|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Reverse Missionaries
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
I was wondering if anyone saw this ?
And if so any thoughts?
I found it quite moving esp. the stuff about Livingstone.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I get the point of it, and I'm sure you had a good time watching it. But we'll never see it this side of the pond.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squirrel
Shipmate
# 3040
|
Posted
Here in New York City Korean evangelists come to preach - in English.
--------------------
"The moral is to the physical as three is to one."
- Napoleon
"Five to one."
- George S. Patton
Posts: 1014 | From: Gotham City - Brain of the Great Satan | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I saw it ... and the week before.
Some thoughts:
I like the contrast between the Christianity in Britain and the "new" countries. Linking with the old missionaries is good - if a bit fanciful.
The Ministers who have come were great - especially the Jamaican guy last week. The Blantyre Deacons were all-too-predictable. Both British ministers were treated symapthetically.
Two mistakes: last week we were told that Baptists believe that sin is washed away by total immersion; this week we were told about Congregationists and "other faiths" - i.e. denominations.
In all these types of programmes (whether it's relaunching a shop or restaurant, or this), there's a huge element of artificiality: how bad things have been, how vibrant the newcomer is, etc. Then new things are done, people flock ... surely some/a lot of this has to be set up in advance? And there must be a "let's come along so we can be on the telly" syndrome.
Within these constraints I've quite liked it. It shows the life of the church in the developing world ... and (so rare on TV) it shows us Nonconformists that aren't Far Right Fundies.
Could say more, but no time. Anyway - two cheers.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd
Shipmate
# 8436
|
Posted
I thought it was interesting, moving at times and the spirit of the African pastors was inspirational...However, what the program did not touch on at all was how any deeper theological or social differences may have played out; playing football and cooking barbeques for the locals is one thing (and one can see how that can lead to more people attending) but if these pastors held the same views as many African Christians on homosexuality and had expressed those views from the pulpit then the response to them could have been very different. It is not just enough to say that if we do what they do we will get the same results because there is a complex package of context and culture - that applies to missionaries in whichever direction they are travelling.
--------------------
Cedd
Churchmanship: This week I am mostly an evangelical, catholic, orthodox with both liberal and illiberal tendancies. Terms and conditions apply.
Posts: 377 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
I saw this week & enjoyed it. I thought it was very sympathetic to everyone involved - but it made me think more about the divisions in the congregation that I attend presently rather than cross cultural aspect but I agee with Cedd about the content
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Despite the inaccuracies, there is much food for thought, though we probably knew it already - that those of us who 'minister' tend to keep things the way they are because we will lose faithful congregation members otherwise. They (we) want to attract the young but won't like the changes that might follow.
I think it is possible to attract young people without going happy-clappy or evangelical but older folk must be welcoming and listening to new ideas.
[ 25. March 2012, 18:08: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
I'm about 1/2 way through the Jamaican on i-player (didn't realise we were on week 2 already!
The reference to baptism was cringe-worthy - it does make you wonder if the scriptwriters talk/listen to the people involved.
One thing I've noticed in both episodes is that there were people who'd suffered bereavment in such a way that their faith had been shaken but that seemed responsive to the pastoral work of the visiting pastors.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
...I really thought this thread was going to be about something else entirely.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
I was the last expatriate clergy ordained for work in the Anglican Church of Melanesia, and have only recently returned to Australia. A fairly steady stream of Melanesians visit me, and some of them do some work in my parish, and later this year we are planning a couple of missions to this place from Melanesia. The experience we have had so far with visitors from Melanesia has been very positive.
So, is there a place for reverse missionaries? Of course: there is much we can learn from places like Africa and the Caribbean and the Pacific and Asia where the Christian faith has some very lively and vibrant blooms. But, as Cedd stated, all missionaries must cross cultural boundaries to make their faith relevant and lively, and must deal sensitively with different cultures.
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Spiffy said '...I really thought this thread was going to be about something else entirely.'
Saucy... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd
but if these pastors held the same views as many African Christians on homosexuality and had expressed those views from the pulpit then the response to them could have been very different.
We aren't talking about a leafy southern Guardian reading suburb here. This was a run down industrial estate town on the outskirts of Glasgow. Are you sure those sort of views wouldn't go down rather well?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd
Shipmate
# 8436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd
but if these pastors held the same views as many African Christians on homosexuality and had expressed those views from the pulpit then the response to them could have been very different.
We aren't talking about a leafy southern Guardian reading suburb here. This was a run down industrial estate town on the outskirts of Glasgow. Are you sure those sort of views wouldn't go down rather well?
As that is not my context either I am not at all sure, but I suppose that is part of the point. Of course this all points to the tension between the need for missionaries to be culturally relevant, so that they can be heard, but not to be so inculturated that they lose the ability to challenge "non-gospel" values in the culture; which then begs the question about how we identify what those values are - what is the "Platonic" gospel which is not culturally driven and which can be said to supersede context? Answers on a postcard please...
--------------------
Cedd
Churchmanship: This week I am mostly an evangelical, catholic, orthodox with both liberal and illiberal tendancies. Terms and conditions apply.
