversation has moved in, I have had some involvement with a Church that uses this style of Worship, and that meant that I occasionally got sent their service plan. It looked very roughly something like this:

code:
  Time	Event				Duration
10:58	Countdown video	
11:00	Opening song: "Title 1"		00:03
11:03	Welcome				00:01
11:04	Song: "Title 2"			00:03
11:07	Song: "Title 3"			00:03
11:10	Song: "Title 4"			00:05
11:15	Song: "Title 3" - repeat	00:03
11:18	Song: "Title 5"			00:03
11:21	Prayers				00:04
11:25	News video			00:04
11:29	Peace - Collection		00:04
11:33	Reading				00:04
11:37	Talk				00:24
12:01	Ministry			00:06
12:07	Song: "Title 6"			00:04
12:11	Song: Title 7"			00:04
12:15	Song: Title 8"			00:03
12:18	Dismissal			00:01
12:19	Closing slides
On each occasion, it ran nearly to the minute - digital clocks were on view to those at the front.

I would also note though, that they did, if they decided to (collectively through the various people leading), change their choices/schedule if they felt that something was happening spontaneously that needed time to be nourished or to grow.

I also think that, if asked, they would share that the service was this specifically planned, even if it was mostly given an Air of Spontaneity in implementation.

Wayward
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I’d echo Alan Cresswell, in that I did get the impression that more of the teaching was done “behind closed doors” in small groups or other meetings that don’t take place during Sunday mornings.
Since we're discussing the "sermon" (I'd be surprised if Hillsong would call it that) and the preparation needed, there is a follow-on to my observation about teaching primarily happening elsewhere.

When you move the focus of teaching away from the Sunday service then purpose of the "talking bit" of the service changes as well. In many instances in churches I've known (a long time ago now, I admit) what you end up with is something that is closer in function to the church notices than a sermon/homily. A report from a member who has been on mission, an update on the activities of a sister church, a string of anecdotes on what the pastor has been doing during the week. This serves many purposes (which, of course, are also often served by notices in other churches) - an exhortation to praise God for what has been happening and pray for the work, a demonstration of how the church is active in reaching the community around them and an invitation to get more involved. The description in the report of the "sermon" fits that model quite well. And, of course, won't involve anywhere near the amount of preparation as a teaching-focussed sermon - there may be reference to Scripture, but the commentaries would have stayed on the shelf.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
In the baptist church I grew up in, the preparation of the sermon was the single largest piece of work the pastor did in a week.
Still is, for me ... and in my last church I had two to do most weeks.

I have rather made a rod for my own back since I've moved to my present church though as I’m illustrating everything with Powerpoint headings, pictures and occasional video – it takes absolutely ages to put the presentations together!

Mind you, I've made a
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When you move the focus of teaching away from the Sunday service then purpose of the "talking bit" of the service changes as well ...
I'm sure you're right. And there are many folk (such as Mrs. BT!) who question the value of the traditional set-piece sermon - though I believe they can still have the power to inform, inspire and bring the congregation together in a way that other teaching methods may not.

However: the success of small-group teaching depends on what percentage of the church attends. If it's 90%, then you're onto a good thing. If it's only 10% (as per many churches), that means that many Christians never receive any teaching. Small groups may work well in a church whose members are spread out across a city and can meet in local "cells" - but that then begs the question of why they feel the need to travel so far for worship (which may brings us back to the issues of "experience" and "choice" mentioned above).

Questions, questions!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Mmm. without wanting to get too caught up in this diversion, this is because various churches believe that faith only comes from teaching (ie the sermon).

In fact, I think this is essentially a social construct. Most people need to be trained to learn anything from this method of teaching - and most people in our times don't have that training and therefore learn very little from sermons.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Couple of quick observations:

- Firstly, having been involved with the 'new churches' back in the 1980s/90s I'd echo what Mark Wuntoo found in his researches.

- I'd also echo points that ExclamationMark and Sipech have made, that, in general, we are seeing a lot less exegesis and thorough sermon preparation in some - but by no means all - large evangelical and charismatic churches than was the case 20 or 30 years ago.

- On the spontaneity thing, whilst some Anglo-Catholic parishes run their services with almost military precision and some of the clergy in the higher-end traditions can be liturgical-fascists, nobody in those settings is under any illusions that it is meant to be spontaneous or anything other than a carefully choreographed piece of liturgical theatre - a dramaturgy if you like. Whereas in some - I said some - of the newer outfits there's a certain disingenuousness insofar as they like to convey the impression of casualness and spontaneity when really it's anything but ...

Equally, perhaps I'm getting old, but 20 years back I was actually quite encouraged by what was happening across Baptist, independent charismatic evangelical and other evo-flavoured churches. I am less encouraged now.

Back then, I felt that some of the alt-worship experiments were opening things up beyond the standard worship song/chorus medley and that there were welcome influences coming in from other traditions - contemplative prayer, pilgrimage, neo-monastic movements, lectio divina ...

Whilst some of this seems to have continued I don't think it's made a great deal of difference - other than perhaps at a ministerial/leadership level in some quarters. It certainly hasn't percolated down into the plastic bucket-chairs ...

What was a strength of the non-conformist / evangelical tradition : exegetical preaching, close-reading of scripture, seriousness of intent - seems to have been compromised to some extent by froth and bubble.

On the issue of why people join churches like this and why they so often move on ...

- The attractions are obvious and considerable. A sense of commitment, passion and a very real sense of community. This is very attractive to people who may have moved to new areas through work or study.

- The downsides are equally obvious. Congregations of this kind can become controlling and claustrophobic. That's not restricted to this particular tradition, of course, but it is a feature.

