Thread: Reverse Missionaries Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022942

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
I was wondering if anyone saw this ?
And if so any thoughts?

I found it quite moving esp. the stuff about Livingstone.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
Here in New York City Korean evangelists come to preach - in English.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Cedd (# 8436) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Full Circle (# 15398) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
...I really thought this thread was going to be about something else entirely.
 

---

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
Spiffy said '...I really thought this thread was going to be about something else entirely.'

Saucy...
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"Get out into the community, and engage with people in Christ's name".

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
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!

[ 30. March 2012, 09:23: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Fourth. I was thinking of some variation of "cowgirl"...
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ...

---

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!
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
@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.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

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 ...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ...'

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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'.....
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Perhaps Christianity itself is inherently fissaporous?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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'.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

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.

---

I think that Gamaliel answered that pretty well in his next post; it's not an either/ or. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

[W]e 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.

---

quote:

---

[S]ome kind of concept of Christendom is necessary to prevent us becoming even more marginalised than we are now.

This needn't be a 'Christendom' of establishment religion, but one of an agreed, historic, dogmatic core - 'that believed everywhere and by all' - that same core that we all hold in common, whether we are Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

It strikes me that there is some considerable latitude between an all-or-nothing/exclusivist sect and a rather laisser-faire nominal approach.

The RCs and the Orthodox, for instance, both accept a certain amount of nominalism and see that as part and parcel of human freedom. But at the heart of both Churches you'll find committed believers who are very faithful and take their faith very seriously.

---

quote:

---

I'm not for a moment suggesting that the experimental or the more evangelistically inclined or 'sectarian' groups are not devoted to Christ - but as Chris Stiles says, their ecclesiology often isn't that well developed. Hence the way these groups come and go with startling regularity.

---

quote:

---

In the case of the Methodists, one could argue that despite increasing liberalism in some quarters, at least they've had Charles Wesley's hymns to draw on in terms of maintaining small-o orthodoxy and certain Wesleyan distinctives.

---

quote:

---

If there hadn't been a 'Christendom' there to facilitate that, this would have never have happened. The Wesleyan corpus and influence might well have died out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoops ... I meant to say that I'm 'not' convinced that if the CofE were taken out of the equation we'd necessarily have oodles and oodles of religious enterprise ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Interestingly, there are a few American sociologists of religion who are of the view that it's the presence of state or quasi-state churches that renders the ongoing viability of other churches very difficult ...

There's an explanation of this idea in Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone, 'A Supply-Side Reinterpretation of the "Secularization" of Europe'.

I don't expect you to have much truck with this, but it is thought-provoking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I critiqued Stark & Bainbridge's Theory of Religion in an essay I wrote about 10 years ago. While their "entrepreneurial" model does have its merits, and responds well to the way that religion these days is often treated as a "spiritual consumer good", it is hardly one which fits all contexts around the world!

---

quote:

---

I honestly do not know whether the presence of the "state" religion does affect the vitality of the other faith groups; it may do if people think "I am British (or whatever), therefore I am Christian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In fact there's an article by a young researcher, Nicole Overley, whose tutors told her that she was breaking into virgin territory with her essay, 'The Rise of Megachurches: Innovation, Stagnation and the Future of Christianity in the United States and the United Kingdom'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose my response would be, is the presence of 70+ separate churches in a population of 600 or 700 (in the case of Sarah Palin's Alaskan home town) really indicative of 'progress'? Sure, it demonstrates 'consumer choice' but at what cost?

---

quote:

---

I'm [not] convinced that if the CofE weren't in the equation that we'd see oodles and oodles of enterprise. The CofE has been 'disestablished' in Wales since the 1920s and isn't that much of a force to be reckoned with within the Principality (I know, I grew up nominally Church in Wales) - but I don't see loads of lively non-Anglican activity going on there. If anything, Wales is more secularised than the rest of the United Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying that orthodoxy is all about liturgies, I'm simply saying that liturgies and hymnody are one of the main channels for its transmission. As you've said yourself with the example of the Wesleyan hymns.

---

quote:

---

You ask about Pentecostalism. My 'take' would be that Pentecostalism does provide a 'plausibility structure' to some extent, but needs the historic churches/Churches if it is to remain on track.