Posts: 377 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Apart from the glaring soteriological error about Baptist views on baptism, I enjoyed the Jamaican visiting Kings Stanley, but both Mrs B and I were left with the nagging feeling, particularly with regard to the guy in the mobility scooter, of "what about follow-up"? It just seemed like the usual 'seagull visit' ie: fly in, squark loudly, crap all over the place and then fly away again.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apart from the glaring soteriological error about Baptist views on baptism, I enjoyed the Jamaican visiting Kings Stanley, but both Mrs B and I were left with the nagging feeling, particularly with regard to the guy in the mobility scooter, of "what about follow-up"? It just seemed like the usual 'seagull visit' ie: fly in, squark loudly, crap all over the place and then fly away again.
Fair question, but there was an existing Christian community and a minister with responsible for it who were in a position to do the follow-up; we're not talking of a situation where there isn't a church there already - the visitor was based at a church, not as a lone ranger. Certainly the mobility scooter guy seemed an plausible member of the church, the youngster would be more of a challenge. However there did seem to be some input from Stroud Baptist church, so they may be in a position to provide some ongoing support.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
ISTM that the outstanding message from both scenarios - and a critique of the British churches - is "Get out into the community, and engage with people in Christ's name".
I wonder if many British churches (a) are unaware of the cultural divie between them and their communitioes (or just moan about it); (b) always concentrate on the "We're here, come to us" approach rather than actively "fishing"; (c) have become compromised by a misunderstanding that it's living the life of Christ that's important, not speaking about him.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"Get out into the community, and engage with people in Christ's name".
That's what the last two sermons we had were about, more or less. So I guess we noticed.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd:
I thought it was interesting, moving at times and the spirit of the African pastors was inspirational...However, what the program did not touch on at all was how any deeper theological or social differences may have played out; playing football and cooking barbeques for the locals is one thing (and one can see how that can lead to more people attending) but if these pastors held the same views as many African Christians on homosexuality and had expressed those views from the pulpit then the response to them could have been very different. It is not just enough to say that if we do what they do we will get the same results because there is a complex package of context and culture - that applies to missionaries in whichever direction they are travelling.
I don't imagine that 'African Christians' spend all that much time expounding on homosexuality from the pulpit. It's a newsworthy topic, but it's not a top priority for most Christians in the world, evangelical or otherwise, I would have thought.
It's true that different approaches to evangelism will be necessarily in different cultures. But the truth is that the experience of British churches is that, despite living in modern Britain, they still find it very different to make connections with the people around them. In today's world, perhaps cultural difference isn't necessarily strongest between different nations, but within them.
Anyway, I've just watched episode 2 (I think I've missed no. 1, unfortunately). Pastor John's outdoor event was clearly positive for the community. Yes, some folk may have been there just to be on telly, but you wouldn't want to be seen on telly going to a church event if church stuff was considered to be totally naff! So the visitors must've been at least halfway positive about the church aspect, which is something!
I agree with the concerns about what happens next. Follow-up is important. But good missionaries shouldn't stay forever and create dependency - they need to pass on the vision to the native people. Hopefully the local Congregational Church and their minister now feel more confident about what's possible.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Both the Jamaican and African Pastors had one thing in common, it was to push ''church'' outside of it's four walls.
Church for the 2 Pastors was perceived to be a vital part of ordinary peoples lives whereas in England and Scotland church was something people ''do'' on a Sunday within four walls.
A very revealing and telling dichotomy I thought.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
...I really thought this thread was going to be about something else entirely.
I'm glad it wasn't just me, then.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm putting my hand up as at least the third person with a dirty mind on this thread who thought the title reminded me of something that might have been suggested by the late Alex Comfort - and I saw one of the programmes! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 30. March 2012, 09:23: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I saw part of the Baptist one and thought it was very interesting and very moving - particularly when the Jamaican guy visited the descendants of the Baptist missionary and also his neglected grave.
The open-air meeting thing I found a bit cringe-worthy to be honest ... and I'm not sure that 'follow-up' is the right term to use in the case of the guy in the mobility scooter. All he'd done was to 'raise his hand' in a meeting. You can get anyone to do something like that. It's called 'decisionism'.
Did you notice that he crossed himself immediately afterwards? Evidence of a nominally Catholic background perhaps?
Sure, he'd gone away with a positive attitude towards faith and towards the Baptist church in the village - and a village being a village there would be plenty of opportunity for the minister there to 'follow-up' the guy (to use the term I don't like) and work things through in terms of potential interest/involvement in matters of faith, church etc.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Fourth. I was thinking of some variation of "cowgirl"...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I'm conscious that we have a tendency to measure everything in terms of its success in reaching young people - to quote Pink Floyd:
"who cares what it's all about
as long as the kids go"
The energetic visitors were able to reach out to the young people in a way that the churches weren't at that time. That's good. But if there's no meaningful follow-up, then it achieves nothing of lasting value. IF the churches concerned are actually addressing the issues for those of their own age, then that's a perfectly valid niche for them to fill, and we (I!) need to resist the temptation to denigrate them simply because they've no young people in their congregation.
Having said that, it's clear that the ground is less hard than we sometimes assume: with the right gifting people can start to make a difference. The issue therefore is for the mainstream denominations to identify the people with the gifts required to make that sort of difference and encourage them towards active ministry, rather than churning out the academically competent and pastorally harmless people that we so often find in pulpits, 'keeping the show on the road' / 'keeping the tribe together' / 'maintaining a presence in every community' / achieving nothing of value. The best evangelist we had as a curate at our church went on to run a parachurch organisation that isn't particularly concerned with frontline evangelism. Perhaps the 'pioneer minister' posts that the CofE is beginning to appoint will do better - they at least offer the possibility.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Evangelism is hard and evangelisation even harder. It takes time and commitment and doesn't always yield instant results. Livingstone succeeded in winning a single convert in Africa and even he later 'back-slid'.