For my own part, I began to get more and more disillusioned the busier I became, with work and family commitments. Also, as I took on more responsibility and gained more managerial positions I didn't want pat and glib answers nor did I want to feel manipulated by worship-leaders and pastors/elders. I'd have rathered go on a Trappist retreat than sing inane worship-songs over and over and over and over again ...

The final straw for us as a family came when we realised that we didn't want to expose our kids - then 4 and 2 - to full-on, manipulative charismania. The thought of people trying to manipulate my kids and try to induce them to 'speak in tongues' and so on filled me with horror.

I also had some run-ins with some highly officious stewards when what I felt were unreasonable demands were placed on my wife and very young kids when the kids were acting in the way kids normally do and playing and talking during the service. On one occasion it almost came to blows ... the closest I've come to wanting to punch someone on the nose in church ... or any other context for that matter.

As to where people go once they've gone through the revolving door ... well, in my experience they go in several possible directions:

- Most commonly, into more 'moderate' churches, generally Baptist.

- Into limbo, some kind of church-less faith or some kind of 'ghost-church' where they spend their time bemoaning what's happened and where they think things went wrong.

- Occasionally, and this is more rare, into liturgical/sacramental settings where there is still a sense of mystery and the numinous but without the ra-rah-rah and noise.

On the whole, they would tend to avoid MoTR churches like the Methodists or URC because they've been conditioned to believe that they are 'dead' and the people there aren't 'real Christians'. That said, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law have ended up quite happily in Methodism.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However: the success of small-group teaching depends on what percentage of the church attends. If it's 90%, then you're onto a good thing. If it's only 10% (as per many churches), that means that many Christians never receive any teaching. Small groups may work well in a church whose members are spread out across a city and can meet in local "cells" - but that then begs the question of why they feel the need to travel so far for worship (which may brings us back to the issues of "experience" and "choice" mentioned above).
All very good points. And, part of the answers to the questions is going to depend on how the church sees itself.

Again, I've no particular knowledge of Hillsong and how they operate. But, there was a movement towards "cell churches" while I was much more closely connected to the evangelical scene. In this model, the primary focus of the church is the cell group - the small group meeting locally, usually not on a Sunday, for teaching, prayer, fellowship. The Sunday get together of all the cells was secondary, and if time was limited you were expected to attend the meeting of your cell and there wasn't as much pressure to go to the big Sunday shin-dig.

Under such a model you're pretty much assured that all the members at a Sunday event were also regulars at their mid-week cell. You would, of course, have some visitors and a few others who were very occasional attendees. The benefit of the big meeting was a connection to something bigger, a worship experience that the small groups couldn't provide, maybe access a library or other shared resources ... almost all under the "experience" category. Somewhat akin to having an annual week at Spring Harvest, a spiritual adreneline shot (and, yes I know, SH has a lot of teaching running through the week so it's not a perfect analogy).

Ideally, the Sunday event would also be an opportunity for the curious to connect to a cell group in their area. Which clearly isn't going to work if people go to the area specifically set aside for such connections to happen and be ignored!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, and Ichthus used to work rather like that too.

The issue about which is the primary unit needs to be made clear though from the start: is the church built up from the cell or down from the celebration? It's hard to change from the latter to the former (as any Vicar, trying to persuade their members to attend house-groups, knows).
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I have a little knowledge about Hillsong as some friends went there and some still attend, although I haven't been and am unlikely to go. Yes, it's run on a cell-group model - the cell leader is effectively your pastor during the week and has a similar level of authority. The lead pastors are effectively the regional managers and most church members won't see them very much, but will go to their cell leader.

I strongly suspect that the light theological content on Sundays is partly in order to not scare people away with Hillsong's very unhip and very conservative views on things like sexuality (along with Bethel's leader, Hillsong's leader whose name I've forgotten supported 45). Cell leaders will discipline members with regards to these issues, hence some of my friends no longer attending. I don't think Hillsong's immense wealth (and it is immense, and only to increase if reports about a Mr Bieber are true) and bums on seats is worth their cold and shallow theology. It's not even spiritual milk, but spiritual malk with added vitamin R.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I think if you look at the cell structure of some of these outfits you'll find remarkable similarities with the organisation of political insurgencies (of all hues) over the past century. Not an original observation I'm afraid but one first posited by an acquaintance who at one stage was heavily involved at HTB and who likened it to the organisation of resistance cells in WWII.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
That strikes me as rather insulting to the WWII resistance groups, who were working for messy good rather than banal evil....

Evil is probably too strong for HTB (although I do dislike it immensely). Probably not for Hillsong, IMO. It's a hard right-wing agenda in a cool Instagrammable (but banal indeed) disguise. It makes me want to hug my messy grumpy uncool parish church very tightly indeed.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
To describe Hillsong as "banal evil" is just not too strong, but totally wrong. OK, you don't like Hillsong (and nor do I) but it is not in any sense of the word evil. Banal, yes.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To describe Hillsong as "banal evil" is just not too strong, but totally wrong. OK, you don't like Hillsong (and nor do I) but it is not in any sense of the word evil. Banal, yes.
Really? If Pomona's right that it promotes a hard-right homophobic agenda, one which leads people at best to abandon the faith, and at worst to despair and suicide, then is it too strong?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I'm not sure that the conditional clause is totally correct, but I do think that evil is the wrong word.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The questions then are:

- why? Is it, for instance, because they get married, move house and get out of the church habit; or because work commitments become too onerous; or because they have to spend Sundays caring for aged parents; or because dislike the theology and style and/or get burned out by the pressure of church life?

- how does this compare to people, especially of similar age, in traditional churches?

