Thread: New ways of being church 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=024194
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
This is a phrase I've come across a number of times, most recently on S of F.
What does it mean?
There seems to be some implication or implied criticism of something in using "church" as an abstract noun, like justice or love, rather than a definite noun, the church.
What is going on here?
Who used it first?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'd refer you back to the FE thread in Eccles. There's Emerging Church as well, which is a wider concept, as it includes setups by and for people within the church who are struggling to cope with it, whereas FE is specifically aimed at the unchurched.
Besides that there's the somewhat funda^h^h^h^h evangelical Simple Churches movement. Google would be your friend.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Thanks - I've now got Aleksandr Orlov the Compare the Market meerkat lodged in my head!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
This is a phrase I've come across a number of times, most recently on S of F.
I use this phrase quite a lot, to mean church as something other than meeting in a special building to hear a sermon and sing some songs.
What exactly that 'something other' is, covers a lot of ground - I guess the definition (at least for me!) is more in terms of what it isn't than what it is.
The fact that it is 'new ways of being church' (not 'doing church') is important to me, as it tries to capture the idea that church is not something one goes to or something one does at certain times each week, but rather it's a community one is part of.
But, yes, it is a rather vague term...
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...as it tries to capture the idea that church is not something one goes to or something one does at certain times each week, but rather it's a community one is part of.
Church has always been about this - it isn't anything "new."
It is the idea that "Church" is a sort of "service provider" (like AutoGlass) which is new - yet, sadly all too common nowadays.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
This is a phrase I've come across a number of times, most recently on S of F.
I use this phrase quite a lot, to mean church as something other than meeting in a special building to hear a sermon and sing some songs.
What exactly that 'something other' is, covers a lot of ground - I guess the definition (at least for me!) is more in terms of what it isn't than what it is.
The fact that it is 'new ways of being church' (not 'doing church') is important to me, as it tries to capture the idea that church is not something one goes to or something one does at certain times each week, but rather it's a community one is part of.
But, yes, it is a rather vague term...
Commenting to point out that many Christians do go to church for something other than singing songs and to hear a sermon if we are members of a church that has weekly Eucharist - the sermon is certainly not a big deal at my church and we have services without either singing OR a sermon!
And to echo Mark Betts, the church has always been about being a community.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...as it tries to capture the idea that church is not something one goes to or something one does at certain times each week, but rather it's a community one is part of.
Church has always been about this - it isn't anything "new."
Sorry for being unclear, Mark - the particularly new bit (IMO) is the church meeting being something other than sermon, singing, Eucharist (quite right, Jade Constable) etc. What I was getting at with the part of my comment that you quoted was that the new ways thing is not just about changing church meetings, although that is part of it. So I like it that you said 'being church' and not 'doing church'. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I don't 'do' church, I am not 'church' as in 'being' church. I am part of the Church and there are many many things we do.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
Repeat after me:
I be church;
You be church;
He/She/It be church;
We be church;
You be church;
They be church.
Now, tell me to which conjugation you belong...
--Tom Clune
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
Isn't the ungrammatical turn of phrase designed to make you think about what the word "church" actually means? That's the essence of the concept in a nutshell: thinking afresh about the meaning, purpose, mission and presentation etc of the body of Christ. How does it look/feel to outsiders? To insiders? Is this always good or can things be changed sometimes to help reach more people and help the reached ones grow?
Incidentally, South Coast Kevin, if you go too far down the line of defining church by what it isn't you run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ending up with something that isn't anything.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
For me there is a need to rethink church completely, the model we are running on say its hey day in the late nineteenth century and has not adapted to the changes in society since. Most people who talk about New Ways of being Church often mean new ways of worshipping, but I am not sure that worship is what is broken. At its heart worship is the response of the committed community. That means that it is not an attractant in itself. People who are participating in it are socialised into that participation.
What is wrong is we are working on a model that suggests that churches are run by multi-generational families, that children who grow up stay around, marriages are stable as is employement etc. Therefore it is normal to have multi-generational communities and for people to be in and around the church buildings a lot of the time.
It does not work because the lifestyle it presumes no longer exists.
Evangelism is only part of the change, we also need to think of the ways we (the Church) develop and sustain contact with people who become involved. It is actually very easy to loose the church going habit if that is the only contact that sustains your faith.
So in a sense I want to start people thinking about what it means to belong to the Church in the modern world. What sort of things should we expect of members? What sort of contact is necessary? Can we find ways of keeping in contact when people spend two out of three weekends visiting grandchildren? How do we help people who move to elsewhere to find a place to worship? Do you need to have fellowship with other Christians even when you do not make Sunday worship? Do you need to find ways of supporting regular private devotion?
I do not have the answers I am only just beginning to get to grips with the questions.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
What JJ said, but I think that quite often the worship itself is, and should be, up for re-evaluation.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
I have observed that, when people talk about "new ways" of being church, the "old ways" that they are often reacting against aren't really the full picture of what church is/could/should be.
Also it sometimes seems like an excuse to not do the "old ways" that they don't like....