Sure, we need evangelists, but I'm not sure that the model we're used to is necessarily the most effective for the longer haul. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than for congregations to become thoroughly missional and I'm not quite sure how one would go about developing that.
As I've said on another thread, all the churches in the town where I live, irrespective of theology or churchmanship, are fairly outward looking in the way that they engage with the local community - but that doesn't necessarily equate to bums on seats.
The evangelical parish here is doing some interesting work both with young people and with the old-people's homes etc - and they are seeing 'results' if you like, at both ends.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, we need evangelists, but I'm not sure that the model we're used to is necessarily the most effective for the longer haul. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than for congregations to become thoroughly missional and I'm not quite sure how one would go about developing that.
'The model we're used to'? Is there only one? I think churches have a range of possibilities avaialable to them today. With all the books on the market, websites, and so on, lack of ideas surely isn't the problem; fear, low morale, self-absorption, low expectations, etc. are more likely culprits.
I'm sure that Pastor John would agree that congregations like the one he visited in Scotland should become more missional. I'd agree too. One of the problems I have with Fresh Expressions is that it attempts to do evangelism away from the traditional congregation. The idea depends on specialists doing something separate, at a different time and sometimes in a different place. The original congregation is basically expected to stump up the cash for the project, and to pray, and that's it.
I can understand why this seems like a good idea; trying to get a congregation to turn their way of being upside down is very difficult, and most clergy don't want to risk it (as Leo admitted in his post the other day). But it means congregations aren't encouraged to become missional. The division may also throw up paradoxes further down the line. I once read an interesting online discussion about how some new FE 'congregations' had grown larger than the congregations funding them, yet the new congregations were not only reluctant to begin generating their own finances, but were heavily critical of 'Christendom' churches - despite the fact that they were being funded by such churches!
I'm attracted to what I've heard about post-Christendom models of church, but I can see the hypocrisy in taking money from churches that you're critical of. It would be better for these new, self-consciously postmodern congregations to be funded independently from the start, or to aim to become self-funding in a short time. This goes back to what was said on 'Reverse Missionaries' as well: you don't want to create a culture of dependency.
Members of the traditional congregation sometimes hope that eventually, once the new people have been enticed by messy worship, godly play, cell groups, (or evangelism at the skating park) etc. and have been converted and acclimatised, that they'll then move over to the 'traditional' church, and join the old timers on Sunday mornings. But this is unlikely to happen if the traditional church set-up is non-missional. Even Alpha groups can have this problem if their members end up identifying far more with their small group than with 'church'. The only way forward would be for the new-found groups to be accepted as churches in their own right. Either that, or a missional culture must become internal to the original congregation.
If Pastor John's work bears fruit then the Scottish church will have to decide which route to take.
Those are my feelings, anyway.
quote:
The evangelical parish here is doing some interesting work both with young people and with the old-people's homes etc - and they are seeing 'results' if you like, at both ends.
Out of interest, what kind of results are they seeing?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Members of the traditional congregation sometimes hope that eventually, once the new people have been enticed by messy worship, godly play, cell groups, (or evangelism at the skating park) etc. and have been converted and acclimatised, that they'll then move over to the 'traditional' church, and join the old timers on Sunday mornings. But this is unlikely to happen if the traditional church set-up is non-missional. Even Alpha groups can have this problem if their members end up identifying far more with their small group than with 'church'. The only way forward would be for the new-found groups to be accepted as churches in their own right. Either that, or a missional culture must become internal to the original congregation.
Yeah, I think this is a massive issue. I've seen it with Alpha groups and other time-limited programmes, e.g. for new Christians. They experience something in the group that either isn't there in the main church or is at least perceived not to be there. SvitlanaV2, I think your comment about a missional culture becoming internal to churches hits the nail square on the head.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd agree with that too, SvitlanaV2. In my experience, though, even with the charismatic 'new churches' which were very evangelistic in ethos, the bulk of the evangelism took place through initiatives that were, to some extent, beyond the daily/weekly ups-and-downs of church life. I'm thinking of projects such as a group of people moving onto a housing estate, or forming a group in a satellite town to the main city base etc etc.
I do wonder, though, what we're 'offering' people to some extent - both at the level of what might be considered the more 'moribund' congregation or through the enterprising initiatives which can, as South Coast Kevin says, create an expectation that is later unfulfilled (for whatever reason).
Our vicar once observed to me that the reason some of the 'fruit' from the Billy Graham Crusades was unsustainable was because the meetings themselves generated a level of excitement that people didn't find once they were fed or led into the churches themselves. His solution to that was to make the services more 'exciting'.
My observation was that most churches didn't have the resources to mount a massed choir conducted by George Beverly Shea singing 'To God Be The Glory' week by week ... nor should they. I don't see 'revivalism' as offering a viable sustainable strategy in the longer term.
I'm cynical enough, at times, to wonder whether calls for the church to become more cutting-edge or 'missional' is simply a subtext for - 'I want it to have things that float MY boat, such as small group studies or lively worship/alt_worship or whatever else is the current trend or fad ...'
Yet it is true that the growth tends to happen around the new shoots and plantings rather than the hardy perennials. The trick, somehow, is to combine the two.