This link may lead you to the research referenced (I have the book on my shelf, though I haven't opened it for ages!)
Alan Jamieson did some serious research and has continued to study in the same field. When he was pastor at the city Baptist church here I went one evening after our service to a sort of coffee club he had for people who'd left churches but didn't want to abandon christianity.
He is now senior pastor at a Christchurch Baptist church.
"His PhD, and subsequent books and articles were based on his research on why people leave their church and their journeys of faith beyond regular church involvement."

GG
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To describe Hillsong as "banal evil" is just not too strong, but totally wrong. OK, you don't like Hillsong (and nor do I) but it is not in any sense of the word evil. Banal, yes.
It's not about dislike but about harm. There are many churches I dislike, but Hillsong ruins lives.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Strong language, indeed, but if Pomona has actually seen the damage, then fair enough.

I know of at least two people (one of whom died suddenly early this year) whose mental health was sadly impaired by a 'traditionalist' Anglo-Catholic sect (i.e. a breakaway, not part of the mainstream C of E). They found a measure of spiritual healing at Our Place, which is also A-C, but much less judgemental and/or domineering, and, nowadays, enjoys a leavening of open evangelical practice and teaching.....

IJ
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Alright, some resources for those exploring those no longer in a church.

Apart from Jamieson there is Richter and Francis' now dated research Gone But Not Forgotten. Its use of statistical tests is flawed.

Then there is the more current Invisible Church by Aisthorpe.

Both of these explore specifically the issue of those no longer in congregations. Then Abby Day looks at Believing in Belonging which looks at what people who never have gone to Church mean when they say they are Christian.

Jengie

[ 31. July 2017, 16:44: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I was provoked, after finding myself parked outside a church called Equip, to check out all the non-traditional churches in Auckland (pop. 1.5 million).
I finished with a list of 17, some of which had multiple 'campuses' and names like Equippers,Pursuit Church (Huge in the US),City Impact Church (Widely located in NZ and overseas),C3,Edge, Encounter, Gateway, Hope International.
They tended to have large buildings full of teen-to-twenties, several young or youngish couples as pastors, a range of weekday/night groups, a statement of faith starting with 'We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God for the Christian faith'and often instructions for giving/tithing.
One (I wish I could remember which) had a half-hour video of a sermon for which I couldn't fault the biblical content or the basic theology, though he could have condensed it a bit.
A far cry from the group I meet with fortnightly of mostly over-60s (in my case well over) all or most of whom are university graduates and theologically knowledgeable, some of whom are active in a regular church but with their own concept of god (if any), and who enjoy sharing their journeying.
We rather wish that the young folk could share the place where we find ourselves!

GG

(I hope this is relevant. It's what I thought I should add after reading the posts above.)
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To describe Hillsong as "banal evil" is just not too strong, but totally wrong. OK, you don't like Hillsong (and nor do I) but it is not in any sense of the word evil. Banal, yes.
It's not about dislike but about harm. There are many churches I dislike, but Hillsong ruins lives.
Hillsong does ruin some lives, no doubt about that, but equally there would be no doubt it enhances lives of others. I'd still say that "evil" is too strong a word.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I was provoked, after finding myself parked outside a church called Equip, to check out all the non-traditional churches in Auckland (pop. 1.5 million).
I finished with a list of 17, some of which had multiple 'campuses' and names like Equippers,Pursuit Church (Huge in the US),City Impact Church (Widely located in NZ and overseas),C3,Edge, Encounter, Gateway, Hope International.
They tended to have large buildings full of teen-to-twenties, several young or youngish couples as pastors, a range of weekday/night groups, a statement of faith starting with 'We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God for the Christian faith'and often instructions for giving/tithing.
One (I wish I could remember which) had a half-hour video of a sermon for which I couldn't fault the biblical content or the basic theology, though he could have condensed it a bit.
A far cry from the group I meet with fortnightly of mostly over-60s (in my case well over) all or most of whom are university graduates and theologically knowledgeable, some of whom are active in a regular church but with their own concept of god (if any), and who enjoy sharing their journeying.
We rather wish that the young folk could share the place where we find ourselves!

GG

(I hope this is relevant. It's what I thought I should add after reading the posts above.)
Very, I'd have thought. It sounds like a NZ version of what was said of Latin America - I've been unable to find out by whom,
quote:
“Liberation theology opted for the poor, and the poor opted for pentecostalism.”
Just one other question. When you were 25-30, and pressed with all the other claims on your life then, and probably parenthood of young children, would you have wanted to spend your time, once fortnightly, with a meeting of your parents and their friends?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
...
A far cry from the group I meet with fortnightly of mostly over-60s (in my case well over) all or most of whom are university graduates and theologically knowledgeable, some of whom are active in a regular church but with their own concept of god (if any), and who enjoy sharing their journeying.
We rather wish that the young folk could share the place where we find ourselves!