---

quote:

---

As a 'Third Force' in Christianity, the Penties do resonate to some extent with both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well as traditional Protestantism. I'd argue that they have yet to develop a fully ecumenical approach, though, but there is progress in that regard.

---

quote:

---

As for Anglicans talking about a 'post-Christian society' - well, why shouldn't they? On the one hand you talk about the CofE as a broad church and then on the other you talk about it as if its some kind of homogenous whole ...

---

quote:

---

What was new about the Wesleyan approach wasn't the formation of fellowship groups or societies but the expectation of knowing an 'instant' assurance of salvation and the level of discipline and control that Wesley expected of them.

And, as you well know, they were expected to remain within the CofE ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In fact there's an article by a young researcher, Nicole Overley, whose tutors told her that she was breaking into virgin territory with her essay, 'The Rise of Megachurches: Innovation, Stagnation and the Future of Christianity in the United States and the United Kingdom'

---

I've come across this elsewhere in the last week or two, but I can't remember where - did you post it on another thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What IS the cost? If these churches are all at each other's throats, then that would be a pretty bad sign. But what if they get on well enough?

---

quote:

---

In fact, I've read that the Church in Wales has actually become a more prominent force in Wales than before disestablishment!

---

quote:

---

What Stark and Iannaccone say in that essay, I think, is that a monopoly church doesn't have to be officially a state church in order to hold a predominant position in a culture. Its privilege might come about due to its historical status, cultural preeminence and influence that has developed over centuries, perhaps with support from the state at one time, even if that support is no longer officially there. An obvious example would be France, which has no offical state church, but where the RCC has remained the culturally dominant form of Christianity

---

The problem is that Stark's argument is not the only factor here. The RCC may well be the most 'culturally dominant form of Christianity' in France, but France is a pretty secular place overall where (as an example) the number of marriages conducted by a priest are probably vastly outnumbered by the number of ceremonies over which a mayor presides.

I think his argument does explain a lot about the shape of American Christianity in which competition between 'brands' has driven a number of changes.

Megachurches themselves are very much a baby boomer phenomena - just as baby boomers went to work for large blue chips, so they chose to worship in similar surroundings. Similarly, large churches like large companies still survive, though their importance is diminished - the story of Crystal Cathedral is an instructive one.

If you follow that line of thought - and assume a delay before Christians catch up with culture. Then those emerging types of a few years back, were just trying to Christianise what Swampy and his pals were doing back in the 90s, and the 'entrepreneurial model' sounds a lot like the social-entrepreneurial movements of the early 2000s (micro-finance, applying the silicon valley model to forming charities etc).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I agree with Chris Stiles on the 70+ churches in a tiny Alaskan community. If they all got on well enough then there wouldn't be a need for 70+ churches in the first place ... if indeed there IS actually a need ...

How many varieties of Baptist or Pentecostal do we need for goodness sake?

Also, you keep banging on at me about this 'state church' thing as if it's a big deal for me. It isn't. I'm probably less 'denominational' in my attitudes than you are, truth be told ...

On the historical thing with the CofE, my own view is that it lost many of its best people with the Great Ejection of 1662. And also many more good people when the Methodist seceded.

I'm not sure it was entirely one-sided though, and I speak as someone who would once roundly denounce the CofE from within my old 'restorationist' paradigm.

The same applies with the Pentecostals and some of the later charismatics. I'd make a distinction in the case of the black-led Pentecostals as there was clearly a lot of racism directed towards them when the original Caribbean immigrants attempted to join Anglican or Methodist congregations. We've all heard the stories of how they'd be approached by the vicar or minister after the services and be advised that there was 'another church down the road' where they might feel more at home ...



I've known people whose parents literally had this happen to them.

All that said, as a former 'restorationist' I do cringe a bit when I hear younger charismatic types say that the 'new church' people HAD to leave the traditional denominations because they weren't welcome there. In many instances this was far from the case and I know plenty of instances of Baptist ministers and others who tried to accommodate these people - but they'd have none of it and so hived off to do their own thing.

There are always two sides to all of these things.

I've been through the charismatic thing and out the other side and I can see both sides of it ... but I can't for the life of me now see why so many Pentecostals and charismatics expected to be taken so seriously - particularly when the whole 'speaking in tongues' thing is so easy to manufacture and the lively kind of music they favour has tended to catch on elsewhere ...