@SvitlanaV2 - 'results'? Well, it depends, of course, on how you measure and evaluate these things. As far as our vicar and most of the congregation are concerned, results in these instances consist of:
- Around 70 youngsters attending the yoof-club on a Friday night (it's not always themed with evangelistic material in mind but it's seen as a valuable way to connect with the teens and build a periphery)
- Some 'new' families and grandparents attending 'Messy Church' once a month in the church hall where they sing songs and mess with paints and stuff whilst the 'normal informal' 11am service takes place in the church building.
- More residents of the local OAP homes accepting lifts to attend the Coffee and Communion session in the church hall twice a month (rather than the original once a month).
If you see those as 'results' then they are results. They don't float my boat but then they're not aimed at me. I'm not knocking them.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our vicar once observed to me that the reason some of the 'fruit' from the Billy Graham Crusades was unsustainable was because the meetings themselves generated a level of excitement that people didn't find once they were fed or led into the churches themselves. His solution to that was to make the services more 'exciting'.
My observation was that most churches didn't have the resources to mount a massed choir conducted by George Beverly Shea singing 'To God Be The Glory' week by week ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) It can be argued that the Hillsong approach is to make exactly follow your vicar's policy - and it might even be suggested that our Cathedrals do likewise. Which raises hard questions about what 'church' is all about - but let's not go there for now!
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Svitlana wrote 'Members of the traditional congregation sometimes hope that eventually, once the new people have been enticed by messy worship, godly play, cell groups, (or evangelism at the skating park) etc. and have been converted and acclimatised, that they'll then move over to the 'traditional' church, and join the old timers on Sunday mornings. But this is unlikely to happen if the traditional church set-up is non-missional. Even Alpha groups can have this problem if their members end up identifying far more with their small group than with 'church'. The only way forward would be for the new-found groups to be accepted as churches in their own right. Either that, or a missional culture must become internal to the original congregation'
That's pretty much how we play it. The Alpha group may become a small group in its own right (maintaining the relationships built up during the course) or we feed people into other small groups in the church. The main poi t is that *all* our small groups are missional.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our vicar once observed to me that the reason some of the 'fruit' from the Billy Graham Crusades was unsustainable was because the meetings themselves generated a level of excitement that people didn't find once they were fed or led into the churches themselves. His solution to that was to make the services more 'exciting'.
I think this is totally the wrong approach, with apologies to your vicar, Gamaliel! Becoming a Christian, a Jesus-follower, is about wanting to live your life according to God's ways. If people are seeking excitement, having experienced that in something akin to a Billy Graham Crusade, then should we try to provide that excitement in the weekly patterns of our church activities? I really don't think so.
But.... we (people involved in churches) do need to provide what people need and what people want, as long as the latter doesn't contradict the Gospel. If people who have been fired up by some evangelistic-type event aren't subsequently getting involved in the church then we need to work out why. I've loved what LutheranChik has mentioned on other threads about how her church is thriving, not because they are doing anything glitzy or glamorous but because they are creating genuine community.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think community is the key and that can be achieved both in glitzy and non-glitzy settings.
I think Ender's Shadow is right, too, to highlight the fact that Cathedrals are probably doing the same thing as the 'big show' mass rallies but from the opposite direction. It's a condundrum. I can understand both. I can understand why people want to attend the mass feel-good-factor rallies and I can equally understand why others would prefer the cathedral worship - and indeed I've probably moved in terms of my own personal preferences from the former to the latter ... I could easily see myself attending a cathedral service regularly if I lived in a cathedral city ...
But it isn't all about me and my preferences, of course.
I also think there's something in the approach Ramarius identifies from the New Frontiers model (much as I would be wary about the underlying suppositions in that particular instance). Whatever else one might say about a group like NFI, they are intensely missional and there is something intrinsically and inherently missional in their approach - hence the number of church plants they've succeeded in establishing over the years.
In numerical terms, they've certainly been more successful at this than the other former 'R1' restorationist groups, most of which are either a shadow of their former selves or else morphed into something more 'general'.
I suspect a lot of this is done to context. The Anglican Church is in a more obviously missional context in Chile, for instance, although it is equally missional in Chorleywood ...
The Antiochian Orthodox in the UK (or 'Angliochians' as they've been dubbed) have been more intentionally missional than the Greeks, the Russians and the Romanians and Serbs, for instance - but I understand that is changing to some extent.
I'm still puzzling about how an entire congregation can become 'missional' without being artificially pushy. I remember being horrified at an NFI church I visited once by the pastor getting people to indicate how many tracts they'd handed out that week and the person who'd distributed the most receiving a round of applause ...
Some Baptist friends who jumped ship to NFI for a season returned not long afterwards to the Baptists on the grounds that the NFI church plant in that city was nothing more than an 'evangelism factory' rather than a genuine community.
I'm not saying whether or not this was actually the case, but it was a perception they picked up.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm still puzzling about how an entire congregation can become 'missional' without being artificially pushy. I remember being horrified at an NFI church I visited once by the pastor getting people to indicate how many tracts they'd handed out that week and the person who'd distributed the most receiving a round of applause ...
Missional without being artificially pushy - a subject about which whole books have been written! Whatever it is about, I don't think it involves measuring the amount of good-looking activity that people are carrying out. If you focus on external activity then I imagine that Jesus' words about whitewashed tombs might come into play...