GG

(I hope this is relevant. It's what I thought I should add after reading the posts above.)
Sounds good, the sort of group I'd dip my toes in.
I'm also well over 60, a non-theist but interested, even now fascinated with religion.
Pentecostalism - been there, done that, got the T-shirt (to go with many other colours).
Thanks for sharing; it fed my prejudices. [Razz]
I rather thought you were saying that you wished the young folk could share your exploring / openness, rather than share your actual meeting space - and with that I totally agree.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To describe Hillsong as "banal evil" is just not too strong, but totally wrong. OK, you don't like Hillsong (and nor do I) but it is not in any sense of the word evil. Banal, yes.
It's not about dislike but about harm. There are many churches I dislike, but Hillsong ruins lives.
Hillsong does ruin some lives, no doubt about that, but equally there would be no doubt it enhances lives of others. I'd still say that "evil" is too strong a word.
Would you be able to supply a better one? Banal hardly seems to cover it.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
No one word really covers it and the whole sentence would need to be recast along the lines: " Hillsong preaches doctrines and approaches with which I strongly disagree and which are incompatible with my beliefs and liturgical preferences."
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No one word really covers it and the whole sentence would need to be recast along the lines: " Hillsong preaches doctrines and approaches with which I strongly disagree and which are incompatible with my beliefs and liturgical preferences."
Not strong enough. Doesn't include "promotes a damaging and harmful agenda"
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
You could add that, preceded by "which I consider has ..."
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I was provoked, after finding myself parked outside a church called Equip, to check out all the non-traditional churches in Auckland (pop. 1.5 million).[...]

A far cry from the group I meet with fortnightly of mostly over-60s (in my case well over) all or most of whom are university graduates and theologically knowledgeable, some of whom are active in a regular church but with their own concept of god (if any), and who enjoy sharing their journeying.
We rather wish that the young folk could share the place where we find ourselves!
Perhaps those young people will be at the same place as you on the journey when they're over 60.

At this point they're looking for something lively that engages their bodies and emotions rather than an intellectual engagement.

[ 01. August 2017, 11:55: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

At this point they're looking for something lively that engages their bodies and emotions rather than an intellectual engagement.
[Killing me]

Not about GOD then?! [Snigger]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Some would say that God can be discovered though the whole body and through an emotional response, not primarily through the intellect.

If this were not so, then people who lack education and theological training couldn't or shouldn't become Christians.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Enoch asked:
quote:
Just one other question. When you were 25-30, and pressed with all the other claims on your life then, and probably parenthood of young children, would you have wanted to spend your time, once fortnightly, with a meeting of your parents and their friends?
Trying to imagine: At 25-30 I was teaching, here and in the UK, and doing my OE* I didn't marry till 35, and had children at age 38 and 39. And at that stage: No.
I actually worried that I'd feel awkward at Play Centre (the parent run pre-school) but I got on fine with the younger parents.
But that was different.
I was probably in my fifties when a large bunch of us from our congregation formed a group called Frontiers of Faith and travelled outside the square for quite a few years.
Now our congregation is looking for a new minister and having difficulty as it seems that trainees are more likely to be evangelically inclined, while our lay supply is unashamedly Progressive and calls a myth a myth.

*Overseas Experience

GG
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I don't know what the structure is in your church, but if it's congregational maybe you could band together and help to pay for one of your own number to do the training? If the individual did it by distance study or attended a local college they could work, study and get practical experience at your church all at the same time.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Well, GG's profile says that she's a Presbyterian and a solid feature of Presbyterianism is government by elders, with churches grouped together in presbyteries and then synods; then subsequent grouping of synods into assemblies. Indeed that method of government was carried over into the Uniting Church here.

[ 02. August 2017, 10:54: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Ah yes, I should have looked.

The trouble is that very liberal theologies don't reproduce themselves very effectively nowadays. They don't usually send young people into ministerial training or keep young laypeople in the church. So as Galloping Granny has noticed, today's ministerial candidates are likely to be fairly orthodox.

A more congregational set-up would help churches which are distinctively liberal to find or train their own ministers.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The trouble is that very liberal theologies don't reproduce themselves very effectively nowadays. They don't usually send young people into ministerial training or keep young laypeople in the church. So as Galloping Granny has noticed, today's ministerial candidates are likely to be fairly orthodox.
Aside from questioning that the poles are "liberal" and "orthodox" rather than "liberal/progressive" – "conservative/evangelical," this is not my experience at all. My experience is that the majority of students at our seminaries fall into the moderate-to-liberal side of the theological (and political) spectrum. It's also my experience that it is much more common for a congregation to have a minister who is more liberal than the congregation as a whole than for a minister to be more conservative than his or her congregation.

[ 02. August 2017, 11:32: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Yes, the terminology is debatable. But in Galloping Granny's church, mere orthodoxy appears to be open to question, not just evangelicalism.

She's also in New Zealand, which I think is similar to the UK in being highly secularised. In such a context, liberal or even just fairly moderate Christianity struggles to make its mark between evangelical (or just very orthodox) Christianity on the one hand and widespread indifference to or ignorance about Christianity on the other.

Comments that new candidates for ministerial training are more and more likely to be evangelical aren't new. I know a theologian who made the same comment a few years ago about the ecumenical college where he worked. One comes across similar claims occasionally in writing. It's unsurprising, because evangelical churches tend to have a higher proportion of young people, and hence produce more young candidates for the ministry.

But I admit that it's probably more of an issue in my (and GG's) country than in yours.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
My experience (admittedly anecdotal, and in a C of E context) of helping many people find spiritual direction, is that the majority come from a fairly conservative (even extreme) evangelical background but are increasingly dissatisfied with this and are looking for a more liturgical-sacramental-mystical type of Christianity. It's age-related to some extent but even people in their 20s and 30s are feeling this.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I just wanted to add that the claim that ministers are often more liberal than their congregations is something I've come across myself. I think it's true. But in Britain it seems to refer mainly to an older generation of clergy - middle aged or above. Especially in mainstream congregations.

On the Ship, I get the impression that the clergy posters are often more liberal than their congregations. But the layfolk here often seem to chafe against church leaders who are more conservative than themselves. It's just a general impression, obviously with many exceptions.

At places like Hillsong, where evangelism and discipleship are priorities, I suspect the latter situation is more usual.