But don't get me started ...

As for comparing the kind of revivalistic phenomena of the Wesleyan period with contemporary revivalism - there are parallels but any serious study of the evidence suggests that we aren't comparing like with like.

If anything, the Wesleys and other evangelists of that time were more inclined to exercise caution in these matters than the Pentecostals and later charismatics like to make out.

I've read some of Jonathan Edwards's writings from 18th century Massachusetts, for example, and he's saying completely different things to what many contemporary revivalists make out.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for enthusiasm and the charismatic dimension, just that the rhetoric often belies the reality.

A lot of these people left and started their own churches not because they were elbowed out but because of a superior and 'holier-than-thou' attitude.

Sure, I am convinced there were many who did so after much heart-searching and conscience-wracking. But a lot of them did want to be their own bigger fish in smaller ponds.

The mileage varied, of course.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
I'm betting that many of those churches are the result of splits. There are other costs; unhealthy churches dominated by a few ruling families, a dilution of the importance of church discipline, and at the larger end a watering down of difficult truths in order to get an audience.

---

quote:

---

In fact, I've read that the Church in Wales has actually become a more prominent force in Wales than before disestablishment!

quote:

---

Sure, but that hasn't translated into large increases in attendance, and is largely a cultural phenomane on the back of a resurgence in Welsh national identity.

---

---

quote:

---

Stark's argument is not the only factor here. The RCC may well be the most 'culturally dominant form of Christianity' in France, but France is a pretty secular place overall where (as an example) the number of marriages conducted by a priest are probably vastly outnumbered by the number of ceremonies over which a mayor presides.

---

One of his arguments is that where there's a monopoly, participation in church life is lower than where there's more of a free market. Other commentators distinguish between monopolies with high church participation and monopolies with low church participation (as well as different multi-denominational environments), claiming that other factors come into play, such as strictness, the level of secularisation in the society, and the presence of sects or other churches. So there have been attempts to refine the supply-side or economic theory of religion.

It does seem like a particularly American theory, but the reality is that around the world, much of our religious practice is cultural rather than ordained by God. We don't have to talk about similarites to silicon valley and church planting as entrepreneurship in order to get to a point where the man-made aspects of church life (sometimes referred to as either tradition or as being culturally relevant, according to churchmanship) become evident.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, the older Churches tend to 'sacralise' their cultural or historic practices to a certain extent anyway. Stick around long enough and that's what happens - for better or for worse ...

Slap a label on it and call it Tradition ...

Seems to work for them ...
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I'd just like to echo what Gamaliel has said about the birth of the restorationist movement: for every charismatic who's told me that they were forbidden from speaking in tongues at their trad. evo church so that they 'had' to leave, I've come across trad. evos who've said that the charismatics were attempting a takeover of the trad evo congregation concerned and demanding that everyone there speak in tongues. (Why is it always speaking in tongues that seems so important to these guys?)
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(Why is it always speaking in tongues that seems so important to these guys?)

---

I don't know. But I do remember that the all-time worst Christian book title I ever saw was something like, "So your wife came home speaking in tongues? So did mine!"
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Well, mine "came on a Honda" so "I'll have a Kaliber shandy"!
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, mine "came on a Honda" so "I'll have a Kaliber shandy"!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

As Ken says, it's not as if the presence of the Church of England has prevented people from setting up their own independent groups - even anything it may even have acted as a spur to such things.

---

quote:

---

Some of the more evangelical and charismatic people on these boards got quite upset with me when I pointed out how much of the Chinese 'house-church movement' was actually heterodox and even heretical. I cited facts and figures to prove it. They didn't like that one bit.

Show me anywhere where the Gospel has taken route in virgin soil and I'll show you syncretism and excesses. It has always been like this. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, simply inevitable. None of this stuff happens in a vacuum.

---

quote:

---

How many varieties of Baptist or Pentecostal do we need for goodness sake?

---

quote:

---

Also, you keep banging on at me about this 'state church' thing as if it's a big deal for me. It isn't. I'm probably less 'denominational' in my attitudes than you are, truth be told ...