For me, 'missional' is about our attitude - from which various actions will spring. For example, I am not very missional. At church meetings I'll often choose to sit with my friends rather than make the newcomer feel welcome. While out and about, I'll often just say what's socially necessary to people like shop staff, rather than gently trying to engage them in a bit of conversation.
I've got friends whom I'm gradually learning from, but it doesn't come easily for me. My attitude needs transforming so that I more readily (a) notice people whom I could be friendly to, and (b) actually take action to welcome them, lift their spirits etc. This would entail me living in a slightly more missional way, I think.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
That's pretty much how we play it. The Alpha group may become a small group in its own right (maintaining the relationships built up during the course) or we feed people into other small groups in the church. The main poi t is that *all* our small groups are missional.
I think community is the key, however I don't think that small groups are necessarily the answer to this (even if everyone will insist in this thread that their church is different)
At best, they amplify the tendencies present within the church already. At worst the dynamics they create are detrimental and they foster the sort of group think identified by Robert Wuthnow and others.
Going back to the issue of 'church being how we have always done it'. The message of Christianity has always been a counter cultural one, and the numbers of people who are willing to accept it (rather than some kind of nationalised moralism) has always been low. Of course, we should strive to be community minded, and focused on reaching others (though not to the detriment of everything else). However, there seems to be an underlying expectation here that as long as we re-market the church we'll substantially change things, when in reality all we end up substantially changing is ourselves.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[quote]Our vicar once observed to me that the reason some of the 'fruit' from the Billy Graham Crusades was unsustainable was because the meetings themselves generated a level of excitement that people didn't find once they were fed or led into the churches themselves. His solution to that was to make the services more 'exciting'.
My observation was that most churches didn't have the resources to mount a massed choir conducted by George Beverly Shea singing 'To God Be The Glory' week by week ... nor should they. I don't see 'revivalism' as offering a viable sustainable strategy in the longer term.
I've read that Rev Graham himself is disappointed with the outcome of his crusades, and the large percentage of 'backsliding'.
The history of revivalism is interesting. In the 19th c., the methods of the American Charles Finney were criticised because large numbers of his converts backslid. Nevertheless, his methods influenced Billy Graham and countless evangelical churches around the English-speaking world. In Britain now, 'revivals' are lively gatherings for reinvigorating the members of Pentecostal churches. They no longer seriously claim to attract nonbelievers. In the mainstream churches I attend, the word 'revival' is never used. I don't know if it ever was.
You make a good point about resources. Most ordinary, smallish, hard-up congregations today need to develop a form of missional church that's radical but doesn't require vast amounts of money and expensively acquired skills. More of the Holy Spirit needed, I suspect....
quote:
I'm cynical enough, at times, to wonder whether calls for the church to become more cutting-edge or 'missional' is simply a subtext for - 'I want it to have things that float MY boat, such as small group studies or lively worship/alt_worship or whatever else is the current trend or fad ...'
That sounds like me! I think the problem for me and for many others is that people don't want to spend 40+ years of their lives doing things that cater to the 'we like things the traditional way' crowd whilst the church is in serious decline, and whilst one's own spiritual needs aren't being met. If there were some kind of evangelistic payback or strong vision behind tolerating things as they are, then that would be convincing. As things stand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in that. But that's just my experience speaking - yours is different. I do realise that many traditional churches are fulll of vision, enthusiasm and a desire to do what they can do for God. Some have an unrealised longing to grow in that way, if they're not there already. But I don't think they can do everything on their own.
I can see that in your area, the results of getting deeply involved in various projects with the local community are bearing much good fruit, which is a wonderful thing. However, I feel that because things are working so well where you are, you perhaps suppose that other ventures aren't really required. But not everyone lives in an area like yours. Many churches wouldn't have the manpower let alone the money to take on this kind of work. And even if they do, they eventually realise that unless they're continually able to draw people into a committed life of worship and service, these community activities won't be able to continue, because there won't be enough Jesus-followers left to run them. This isn't a new problem: it was faced by many Victorian and Edwardian churches.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's all relative SvitlanaV2.
I've highlighted some things that are apparently 'going well' (as you put it) where I am. But if we looked at the town as a whole and measured 'results' in terms of bums on seats then it's a different picture. There are six churches here in a town of around 15,000 - seven if you include the tiny Adventist assembly as a 'kosher' church.
There were two Methodist congregations until comparatively recently when one closed down, probably 20 years after it'd actually become unviable.
I would guesstimate that there are no more than 700 regular church-goers in the town - plus a handful who commute to church in other towns either because there's a particular 'flavour' there that they want or because they want to be part of something bigger.
As for the 'attrition-rate' from the Billy Graham crusades - I can't really see why anyone is so surprised. After all, and I'm not knocking Graham here, all these things generally involve is some emotionally stirring music, an emotionally stirring sermon and an appeal for people to 'go down the front'. You can get anyone to 'go down the front' with the right format and cues.
That doesn't mean that people aren't genuinely converted at evangelistic rallies, or weren't converted through Finney's activities and the kind of evangelistic methods that arose from that time.
But it does mean that we have to be clearer about what we're seeing/expecting.
Back in the '80s and '90s 'revival' was the big buzz-word, but it seems to have faded from view more recently - mainly because expectations were raised only to be dashed rather cruelly in many instances.