[ 02. August 2017, 12:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
On training for ministry: the newer charismatic churches mostly espouse in-house training, I think. This obviously has its dangers of perpetuating or watering down theology and practice. In my early days in fundamentalist churches we went away to BIBLE Colleges, not Theological colleges which were seen as too 'liberal'. In my experience people who were charismatic in personality / behaviour sometimes became pastors without any formal training and I believe this is a common practice in 'African' congregations in London and probably elsewhere.
Just a wild guess but I would suspect Hillsong to fit someone in these scenarios, possibly the first. I could be wrong, and hope I am FWIW.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
My experience (admittedly anecdotal, and in a C of E context) of helping many people find spiritual direction, is that the majority come from a fairly conservative (even extreme) evangelical background but are increasingly dissatisfied with this and are looking for a more liturgical-sacramental-mystical type of Christianity. It's age-related to some extent but even people in their 20s and 30s are feeling this.
My experience too.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
My experience (admittedly anecdotal, and in a C of E context) of helping many people find spiritual direction, is that the majority come from a fairly conservative (even extreme) evangelical background but are increasingly dissatisfied with this and are looking for a more liturgical-sacramental-mystical type of Christianity. It's age-related to some extent but even people in their 20s and 30s are feeling this.
It also cuts the other way. In the charismatic churches, one often sees newcomers who have been brought up in the more ecclesiastically conservative environs of Anglicanism, but have been put off by the lifelessness of all things liturgical, often abandoning church and then coming back to faith later in life.

Perhaps both are instances of familiarity breeding contempt, with the petulance of youth leading them in search of their own kind of novelty. Then, later in life, people settle.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
On training for ministry: the newer charismatic churches mostly espouse in-house training, I think. This obviously has its dangers of perpetuating or watering down theology and practice. In my early days in fundamentalist churches we went away to BIBLE Colleges, not Theological colleges which were seen as too 'liberal'. In my experience people who were charismatic in personality / behaviour sometimes became pastors without any formal training and I believe this is a common practice in 'African' congregations in London and probably elsewhere.
Just a wild guess but I would suspect Hillsong to fit someone in these scenarios, possibly the first. I could be wrong, and hope I am FWIW.
The nature of cell-churches (if, as appears to be the case, Hillsong follows a version of that model) is that the church has a large number of "pastors" - the majority of members will only know the leader(s) of their cell, who will have the primary role in teaching and pastoral care. One would assume that they're expected to be "on message" with the teaching of the senior pastors of the church, but in practice they will all have their own views which will inform their actions. With the number of pastors needed, there would be a sufficient number of people to make an in-house training system practical. There's nothing inherently wrong with an in-house system (otherwise we should shut down all those denominational seminaries, which are a different form of in-house ministerial training). The question is the quality of that training.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Before we carry on this speculation may I point out that a quick google turns up this institution. You are welcome to explore.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Lifelessness and liveliness are often in the eye of the beholder, Sipech.

I don't find things liturgical lifeless, nor do I find apparently lively things to be as lively as the participants imagine they are.

I'm not knocking one or t'other.

For my own part, I'm glad I've had experience of both and been exposed to both.

On balance, I'd concede that my appreciation of things liturgical has been enhanced in some way by doing all the lively stuff.

It's a funny thing, but the first few times I revisited more liturgical settings after years of 'liveliness' I thought, 'Hey, this is great ... Why didn't I notice all this the first time round?'

There might be some symbiotic connection and relationship. I needed the liveliness to shake things from my head to my heart. I needed the liturgy to move things back up to my head ...

But it's both/and - I feel a heart-connection with some forms of liturgy in as goose-bumpy a way as anything I ever did in my full-on charismatic days.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I heard a comment more than once some time ago, that the contemporary theology that we were interested in was basic stuff taught in all theological colleges but didn't reach the people in the pews because 'the minister has to feed his wife and children'.

Certainly while our Progressive lay supply boldly explains his theology, the people in our pews love him, but a whole bunch of them happily toddled off to six sessions of an Alpha prayer course. In a private chat with one of the younger (than me!) women I had the impression that her faith was quite orthodox.

As a lay preacher in my other church when I'm on holiday, which is depressingly conservative, I find it's not difficult to speak of say a gospel story and its situation and message without either abandoning my own convictions or contradicting theirs.
GG
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Before we carry on this speculation may I point out that a quick google turns up this institution. You are welcome to explore.

Jengie
Thank you. Quite interesting and informative. As might be expected, they are light on 'theology' and heavy on practice. 'In house' seems an appropriate description. I wonder who else accepts the qualifications as appropriate for ministry?
I may have missed it - nothing about 'cross cultural' training, which surprises me.
 
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
As someone from Sydney with some years experience in such colleges, I would comment that to me, that site says more in what it does not say than in what is written there. I did not attend there but have been a student and on staff in other coilleges and have known Hillsong students.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Alan notes
quote:
The nature of cell-churches (if, as appears to be the case, Hillsong follows a version of that model) is that the church has a large number of "pastors" - the majority of members will only know the leader(s) of their cell, who will have the primary role in teaching and pastoral care.
Is it also usual, as it seemed to me in my searches, that the 'pastors' are almost invariably young couples?
GG
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Galloping Granny

Some research suggests that American clergy who are more liberal than their congregations are more likely to experience low levels of job satisfaction.

This is worrying. There must be a limit to the effectiveness of a church where the congregation and clergy aren't on the same page.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Is it also usual, as it seemed to me in my searches, that the 'pastors' are almost invariably young couples?
GG
Yes. And, if you'll note their web photos, the woman is generally depicted as being shorter than the man and clinging to him.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Galloping Granny

Some research suggests that American clergy who are more liberal than their congregations are more likely to experience low levels of job satisfaction.