---

quote:

---

I know plenty of instances of Baptist ministers and others who tried to accommodate these [charismatics] - but they'd have none of it and so hived off to do their own thing.

---

quote:

---

Sure, I am convinced there were many who did so after much heart-searching and conscience-wracking. But a lot of them did want to be their own bigger fish in smaller ponds.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by SvitlanaV2

And to me, this hints at a huge failing in church structures as they often are, even in churches that are otherwise 'alternative' in some way: this inability to incorporate the skills and dreams of so many people who want to be of service to the gospel. Unless you want to take on a role closely defined by someone else (or by tradition), very often the church can't use your gifts. Frank Viola feels that this is the greatest cause of schism. In some cases at least, it could be avoided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...a huge failing in church structures as they often are, even in churches that are otherwise 'alternative' in some way [is the] inability to incorporate the skills and dreams of so many people who want to be of service to the gospel. Unless you want to take on a role closely defined by someone else (or by tradition), very often the church can't use your gifts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what I AM saying is that the presence of some form of established orthodoxy (or Christendom to some extent) DOES provide a yard-stick which remains there to be used, whether people choose to use it or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But a yard-stick is only useful to the extent that it is accurate, no? If the 'established orthodoxy' is not correct...

Gamaliel, I know you weren't saying that established orthodoxy ought to be followed on all matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, at what points are you saying that the 'established orthodoxy' isn't correct, South Coast Kevin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[Y]ou have raised the issue of my attending an Anglican church a few times on this thread.

---

quote:

---

You find the less evangelical or non-evangelical churches to be too 'liberal'.
[...]
And, quite frankly, in none of the local churches can be found a standard of preaching and teaching on a par with what you'd become used to among the Baptists.

---

quote:

---

The level of theological debate and discussion in most of the local churches is pretty mediocre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...the former minister of my church has set up a series of meetings called Heretics Anonymous, where people in the circuit could give their take on theological issues. The meetings seem to have flourished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, although the UK has clearly produced a vast number of sects and small denominations, it's also apparent that most of these have gone on to flourish outside of the UK rather than within it.

---

quote:

---

some will merge, as has already happened many times.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sure, I am convinced there were many who did so after much heart-searching and conscience-wracking. But a lot of them did want to be their own bigger fish in smaller ponds.

---

And to me, this hints at a huge failing in church structures as they often are, even in churches that are otherwise 'alternative' in some way: this inability to incorporate the skills and dreams of so many people who want to be of service to the gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...the former minister of my church has set up a series of meetings called Heretics Anonymous, where people in the circuit could give their take on theological issues. The meetings seem to have flourished.

---

That's an awesome idea and what a great title! Can I steal it?

---

The name and idea aren't mine to give! The minister probably wouldn't mind, though.

The minster ensured that different ideas were respected. However, although the discussion can be lively, the nature of the groups (and indeed, of modern Methodism) is to avoid serious clashes of views, and Methodists are usually quite moderate anyway.

If (in your context) you're likely to have evangelicals turning up who will be shocked by churchgoing people openly dening the virgin birth, the resurrection, or having frank discussion of other controversial issues, then the atmosphere would be quite different, I think. The discussions aren't designed as evangelism, although sometimes people from other denominations, or non-Christian friends, attend.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, you've got me in one, SvitlanaV2 - too liberal for the evangelicals and too evangelical for the liberals ... but throw in some sacramental/Orthodox leanings too ...

Incidentally, I find some of the Orthodox guilty of a kind of 'Church fundamentalism' as opposed to a 'biblical fundamentalism' - and I have no desire to replace one kind of fundamentalism with another.

As for the liberal parish ... well, they go in for some nice ceremony and twiddly bits but you do wonder what they're actually trying to 'say' ...

At least with the Orthodox their ceremonial does 'point' towards what they actually believe ...

You're right about the preaching. The best preaching I've heard has been in Baptist circles. There was good preaching (in terms of delivery) in the 'house-churches' but the content was often pretty kooky. Among the Baptists I found the content meaty enough and also pitched in an engaging style.

I'm generally disappointed at the standard of preaching among evangelical Anglicans, I'm afraid. They can be good at it ... but they tend to pitch things at a very simplistic level in my experience.