It all depends where you're coming from and what your experience is. You've spent 40+ years (by the sounds of it) in a mainstream denomination which is struggling to a certain extent. I've spent 18 years or so in a revivalist context and became disillusioned with it to a certain extent - whilst acknowledging that a lot of very good stuff did happen ... - followed by six years in a Baptist church plant and another five in a 'lively' CofE parish that doesn't particularly 'scratch where I itch' but which is, in fairness, doing a lot of good stuff evangelistically and in the community.
I can certainly sympathise with where you're coming from, particularly as you are 'between' churches at the moment. If I were in your shoes I think I would probably seek out something with a more contemporary 'edge' to it than what I'd experienced before, but I'd go into it (as I'm sure you would) with both eyes open and not expect it to be any kind of instant panacea.
There are no instant panaceas, neither on the more traditional side of things nor among the contemporary church-plant type outfits.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm still puzzling about how an entire congregation can become 'missional' without being artificially pushy. I remember being horrified at an NFI church I visited once by the pastor getting people to indicate how many tracts they'd handed out that week and the person who'd distributed the most receiving a round of applause ...
Missional without being artificially pushy - a subject about which whole books have been written! Whatever it is about, I don't think it involves measuring the amount of good-looking activity that people are carrying out. If you focus on external activity then I imagine that Jesus' words about whitewashed tombs might come into play...
Attitude is the key. With us, we structure small groups around who we are trying to reach with the gospel and who we want to do that with. We assume there will be unbelieving visitors at every meeting and structure them with this in mind. We're interested in inviting people into our community to become new friends and share life with - a far cry from the 'evangelism factory' model. In a lot of ways we are, in practice, quite unlike a lot of other NF churches I'm aware of. But that's not really the focus of this discussion, and we need to be careful not to judge one church (for I'll or good) on the basis of association with others from the same network.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I wasn't judging the entire network on that basis, Ramarius, just indicating a danger with certain types of churches (not just NFI) that adopt an evangelise-at-all-costs-busy-busy-busy mentality.
NFI just happened to be the particular 'stream' where I - and close friends and relatives - have observed this tendency.
There is an equal and opposite danger in those churches which are not so obviously or intentionally missional - ie. they eventually wither on the vine.
There is a balance here somewhere, that's all I'm saying.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The assumption seems to be that big, widespread, permanent, and consequently highly bureaucratised denominations are preferable to the alternatives. But the problem is that such institutions practically invite schism. Whether the schismatic groups flourish or flounder is another matter, and it depends on a number of factors.
Protestantism is about the right of every believer to follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit, and that's a charter for schism, really. Only in a church like the RCC, where the authority and spiritual power is invested in the priest and in church structures rather than in individual choice, can you reduce the tendency to create breakaway movements.
Some scholars think the Reformation contained the seeds of secularisation within it, because it placed the individual at the centre, rather than church authority. Maybe so. But we can't turn the clock back. Secularisation and a plethora of Christian splinter groups may be two sides of the same coin, but I think we're going to have to live with both.
And the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the mainstream churches (many of which started as schisms themselves) actually need breakaway movements. And the reverse is probably also true. As I've said before, people move between the two, and have done for centuries.
And maybe there's something to be said for a built-in obsolescence for religious movements, sects or even denominations?
If we look at things in this way, then the notion of 'panaceas' becomes irrelevant. Every group of Christians will be its own panacea and 'anti-panacea'.....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, the thing is, though, you end up with some very wierd anomalies indeed such as Sarah Palin's home-town in Alaska which, I believe, has around 70+ churches for a population of several hundred. Some of these splinter-groups must be very small indeed.
It's often been said that if you take Protestantism to its logical conclusion you end up with a church of one - with every believer their own Pope.
I agree, though, that we can't put the clock back. The Reformation pandora's-box has been opened, for better and for worse. It could be argued, of course, that Rome also 'needed' the Reformation and I've met RC priests who'd argue that it gave them a much-needed shot-in-the-arm and led to Counter-Reformation reforms that they approve of.
As for the Orthodox, who've never had a Reformation, well, they have schismatic 'non-canonical' splinter-groups and relations between the 'kosher' canonical jurisdictions are not always cordial.
Perhaps Christianity itself is inherently fissaporous? Jewish people seem to think so. But then, they have their own subdivisions of course, as indeed do the Muslims.
I don't think I'm arguing here that large, bureaucratic, established Churches and denominations are somehow inherently 'preferable' to the smaller 'gathered' or more 'sectarian' groupings ... although having been involved with both at one time or other, I certainly wouldn't want to go down the break-away group route again.
All that said, I believe that ALL Christian bodies, whether they be the historic Churches (Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox) or the older denominations (Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians) or the newer kids on the block are going to have to become more 'intentional' if they are to survive the erosion of Christendom and the rise of postmodernity.
Andrew Walker, a former Pentecostal who is now Orthodox and a respected sociologist and canon-theologian (in some 'emeritus' capacity with the CofE) argues convincingly in 'Telling The Story: Gospel, Mission and Culture' SPCL 1996, that ALL churches are going to have to adopt something akin to a 'sectarian' model if they are to build 'plausibility structures' for the future.
He argues that this can be achieved without being 'sectarian' in the perjorative sense of the term - ie. being cut off from the wider society.
I agree with this and would posit that the retreat-centre, the neo-monastic movement AND the Fresh Expressions church-plant, the NFI approach and the Local Ecumenical Partnership ALL have a part to play. It's probably a case of not either/or but both.