This is worrying. There must be a limit to the effectiveness of a church where the congregation and clergy aren't on the same page.
Please can we have one of them?

Preferably Presbyterian But we swap round a lot; our neighbouring presbyterian/Methodist church has a minister poached from the baptists and before that a Sally Army man (when two elders were licensed to preside at Communion) both wonderful ministers.

GG
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Is it also usual, as it seemed to me in my searches, that the 'pastors' are almost invariably young couples?
GG
Yes. And, if you'll note their web photos, the woman is generally depicted as being shorter than the man and clinging to him.
Women in a ministry rôle! Would not happen in a Sydney Anglican church where the ministers all have lovely wives, that being their function in life.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Galloping Granny

Some research suggests that American clergy who are more liberal than their congregations are more likely to experience low levels of job satisfaction.

This is worrying. There must be a limit to the effectiveness of a church where the congregation and clergy aren't on the same page.
Please can we have one of them?

GG
If you're able to get someone a work visa, perhaps you could look abroad for your new minister? The USA probably produces quite a lot of liberal candidates as it's such a religiously diverse country.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@GeeD - our now-retired Father Fuckwit was always wittering on about his Lovely Wife. He did on one occasion remark to me that he had 'no problem with wimmin, as long as they kept their pinafores on, and didn't leave the kitchen'. This from an Anglo-Catholic priest, but with a rather fundamentalist evo background from years ago.

@SvitlanaV2 - the Vicar of the Church Of My Yoof once did a six-months' stint as Rector of a TEC parish (I forget in which state/diocese). Our two curates (yes, it was a long time ago) managed our parish in the meantime, so we didn't have the benefit of the ministry of an ECUSA (as it was then) priest. I wonder if these reciprocal arrangements still exist?

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
@GeeD - our now-retired Father Fuckwit was always wittering on about his Lovely Wife.
That always makes me want to ask about the Other (Less Lovely) Wife which he must be hiding somewhere.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
His first wife died some years ago, but he was always wittering on about her as well. However, he always referred to her as his Dear Wife, so that we knew of whom he was speaking.

Frankly, his gushing uxoriousness became somewhat annoying to his tiny congregation of divorced, celibate, Living-In-Sin, gay/bisexual etc. peeps...

IJ
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Lovely wives spend their time looking after the house, filled with 3 delightful children. They have no independent relationship with their husband's church, although they may teach at Sunday School, help with any flower guild (usually these were disbanded some years ago) and of course simper around generally. No movement since 1957, in other words.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Galloping Granny

Some research suggests that American clergy who are more liberal than their congregations are more likely to experience low levels of job satisfaction.

This is worrying. There must be a limit to the effectiveness of a church where the congregation and clergy aren't on the same page.
Please can we have one of them?

GG
If you're able to get someone a work visa, perhaps you could look abroad for your new minister? The USA probably produces quite a lot of liberal candidates as it's such a religiously diverse country.
It's not uncommon for congregations to calla minister from overseas, either for a permanent posting or for a year's swap. We had a great American about 40 years ago; he'd been a nuclear physicist before entering the ministry. A couple from our congregation returned a few weeks ago from visiting his widow, and today heard that she had had a stroke and died, aged almost 90.
Which is irrelevant, of course; I don't know whether our committee have thought of looking abroad.
GG
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Great news in church today: we have a prospect who is preaching for a call in two weeks' time – when I shall be in hospital.
His present parish is not far away. I drove past the church yesterday and remarked to the cousin I was with that I hadn't heard anything about that church for many years but they used to be known as the most theologically conservative in the region. However we've been assured that he knows all about us and while he might not be as Progressive as our Lay Supply he shouldn't be too far off.
Those who won't be present are hoping for either a recording or at least a transcript of sermon.
Any problems and we'll just have to teach him. At my age you can get away with a lot, but it was many years ago that I gently scolded a visiting preacher for saying 'In this Psalm David says...' when there are only a handful of psalms that could possibly have been written by David.

GG
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:

Those who won't be present are hoping for either a recording or at least a transcript of sermon.
Any problems and we'll just have to teach him.
That's interesting. I've never heard of liberal congregations requiring copies of the sermons before. Is it so you can analyse how progressive the preacher is, and whether you need to 'teach' him? I don't know if I'd want to preach under those circumstances! But maybe your chap is very young and keen to develop his progressive credentials.

Otherwise, if you expect to know just as much as - or even more than - the preacher then I'm not sure what point there is in hearing or reading his/her words.

The best thing would surely be for the visiting preacher to attend some of your services in advance. Then he'll know what kind of thing the congregation expects.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Lovely wives spend their time looking after the house, filled with 3 delightful children. They have no independent relationship with their husband's church, although they may teach at Sunday School, help with any flower guild (usually these were disbanded some years ago) and of course simper around generally. No movement since 1957, in other words.
I'd better show that to Mrs Mark .... on second thoughts I want to live longer than today so perhaps not.

I can identify the type though. In a previous church I was asked to preach on the subject of wives not working: I refused of course as Mrs M was the 1st Minister's wife in that church to work.

I gave the church a straightforward choice - 3 children at university, fees to pay. If Mrs M didn't work then would they like to increase my stipend accordingly?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Your family must have been the wrong demographic fit for that church. Previous ministerial families there were probably less upwardly-mobile.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:

Those who won't be present are hoping for either a recording or at least a transcript of sermon.
Any problems and we'll just have to teach him.
That's interesting. I've never heard of liberal congregations requiring copies of the sermons before. Is it so you can analyse how progressive the preacher is, and whether you need to 'teach' him? I don't know if I'd want to preach under those circumstances! But maybe your chap is very young and keen to develop his progressive credentials.