Hey-ho ... perhaps I'm just an awkward so-and-so. A Jesuit spiritual director once suggested that I wouldn't fit in anywhere so just had to get used to it and cherry-pick where I could ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@South Coast Kevin ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't say I've noticed you challenging 'received orthodoxy' either here on your blog (which is a good blog by the way).

Perhaps I've not noticed the threads you're referring to.

From what I've seen, you tend to be challenging or questioning the WAY that things are done rather than the actual content of what's being done or said ... so in that respect I don't consider that as a challenge to 'received orthodoxy.'

I noticed your 'open-ness of God' blog-post - can God see the future? Well, there've been people arguing about that one for some time now. Your approach, forgive me for saying so if you think this is unfair, doesn't strike me as particularly radical. All you've done is throw a few proof-texts back and forth to represent both sides of the argument ...

For the record, I do believe that God can see the future - he is omniscient after all. But that doesn't mean that it's all strait-jacketed in a deterministic way ...

Anyway, as you say, this isn't the thread for discussing those sort of issues.

Where it is pertinent, though, is that if there wasn't a received orthodoxy there in the first place, neither you nor I or nor anyone else posting on these boards from within a Christian paradigm would be here in the first place.

SvitlanaV2 has observed that without 'Christendom' there wouldn't have been any Methodists. I'd suggest that without Christendom and without Methodists and others then there wouldn't have been a Vineyard. You only 'exist' as it were because of a handed-down tradition. The same applies to all of us. We none of us operate in a vacuum. We are all the product of historical and cultural influences.

We can't suddenly de-historicise ourselves in some kind of Pol Pot Year Zero approach to Christianity. It is a fond fancy to imagine that we can.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't say I've noticed you challenging 'received orthodoxy' either here on your blog... From what I've seen, you tend to be challenging or questioning the WAY that things are done rather than the actual content of what's being done or said'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I noticed your 'open-ness of God' blog-post - can God see the future? Well, there've been people arguing about that one for some time now. Your approach, forgive me for saying so if you think this is unfair, doesn't strike me as particularly radical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd suggest that without Christendom and without Methodists and others then there wouldn't have been a Vineyard. You only 'exist' as it were because of a handed-down tradition. The same applies to all of us. We none of us operate in a vacuum. We are all the product of historical and cultural influences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
There are former colonies where the Anglican church is flourishing. That groups are necessarily larger outside the UK than inside need not necessarily be down to the nature of the CofE.

I think Starks ideas become less useful the more universally they are applied.

---

quote:

---

The vast majority of mergers happen between two groups which are already in steady decline, and merger rarely manages to check this decline.

---

quote:

---

When I was young I attended a breakaway charismatic group that had seen a number of church splits - and I've known plenty of friends who have been through similar experiences. Looking back I don't think that the particular reasons you mention were a factor in any of the splits - beyond people feeling that they were a special unique flower that needed to be accommodated in some way which was then given the gloss of divine sanction ("God spoke to me").

A bounded orthodoxy doesn't make these things disappear - but it seems to me that it does prevent it to a certain extent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
SvitlanaV2 appears to be suggesting that numerical 'success' is the be-all-and-end-all irrespective of quality. 'Never mind the quality, feel the width.' Let's go on adding different flavours of Pentecostal ad infinitum and let 'market forces' determine which succeed and which decline ...

---

quote:

---

I think SvitlanaV2 makes an interesting point about Catholicism flourishing more at the 'personal' level among RCs in countries where it isn't the dominant religious paradigm. I've heard it claimed that Orthodoxy is often 'livelier' in the Western diaspora than it can be in its native soil - the Balkans and Eastern Europe - although I'm not sure whether this is actually the case.

---

quote:

---

I s'pose what I'm arguing for is a certain amount of elasticity within a bounded orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

[...] everyone doing 'what was right in his own eyes.'

---

But every churchgoer is someone who seeks the advice of other believers. You don't have to be in a mainstream church to seek that. Even independent church planters surely benefit from the advice and support of other Christians in their lives. But as a Protestant I don't believe I can entrust my soul to the care of any priest or bishop. Hopefully they are wise people, and they offer guidance, prayer, and the benefit of their BA/MA/PhD education in theology, but no more. Salvation isn't theirs to procure for me. So there does come a point, yes, when I have to be responsible for my own relationship with God, regardless of what others may think or do.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


I might be naive, but I've not come across any Anglican, Orthodox or RC who believes that their salvation - in terms of their ultimate eternal destiny - lies in the hands of their priest or bishop. If they did then they'd see themselves as damned or something if their priest or bishop went an apostasised.