We can't turn back the clock so we have to move forward ...
Many Orthodox believe that their particular witness could have a unifying effect on fragmented Western Christendom ... but only on their own terms of course - ie. cross the Bosphorus ...
I'm sure many RCs feel the same. If we'd all just go back to Rome then that would sort everything out ...
I think the varied patchwork that Christianity has become will be with us for a good while yet. The challenge is how to harness it creatively.
I remember reading an article by a Pakistani Anglican Bishop which noted how some very small Christian villages in his country could have anything up to 11 different flavours of church and that this was seen as an indication of weakness by the surrounding Muslim population.
Our divisions here in the UK and the US and on mainland Europe, over in Canada and Australasia and everywhere else we can think of are surely both a hindrance and a help at one and the same time ...
On the one hand they lead to initiative and enterprise, on the other they can lead to further fragmentation.
How to resolve that one will tax us all for many, many years to come.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Perhaps Christianity itself is inherently fissaporous?
I think there's an inherent tension between its focus on the individual and its focus on the church. That tension is bound to lead to splits.
quote:
I don't think I'm arguing here that large, bureaucratic, established Churches and denominations are somehow inherently 'preferable' to the smaller 'gathered' or more 'sectarian' groupings ... although having been involved with both at one time or other, I certainly wouldn't want to go down the break-away group route again.
So it's a case of 'each to his own'.
quote:
All that said, I believe that ALL Christian bodies, whether they be the historic Churches (Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox) or the older denominations (Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians) or the newer kids on the block are going to have to become more 'intentional' if they are to survive the erosion of Christendom and the rise of postmodernity.
Andrew Walker [... says] ALL churches are going to have to adopt something akin to a 'sectarian' model if they are to build 'plausibility structures' for the future.
He argues that this can be achieved without being 'sectarian' in the perjorative sense of the term - ie. being cut off from the wider society.
Can you explain what you mean by 'intentional' here? And how does Walker argue that it's possible to be 'sectarian' in a positive way? Churches need to negotiate a path between being indistinguishable from the surrounding culture, and being so intolerant and inflexible as to be utterly alien to that culture. Each church develops its own path, closer to one extreme or the other.
quote:
Our divisions here in the UK and the US and on mainland Europe, over in Canada and Australasia and everywhere else we can think of are surely both a hindrance and a help at one and the same time ...
On the one hand they lead to initiative and enterprise, on the other they can lead to further fragmentation.
How to resolve that one will tax us all for many, many years to come.
Church stagnation or decline tend to be a spur towards ecumenicalism (so I read) which means that if Christianity continues to struggle in the UK, there will be more and more ecumenical work. Maybe we could call it a blessing in disguise. Or a double-edged sword.... While there are many, many positives to working together, the result is sometimes a kind of 'lowest common denominator' approach to church life and worship. It can sometimes seem worthy rather than inspiring. But when it works well it can be fantastic.
I don't feel that looking for institutional unity is necessarily the answer. Spiritual unity is more important. That doesn't require that we become clones of each other. Surely, what the world needs to see is not that every church is under the same hierarchical authority, but that we all love each other despite our differences?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - if I read Walker rightly, he is saying that churches should be 'intentional' in that there's a lot more to it than simply being a 'cultural Christian' in the way that some people might put 'CofE' on a census form or something but haven't darkened the door of their local parish church for decades ...
So in that sense, churches should be 'gathered' communities consisting of the faithful.
In the non-perjorative sense of the term, that's what I take him to mean by 'sectarian' in sociological terms. It doesn't mean that they are so other-worldly as to be no earthly use or so divorced from the surrounding culture that they become alienated from it - rather they are 'in the world but not of it.'
Walker certainly believes that it is possible to be 'sectarian' in this respect without being wierdo. He cites the Baptist Union as the paradigm example in the UK ie. it is a 'sect' in the sense that it has particular defined boundaries but it is not so sectarian as to become cult-like. That's the distinction I would draw.
You'll be familiar with the sociological definitions of 'sect', 'church' and 'Church' (large c), I expect. Sects become churches become Churches ... Christianity itself began as a sect within Judaism.
I know what you mean by lowest-common-denominator ecumenism, and I don't think Walker and his 'Deep Church' pals are advocating that at all ... they'd see it as predicated on the historic creeds and so on - 'that believed everywhere and by all.' Historic, creedal Christianity such as you find anywhere and in all places - but which equally shouldn't therefore be taken for granted.
That's how I understand it at any rate.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Both the Jamaican and African Pastors had one thing in common, it was to push ''church'' outside of it's four walls.
Church for the 2 Pastors was perceived to be a vital part of ordinary peoples lives whereas in England and Scotland church was something people ''do'' on a Sunday within four walls.
A very revealing and telling dichotomy I thought.
Saul
I've just seen a recording of Pastor John's visit to Glasgow. Your observation is well made Saul. I was also struck by Pastor John's private comments after his early encounters with the Glaswegian youth. Yes he considered his evangelists strategy (a conversation with which I'm familiar). He was also very moved by the situation and spoke of it breaking his heart. I have far too few of such conversations as these. It was, for me, the most challenging part of the whole episode.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm still puzzling about how an entire congregation can become 'missional' without being artificially pushy. I remember being horrified at an NFI church I visited once by the pastor getting people to indicate how many tracts they'd handed out that week and the person who'd distributed the most receiving a round of applause ...