Otherwise, if you expect to know just as much as - or even more than - the preacher then I'm not sure what point there is in hearing or reading his/her words.

The best thing would surely be for the visiting preacher to attend some of your services in advance. Then he'll know what kind of thing the congregation expects.
If I were involved in a selection process (Saint Vartan's, where I once was a member, had a rector twice imposed by bishops without a selection process, so I escaped that), I would like to see a few written sermons to understand: 1) if the candidate can think things through, 2) if they have a narrow or broad base of reading, 3) exactly which hobbyhorse they were riding, and 4) perhaps an inkling of their theology.

Having dealt with a few clergy who were really not interested in what the congregation expected, Svitlana's suggestion that they attend is not a bad start, but it's only a start.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Your family must have been the wrong demographic fit for that church. Previous ministerial families there were probably less upwardly-mobile.
Or else, perhaps, they were childless.
Or they left before their children got to Uni. age.
Or (like me) were to old to have Uni.-age children.
Or were there years ago, when far fewer young people went on to higher education.
Or had "private means" or wealthy (and generous) parents ...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
If I were involved in a selection process
... I would like to see a few written sermons to understand: 1) if the candidate can think things through, 2) if they have a narrow or broad base of reading, 3) exactly which hobbyhorse they were riding, and 4) perhaps an inkling of their theology.
I agree. And, of course, many churches now have links to sermons on their websites, which you can read and/or listen to.

When "preaching with a view" I cunningly and deliberately dropped in a few phrases and comments to see if people would pick them up and, if so, what their response would be. Nothing too controversial, but wanted people to be able to have a feel for "what they would be getting" if they decided to call me.

Of course, ministry isn't just about sermons!

[ 14. August 2017, 15:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would like to see a few written sermons to understand: 1) if the candidate can think things through
In this diocese, candidates have to give a presentation at interview to demonstrate this.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That reminds me of the time when I was training as a Lay Reader. In those far-off days, one had to go and preach a sermon to the Warden of Readers, in his study.

I duly did so, the elderly Canon Warden sitting back (eyes closed) in his big, old, leather armchair. I reached the end of my oration, and the Warden sat quietly for a few moments before saying 'First, the good point...'

You will, of course, note the use of the singular.

[Hot and Hormonal]

IJ
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:

Those who won't be present are hoping for either a recording or at least a transcript of sermon.
Any problems and we'll just have to teach him.
That's interesting. I've never heard of liberal congregations requiring copies of the sermons before. Is it so you can analyse how progressive the preacher is, and whether you need to 'teach' him? I don't know if I'd want to preach under those circumstances! But maybe your chap is very young and keen to develop his progressive credentials.

Otherwise, if you expect to know just as much as - or even more than - the preacher then I'm not sure what point there is in hearing or reading his/her words.

The best thing would surely be for the visiting preacher to attend some of your services in advance. Then he'll know what kind of thing the congregation expects.
It's those who will be absent who hope to know what he reveals when 'preaching for a call', the whole point of which is to give the congregation a chance to approve of the committee's choice. He's not a young thing, and has had extensive discussions with the selection committee, and obviously feels he has more in common with us than previous candidates did.
The 'just have to teach him' comment was made with tongue in cheek, which one cannot to easily on a computer screen.
Actually, a number of our Lay Supply's sermons are on our website so he may well have read them; and maybe there are sermons of our candidate on his present church's website; I must have a look.
GG
GG
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I suspect that Svitlana62 may not have picked up the idiom in "teach".

Many churches have online videos of sermons, many more have the texts online the day after the sermon's been delivered. I don't know why a progressive, liberal parish may be more or less interested in including this sort of detail in the search for a new minister than a conservative one. I'd have thought that both would want to find out what a prospective candidate's approach is like, as well as the preaching style.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
His current parish has a Facebook page which has been inactive for some time. No help there.
GG
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Don't misunderstand me. As in any congregation, there is a wide range of personal belief, but we don't let that bother us. The basic teaching of Jesus and the love of God is what unites us.
We just need to know that he isn't, say, rigidly evangelical, and the committee will have sorted that one out.

GG
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Those who won't be present are hoping for either a recording or at least a transcript of sermon.
Within my tradition that would be for academic interest only, because only those present when the candidate preaches with a view¹ would be able to vote (the vote would normally happen at the end of a Church Meeting immediately following the service). By the time those who are absent get to hear/read the sermon the process would have been concluded.

 

¹ Which can sometimes lead to people still on the membership role turning up for the first time in years just as the service starts, and leaving immediately after the votes have been cast and counted to not be seen again for several more years. In one case at a former church they did so just to vote "no".
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
And in my corner of my tradition, only the search committee would actually hear the candidate preach; the congregation would not. The congregation calls a pastor relying solely on the committee's recommendation.

Svitlana, it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with the importance of preaching in some traditions. If I recall correctly, Galloping Granny, like me, comes from a Presbyterian tradition, where preaching is central. When I served on a search committee, a survey showed that the first thing the congregation was looking for was a good preacher. (Good pastoral care came in second.) But really, we didn't need a survey to tell us that; it was pretty much a given.

I can't tell you how many sermons we read, listened to or watched on video. Finalists we listened to in person. The point was to make sure the candidate was a really good preacher with a style and approach (yes, including theological perspectives) that would resonate with and challenge our congregation. We were looking at many other things too, of course.