That's as caricatured a view of the historic Churches as the view that all evangelicals are fundamentalists (there is a difference) or that all Pentecostals are illiterate snake-handlers from the Appallachian boondocks.

In some ways, I'd say that the Pentecostals have no more 'damaged' anything (if that's the right word) than the Anglicans have.

And where have I said that Pentecostal churches ought to be forced to close down and their flocks scattered among the historic churches and denominations ...



I mightn't want to go to a Pentie church myself, but I get on very well with the local Pentecostals. They're lovely people and they're very eirenic. They support a lot of inter-church stuff here that one might not immediately expect from Pentecostals. There are Penties and there are Penties ...

Nobody's got a monopoly on daftness. I've heard daft things said from Anglican pulpits, from restorationist people, from Pentecostals, Brethren, conservative evangelicals, from the Orthodox ... and equally I've heard good stuff in all these and all manner of settings.

All I'm saying is that we need some kind of a consensus on bounded orthodoxy - whatever that might be. I'm simply suggesting that this has been handed down through the historic Churches and denominations - for better or for worse. That doesn't mean that everyone has to belong to those Churches or denominations if they don't want to ...

I don't have a particular beef with the Pentecostals any more than I might have one with the Brethren or the FIEC (if that's still going).

I do have a beef with rigid fundamentalism, though, and that's something that can be found across the spectrum. I've already said that I have as much of an issue with 'Church Fundamentalists' as I do with 'Biblical Fundamentalists.'

You can't accuse me of not being eirenic with my finger-pointing ...



And yes, there are three pointing back at me too ...
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

All I'm saying is that we need some kind of a consensus on bounded orthodoxy - whatever that might be. I'm simply suggesting that this has been handed down through the historic Churches and denominations - for better or for worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

I think Starks ideas become less useful the more universally they are applied.
[/b]

---

This is quite new scholarly territory, I think, and I don't suppose much research has been done to test these theories around the world. As I said, these theories are controversial. But my impression is that Anglicanism, for example, is more successful in countries where there is a flourishing array of other competing churches, rather than in territories where it acts as the culturally dominant church.

---

quote:

---

It has also been said that Catholics practise their religion in higher proportions when they're in countries where the RCC isn't a monolopolistic church, which again suggests that diversity can actually be helpful.

---

quote:

---

Indeed. That was my point. If you think there are far too many Pentecostal churches, for example, then the proof will be that they eventually disappear. I.e., there will be a declining 'market' for them.

---

quote:

---

However, it seems to me that anyone with a huge ego who wants to be a 'unique flower', but doesn't fit the accepted profile of a potential ordained priest, is probably not destined to last long in a mainstream denomination. So the extent to which the mainstream can reign in such people is probably limited, I would have thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[H]ow do we help the 'newer' and more exotic or 'exciting' forms of church maintain the orthodoxy that they've inherited from the older and earlier traditions[?]

---

quote:

---

If you think there are far too many Pentecostal churches, for example, then the proof will be that they eventually disappear. I.e., there will be a declining 'market' for them.

---

quote:

---

Yes right, because preaching Christianity has typically been very popular, whereas telling people what they want to hear isn't popular at all </sarcasm> It's perfectly possible to fill an auditorium by doing things other than preaching the gospel, preaching self improvement and ones best life now, for example.

---

quote:

---

However, it seems to me that anyone with a huge ego who wants to be a 'unique flower', but doesn't fit the accepted profile of a potential ordained priest, is probably not destined to last long in a mainstream denomination. So the extent to which the mainstream can reign in such people is probably limited, I would have thought. [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Well, as I've often observed, a lot of these groups are run by people who - if they weren't running churches - would be in sales and marketing. That's not necessarily a recommendation. One of the church splits I experienced, started when one of the pastors went down the road to antinomian-ism ("If I were to commit adultery and repent of it tomorrow, I could still lead this church"). In more organised polities there would be ways of dealing with the top guy going AWOL, less so in informal circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
chris stiles

quote:

---

If you think there are far too many Pentecostal churches, for example, then the proof will be that they eventually disappear. I.e., there will be a declining 'market' for them.