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I have observed that, when people talk about "new ways" of being church, the "old ways" that they are often reacting against aren't really the full picture of what church is/could/should be.
But often isn't, hence the unrest.
quote:
Also it sometimes seems like an excuse to not do the "old ways" that they don't like....
And why not? Liturgical types don't go to churches with praise bands, and hands in the air Charevos aren't often found at Solemn Mass. So why should those of us for whom neither does much not seek out the like-minded to find a way that does work for us, just like everyone else does?
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I have observed that, when people talk about "new ways" of being church, the "old ways" that they are often reacting against aren't really the full picture of what church is/could/should be.
But often isn't, hence the unrest.
Yeah - just don't rebrand it as "new" when it's as old as the hills just neglected!
quote:
Also it sometimes seems like an excuse to not do the "old ways" that they don't like....
And why not? Liturgical types don't go to churches with praise bands, and hands in the air Charevos aren't often found at Solemn Mass. So why should those of us for whom neither does much not seek out the like-minded to find a way that does work for us, just like everyone else does?
I wasn't really thinking of worship styles more things like enageing (or not) with people of differant socio-economic backgrounds etc
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
One of the major points of the Reformation was to get "the church" to work in the language of "the people".
Liturgical form is as much "language" as is the spoken word. Why should anyone insist that High Mass is the only "language" of the church (as at least two priests in my deanery do), or for that matter, megachurch choir&preacher-in-front-of-seated-spectators or MOTR hymn sandwich?
It isn't exactly a class thing so much as a "please speak to me" thing. Our little Anglican outpost in a Baptist (well, Baptist is the largest group among the few who attend church, anyway) county has kept going because as the elderly die off, there is always a new seeker or whatever-you-call-them who appears and finds a place amongst us. But we don't expect that our "language" will appeal to a lot of the possible church-goers, let alone the non-churched. We serve a niche and do what we can.
For many of our incomers, what we do is "a new way of being church" - but I have to echo the comments about community upthread - we wouldn't be in business if we didn't know each other pretty well.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And why not? Liturgical types don't go to churches with praise bands, and hands in the air Charevos aren't often found at Solemn Mass. So why should those of us for whom neither does much not seek out the like-minded to find a way that does work for us, just like everyone else does?
I wasn't really thinking of worship styles more things like enageing (or not) with people of differant socio-economic backgrounds etc
@Karl: Because it's not about us. It's about engaging with others (as Twangist said).
In an increasingly post-modern society should we still be dictating "this is the truth" from six feet above contradiction? Isn't it more po-mo to say, "This is my truth, show me yours," and engage in conversation.
quote:
As Jengie Jon said:
I do not have the answers I am only just beginning to get to grips with the questions.
It could be that, in po-mo style, there are no answers, or that my answer may not be yours. To find out what the other person's answer is we have to talk to them and ask their questions.
It is all part of being all things to all people, which is not a new way of being church at all.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It could be that, in po-mo style, there are no answers, or that my answer may not be yours. To find out what the other person's answer is we have to talk to them and ask their questions.
It is all part of being all things to all people, which is not a new way of being church at all.
At the heart of the Alpha FORMAT - and let's ignore the content for the purposes of this thread - is the recognition that people want to work things through for themselves in a group. Note that this doesn't necessarily legitimate the po-mo assumption that nothing can be known. But then we tend to expect them to transition to 'church' being sitting being talked at.
Viola argues that this is totally wrong - and resurrects the approach of both the Quakers and Plymouth Brethren of church being open meetings with all free to contribute. But Viola's other emphasis is that relationships are all; he argues that the earliest churches met in homes, not synagogue type places BY CHOICE*: if the church really is the family of God, it's being remarkably dysfunctional by its members never actually getting together to talk in any meaningful sense.
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
----------
* I don't think this claim is fully sustainable, and the nature of Roman society would have meant that there was an implicit hierarchy in a home meeting that we don't get.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
Hear hear! That guy Frank Viola is one of several people writing and speaking about 'new ways of being church' and the chapter titles in his book 'Reimagining Church' probably give a good indication of the areas in which some rethinking could be done. Most of the chapter titles begin with the word 'Reimagining':
Reimagining the church as an organism
...the church meeting
...the Lord's Supper
...the gathering place
...the family of God
...church unity
...leadership
...oversight
...decision-making
...spiritual covering
...authority and submission
...denominational covering
...the apostolic tradition
That gives a fair summary of the issues that people involved in the 'new ways' thing are talking about, I think.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
I would have no problem with this view if it were not for the fact that from the very earliest witnesses on, there is consistent evidence that Christians met on the Lord's Day.
If this is now to be turned on its head, there has to be a really good reason for it.
ISTM that any new way of being Church has to demonstrate its continuity/consistency with older ways of being Church. Otherwise it will end up not being Church at all.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
I would have no problem with this view if it were not for the fact that from the very earliest witnesses on, there is consistent evidence that Christians met on the Lord's Day.
If this is now to be turned on its head, there has to be a really good reason for it.