Missional without being artificially pushy - a subject about which whole books have been written! Whatever it is about, I don't think it involves measuring the amount of good-looking activity that people are carrying out. If you focus on external activity then I imagine that Jesus' words about whitewashed tombs might come into play...
For me, 'missional' is about our attitude - from which various actions will spring. For example, I am not very missional. At church meetings I'll often choose to sit with my friends rather than make the newcomer feel welcome. While out and about, I'll often just say what's socially necessary to people like shop staff, rather than gently trying to engage them in a bit of conversation.
I've got friends whom I'm gradually learning from, but it doesn't come easily for me. My attitude needs transforming so that I more readily (a) notice people whom I could be friendly to, and (b) actually take action to welcome them, lift their spirits etc. This would entail me living in a slightly more missional way, I think.
I agree. Being a 'missional community' for our gaffe means far more a change in mindset rather than per se activity. It's primarly about changing our attitude from 'church is somewhere we meet whence, from time to time, we might do some kind of evangelism' to 'evangelism is something we live 24/7 with church being "wherever two or three gather in My Name" the result of that'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I agree. Being a 'missional community' for our gaffe means far more a change in mindset rather than per se activity. It's primarly about changing our attitude from 'church is somewhere we meet whence, from time to time, we might do some kind of evangelism' to 'evangelism is something we live 24/7 with church being "wherever two or three gather in My Name" the result of that'.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect that all attempts to this in any scale (as opposed to a bunch of self selecting friends spending time together) is doomed to failure. It's an attempt to create Christian community without a centre. Or to put it another way in order to scatter, you have to gather.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok - if I read Walker rightly, he is saying that churches should be 'intentional' in that there's a lot more to it than simply being a 'cultural Christian' in the way that some people might put 'CofE' on a census form or something but haven't darkened the door of their local parish church for decades ...
So in that sense, churches should be 'gathered' communities consisting of the faithful.
Thanks for that. It does seem, though, as if Walker is stating the obvious. Even the CofE, which is proud to be 'the church for people who don't go to church' (as one priest put it) wants to encourage greater commitment. Is there any denomination that still feels it can rely on 'cultural Christianity'?
Maybe there is a certain ambivalence in some quarters. There are still some within the church who insist ours is a 'Christian country' and that the society ought to pay attention to us for that reason. But apart from these self-appointed spokesmen (and women) I don't know if ordinary churchgoers are terribly convinced by that sort of argument. (Out of evangelicals or more liberal Christians I wonder which is more inclined to appeal to cultural Christianity, I wonder?) Myself, I think it's mostly cultural Christians who think along those lines, strangely enough.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
When I saw the title on this thread, I thought it was going to be about Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus,
animists, etc., coming as missionaries to countries such as the U.K. or the U.S.A.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've come across plenty of evangelical Anglicans who think that way too, SvitlanaV2. I've also come across it in spades from 'cultural Christians' of the hatched/matched/despatched variety.
An Orthodox friend tells me that although they've had issues and even down-right hostility around parking (I know, I've seen it, it's all street parking along a row of terraces) on special days such as Easter and so on, the neighbours around the tiny former Methodist chapel that his parish has been using as a church (and still do, despite acquiring a larger, redundant Anglican church within the general conurbation) tend to regard them benignly.
If they ever do a procession - the Orthodox like to process - then people are pleased to see it and like to watch. He tells me that there's almost a sense that they're pleased that someone is doing religion, even if they don't see the need to 'do it themselves ...
I think there's something of this in the British psyche, particularly among the older generation. They're glad to see that the churches are there, even though they don't necessarily want to get involved themselves.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure that Walker was stating the obvious (although it is pretty obvious) so much as giving some indication of HOW the historic Churches can adopt ways to become more 'intentional' without having to become 'sectarian' in the perjorative sense of the word ...
I'm finding it quite hard to articulate what I'm driving at here.
I think what I'm saying is that we need the 'Christendom umbrella' to a certain extent and within that over-arching ethos then how we work things out on the ground is up to grabs to a certain extent.
The concern I have about splinter-groups and experimental 'Emerging Church' type stuff is that it runs the danger of running off up blind-alleys. Tom Smail has said that this is fine, so long as you have a whopping big elastic band around your waist that connects you back to the centre of the mainstream Christian tradition. However far you go up a side-alley there's enough 'pull' in the elastic band to draw you back to the centre.
I certainly believe that some of the newer expressions will spin off into confused hyper-space because they lack a sufficiently tight elastic band or, to mix the metaphor, the theological and ecclesiological ballast to ensure that they don't end up keeling over.
I think we'll see some health/wealth groups and some of the more fringe Pentie groups veering off into an unrecognisably 'orthodox' (small-o) direction in the next few decades - if they haven't already done so or at least started on that trajectory.
That's why I agree with Walker that we need the retreat-house and the monastic communities, why we need the RCs and the Orthodox, the High Anglicans and so on - and indeed, the more traditional Reformed types and the older forms of Wesleyan for that matter. They can provide a valuable counterweight and counterbalance.
If the traditional, historic outfits disappeared then I dread to think what the kind of Christianity that would emerge would look like.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
I saw the first two programes and enjoyed them,
but the pastors did not have anough time here to realy make much difference to the church. Only two weeks is not enought , they need to be here for at least a year, and away from the TV cameras.
I was impressed buy their enthusiasm,and there joy.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