---

quote:

---

Yes right, because preaching Christianity has typically been very popular, whereas telling people what they want to hear isn't popular at all </sarcasm> It's perfectly possible to fill an auditorium by doing things other than preaching the gospel, preaching self improvement and ones best life now, for example.

---

You seem to have conflated Pentecostalism with 'prosperity preaching'. But the two don't necessarily go together. I imagine that some of the 100s of Pentecostal denominations have bought into this, but it's unwise to suggest that it's dominant in a majority of them! Not every American megachurch with an upwardly-mobile membership perceives itself to be Pentecostal, surely.

---

quote:

---

Yes, but my point is that few people with such personalities are likely to be found in a typical Methodist, URC or Anglican set-up anyway. There have been studies into the range of personality types to be found in particular kinds of churches, and the salesman type is surely rare in a mainstream church set-up. Which is to say, it's a pure fantasy to imagine that these people could be 'controlled' there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Andrew Walker in his study of the restorationist house-churches suggested that the older Pentecostal denominations could provide necessary correctives in some respects - they'd been around for 80 years at the time he was writing and had ironed out a lot of the teething problems for their early days.

In the same way, I would suggest that Methodists, URCs, Anglicans, Catholics etc DO have things that the newer outfits could benefit from, or which they could ignore at their peril ...

---

quote:

---

There has been work done on the origins of 'new church' leaders. Walker found that most 'restorationist' house-church leaders (whether within his R1 or R2 categories) predominantly came from Brethren, Baptist and Pentecostal backgrounds - so to a certain extent they were already 'sectarian'.
[...]
There were former Anglicans but these were generally less well-represented than former Baptists, AoG and Brethren. There were also Salvation Army elements in some places, but their numbers were never that high. There were also people from the 'older' independent charismatic groups such as Wally North's 'North Circular' fellowships.

---

quote:

---

There's a sliding-scale or continuum on the extent to which [the Pentecostals have] imbibed the prosperity-gospel thing - but I'd suggest that they've all got a theandric, thaumaturgical self-help style approach to some extent. (Good words, eh? I got them from Andrew Walker's books ...)

---

I'll go and check in the dictionary later, if you don't mind! But yes, I can see that there must be a continuum. Yet, Anglicanism too is a broad church, with a continuum of its own! I wonder if there are Anglican churches in some corners of the world where the prosperity gospel teaching has made some impact....

I have to say, considering that people in the developing world are usually much poorer than us, it seems somewhat improper for us to suggest that they shouldn't develop churches to help them in their struggle to improve their lot. If our theology doesn't help us in the situation we're in, what use is it? But perhaps that's a subject for another thread.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On the whole, SvitlanaV2, I think your assumptions and assertions are pretty much on the money and near the mark.

You're right about the level of interactivity, for instance.

As indeed you are right too about the generally middle-class nature of the 'new churches' and charismatic churches in general - Walker observed that 'a charismatic is a middle-class Pentecostal.'

There have been, and are, some exceptions though ... as there is to any rule.

I feel as if I've been overly pernickety here at times, pulling you up on minor points of detail.

I still stand by the broad thrust of what I've been saying, though, whilst admitting that it's probably still foggy and confused ...

I think your perceptions and experience are (like everyone else's) forged by your own particular milieu. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're in a relatively run-down part of the Midlands that has been overlooked by the middle-class charismatic movements and the more experimental forms of church ...

Consequently, your view of the CofE is probably based on more 'traditional' forms than might exist in the well-heeled suburbs or the trendier parishes. Equally, your view/experience of some of the 'new church' charismatic outfits is anecdotal or at a distance. There's nothing wrong with that, but I might have a different perspective having been involved with these groups.

On the Wesleyan thing, I've found that most people have a soft-spot for John Wesley. I've heard Anglo-Catholic priests describe both Wesleys as 'lovely' and the Orthodox warm to Wesleyanism among the various Protestant traditions as one that accords quite closely with their particular views on 'theosis' and so on. They don't take to 'cold Calvin' at all but they've got time for Wesley ...