We hit the jackpot, btw. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which can sometimes lead to people still on the membership role turning up for the first time in years.
Tangent:// That is why Communion cards used to be issued - if one hadn't been present at Communion without good reason for (say) six months, one retained one's membership but lost the right to vote. //:Ends.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Your family must have been the wrong demographic fit for that church. Previous ministerial families there were probably less upwardly-mobile.
Or else, perhaps, they were childless.
Or they left before their children got to Uni. age.
Or (like me) were to old to have Uni.-age children.
Or were there years ago, when far fewer young people went on to higher education.
Or had "private means" or wealthy (and generous) parents ...
Of course, you're quite right.

However, what unites all of these points with mine is that they're utterly practical. The theology is neither here nor there. So perhaps the moral of the story is not to become a minister at such a church unless your wife has a 'real life' reason for not getting a paid job! The demographics (age, class, qualifications, etc.) remain relevant.

But seriously, it must be difficult for evangelical ministers to find a post that's exactly the right fit for them and their families. I think MOTR clergy generally expect to be more liberal than their congregations, and they're often employed by and paid from a central denominational authority, so what a congregation believes about this, that or the other doesn't matter to them so much. If evangelical clergy are expected to be more particular about the theology while also needing to pay their bills out of their congregation's offerings I'm sure that creates more room for conflict.

I assume that the CofE's evangelical clergy must have the best of both worlds; they can hope to be placed with congenial evangelical congregations, but if that doesn't work out at least they'll still get paid....

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

Svitlana, it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with the importance of preaching in some traditions. If I recall correctly, Galloping Granny, like me, comes from a Presbyterian tradition, where preaching is central. When I served on a search committee, a survey showed that the first thing the congregation was looking for was a good preacher. (Good pastoral care came in second.) But really, we didn't need a survey to tell us that; it was pretty much a given.

I can't tell you how many sermons we read, listened to or watched on video.

You're talking about listening to sermons as part of the hiring and/or training process. I didn't realise that Galloping Granny was originally referring to that kind of scenario. I thought it was just a case of a visiting preacher stepping in to fill a gap. I didn't see why this new person's sermon would need to be recorded and analysed, but now it makes more sense.

[ 15. August 2017, 13:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Svitlana, I'm sorry if I initially gave a misleading impression.
I think that theology in this case is at least as critical as preaching, in that there would be a range of theology among the members but no dedicated evangelicals, and it seems that the eager candidates for ministry training at the moment seem to be of that kind. So I suppose that if a sermon doesn't totally fit with one's personal belief pattern one would think 'That was interesting' and get on with what needed doing, and maybe discuss it with the preacher if he had a good relationship with his flock.

GG
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which can sometimes lead to people still on the membership role turning up for the first time in years.
Tangent:// That is why Communion cards used to be issued - if one hadn't been present at Communion without good reason for (say) six months, one retained one's membership but lost the right to vote. //:Ends.
Not really, many churches would not have done it that way.

Originally communion tokens (the predecessor of cards) were used to show who could be trusted as Presbyterian and not to report the illegal communion service to the authorities.

Later they became a method of assessing who was fit to come to communion. Only those judged by the minister or the elder to be in good moral and theological position would receive a card and thus be able to come to communion.

Finally, they came a way of assessing pastoral care. That is a way of making sure elders visited their flock regularly between communions.

In my home congregation receiving a communion card was a convenience for members(you did not need to sign in on a sheet) but nothing more. So if you were suspended from voting it would be because you were not recorded at communion, not because you did not present the card. However, I never heard of anyone having the right to vote withdrawn while remaining a member. I have heard of removal from the role for not attending communion. The grounds being that you had effectively excommunicated yourself but this is full removal from membership.

Jengie

[ 16. August 2017, 09:44: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :
 
quote:
I gave the church a straightforward choice - 3 children at university, fees to pay. If Mrs M didn't work then would they like to increase my stipend accordingly?
[Killing me]
 
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :
 
In our parish we would not only listen to the preaching, but also have a good sniff round the applicants parish to any unfiltered information.

This might sound underhand, but there have been too many parishes who have agreed to appoint a vicar (with tenure) based on a very rose tinted (or downright inaccurate) version of them from the diocese or archdeaconary. We are in a benefice of many rural parishes and have been lied to by candidates and officialdom in the past. We stop short of negatively vetting, but it's not far off, as getting shot of a C of E priest is hard work and never goes well for anyone.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
In our parish we would not only listen to the preaching, but also have a good sniff round the applicants parish to any unfiltered information.
Yes. Some parishes have learnt this the hard way (very hard indeed, in some cases).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It works the other way too: prospective clergy do well (if they can) to find out as much as possible about the church they might serve.
 
Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
There are some Dead Horse issues in this, but otherwise I thought it was interesting - article on a visit to the main Hillsong in London. I thought it would be a good companion to the MW report!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Quite interesting, but only quite. The writer clearly didn't get what the place she was visiting was about. She seems mainly interested in what celebs do, and what the members of the congregation are wearing, whether their jeans are stylish or not.

She doesn't even seem to appreciate that 'join' in a church context doesn't mean the same as 'visit'!

A preacher who has publicly endorsed Trump would be a full-blown no for me. It would call into question whether I would trust anything he or she said about anything else or could be kosher. But the journalist doesn't seem even to know that Hillsong is Australian, not based wherever this Revd Franklin comes from.

And yet again, this journalistic infatuation with what boxes a person ticks on a single dead horse issue.

So two cheers at the most.
 
Posted by Scots lass (# 2699) on :
 
I'm inclined to agree with you, Enoch. I was interested in how Hillsong came across to someone who was obviously not that familiar with church, but it's not like she was going with an open mind. It was more of an "investigate these weirdos" feel, so two cheers at most seems about right!
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0