Most evangelicals, I'd say, have a soft-spot for Wesley too - the only ones who mightn't are the more Reformed types - but they seem to accommodate him by claiming that he was actually quite Calvinist without realising it himself ...



And yes, you're right about the non-conformist or 'new church' evangelicals being generally supportive of evangelicals within the CofE. I know plenty of Baptist, 'new church' and Salvation Army evangelicals who take a keen interest in what goes on in the CofE and root for those aspects of it that most accord with their own viewpoint or praxis.

I agree that none of these things are clear-cut. There are lots of grey areas.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Gamaliel

I don't live in a run-down area, but rather, an area that sits on the fringe of the inner city and the suburbs. (Its identity is somewhat distinct from both.) But my church was on the inner city side, so that was a bit more run-down. Occasionally I attend a couple of charismatic churches that are more on the suburban side. In fact, our minister's wife started attending one of them a few years ago, partly so her children could go to a different Sunday school, and partly, I think, so she could meet people from a similar social background to herself. But she didn't really approve of their theology. Now her husband's been stationed in a very different area, hopefully the Methodist church there can fulfil all of her needs.

I'm not really looking to attend a typical charismatic church, though, but ideally something more alternative. If I were willing to travel further out I might find something, but I'm not prepared to do that on a regular basis at the moment.

It's interesting to hear that inner city Anglican churches are more 'traditional' than in well-heeled areas. I've heard that Anglo-Catholicism was devised to attract the working classes, but I can't imagine why evangelicalism was thought to be less appropriate. Interesting indeed.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't think that any of these things developed in a conscious or mechanistic way, SvitlanaV2.

'Hmmm ... how shall we reach the working classes in London's East End ... I know, they like glitter ... let's go in with smells and bells ...'

Or, 'Hmmm ... lonely suburbanites need community ... I know, let's devise some close-fellowship model with charismatic worship ...'

That's not how these things work.

It's true that Anglo-Catholicism did 'catch-on' in poorer areas but that was largely down to some of the slum-priests and others who took it up and ran with it ... had they been from other churchmanships the results would have been the same.

The fact is, in inner-city areas in Victorian/Edwardian times you had the Salvation Army and other evangelical groups cheek-by-jowl with Anglo-Catholic types and more liberal forms of outreach and social action ... I wouldn't say that any one form predominated.

To an extent, I think the appeal of Anglo-Catholicism in inner-city areas has been over-emphasised - there's a mythology about it.

That said, I can think of Anglo-Catholic churches in run-down areas in this region which are doing a good work among the poor and disenfranchised, but whether this is in a way that many evangelicals would recognise or value is a moot point.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Obviously, there were Nonconformist evangelicals, such as the Salvation Army, present in the working class areas, but on the surface at least, Anglo-Catholicism is such a different animal that it almost looks as though its distinctiveness was perceived to be one of its strengths. It could be that working class Anglo-Catholicism and evangelicalism fed off each other, or rivalled each other in some way.

Certainly, googling 'working class Anglo-Catholicism' brings up a lot of relevant material. Much of it seems historical, so the connection between the two may now be less than in the past. In my city, I imagine that Anglo-Catholicism still has a particularly working class flavour, although I'd have to look into it more closely to be certain.

Of course, there must be a middle or upper middle class element to Anglo-Catholicism, because that's where the clergy would be drawn from.

I certainly wouldn't criticise these churches' commitment to social issues.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's an interesting area and I'd like to study it, if I had time ...

I think I'm right in saying that when it came to evangelistic methods, many of the inner-city Anglo-Catholics of the Victorian and Edwardian era adopted similar methodology to that used by the Salvation Army and other revivalist groups. They would lay on rallies with hearty hymn-singing and testimonies and so on ... whilst retaining the very sacramental approach for the Sunday services. So yes, there were probably overlaps despite the very different appearance, theology and churchmanship.

Anglo-Catholicism could be very upper-class as well. As indeed so could evangelicalism - look at Lord Shaftesbury. I suspect that neither of these traditions were neatly divide along class/social lines.
 

---

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :
 
Old news, perhaps, but this seemed an appropriate link - made me chuckle, anyway.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ho ho ... very accurate too, I think.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0