ISTM that any new way of being Church has to demonstrate its continuity/consistency with older ways of being Church. Otherwise it will end up not being Church at all.
But given that those meetings 'on the Lord's day' were in homes, you are being interestingly inconsistent in this argument ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
OK - I know what the logic of tradition says, but the Jerusalem church met 'daily' in the temple, whilst in Hebrews we are told to 'But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.' Heb 3:13
AFAICS Viola's model of church life ticks more boxes than the tradition that we've inherited, which has been undermined by changes in society. These mean that the church must now work to create 'community' that historically existed 'naturally'.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering; our overwhelming tendency to go the other way is, for me, the biggest failure of the modern church.
I would have no problem with this view if it were not for the fact that from the very earliest witnesses on, there is consistent evidence that Christians met on the Lord's Day.
If this is now to be turned on its head, there has to be a really good reason for it.
There is. The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
quote:
ISTM that any new way of being Church has to demonstrate its continuity/consistency with older ways of being Church. Otherwise it will end up not being Church at all.
Indeed - the point where I part company with Viola is having experience of a Simple Church inspired by his thinking, which had very little continuity and was totally befuddled, to be honest, when faced with some bread and wine. Well, grape juice.
[ 30. November 2012, 10:37: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
If you could demonstrate that there was nothing else to do on the Lord's Day in the early Church, I could accept the argument. But the Lord's Day was not a day set aside for worship or rest in either the Jewish or Gentile communities where the first churches met. They had to do so in addition to, and possibly despite, their everyday activities.
This is why I still think it's legitimate to ask people to prioritise an hour or so of their Sunday for the Lord and to meet with God's people.
ES - I don't see why the meeting venue or size of the meetings has anything to do with it. Either Christians meet on the Lord's Day or they do not. House groups/churches should surely be doing this as well as their social or study meetings on other days.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Yes but they
1) Met in the evenings because people were working during the day. I do not see any tendency in churches to move over to an evening only pattern.
2) Were not likely to be the other side of the country due to visiting. That is people while living in a place tended to stay fairly local on the whole.
3) The really early church met every day! There was no one day in seven about it. When there was a special day it seems to have been a Saturday due to Jewish context.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
If you could demonstrate that there was nothing else to do on the Lord's Day in the early Church, I could accept the argument. But the Lord's Day was not a day set aside for worship or rest in either the Jewish or Gentile communities where the first churches met. They had to do so in addition to, and possibly despite, their everyday activities.
This is why I still think it's legitimate to ask people to prioritise an hour or so of their Sunday for the Lord and to meet with God's people.
Did my post not predict this reaction and respond to it?
It is a simple fact that you make it unnecessarily difficult for people if you force them to choose between, say, football practice, which may be a major part of the social life of two of the children in a particular family, or church. I suppose that if people choose the football practice you can sit and sneer that it's their problem with their priorities, but that attitude actually achieves fuck all.
Your sig is most appropriate.
[ 30. November 2012, 10:59: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
If you could demonstrate that there was nothing else to do on the Lord's Day in the early Church, I could accept the argument. But the Lord's Day was not a day set aside for worship or rest in either the Jewish or Gentile communities where the first churches met. They had to do so in addition to, and possibly despite, their everyday activities.
This is why I still think it's legitimate to ask people to prioritise an hour or so of their Sunday for the Lord and to meet with God's people.
Did my post not predict this reaction and respond to it?
It is a simple fact that you make it unnecessarily difficult for people if you force them to choose between, say, football practice, which may be a major part of the social life of two of the children in a particular family, or church. I suppose that if people choose the football practice you can sit and sneer that it's their problem with their priorities, but that attitude actually achieves fuck all.
Your sig is most appropriate.
When you are prepared to respond with some courtesy to my post, I will reply to yours.
For the moment, I will point out that there is more to building bridges than kidding people that being a Christian is easy. And when you have evidence that I either sit or sneer when it comes to engaging with our communities, then you are welcome to call me to Hell for it.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Changing service times helps a lot of people (also relevant for people who rely on public transport which in some areas is very unreliable on a Sunday). When I'm at my parents' even I have to attend a midweek said Eucharist because the Sunday buses are so awful (my parents live in semi-rural Hampshire, I attend a church in the nearest town as the local CoE church, and there is only one, is awful).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The following spring to mind:
1. The fact that many people have to work on Sundays now;
2. The fact that there are many activities, especially for children and young people, that take place on a Sunday morning. Of course, one could just say it's a matter of priorities; I'd prefer that we can actually fully participation in the society in which we're called to be salt and light, rather than hide away from it.
These point to a need for more flexibility in our meeting together.
If you could demonstrate that there was nothing else to do on the Lord's Day in the early Church, I could accept the argument. But the Lord's Day was not a day set aside for worship or rest in either the Jewish or Gentile communities where the first churches met. They had to do so in addition to, and possibly despite, their everyday activities.
This is why I still think it's legitimate to ask people to prioritise an hour or so of their Sunday for the Lord and to meet with God's people.
Did my post not predict this reaction and respond to it?
It is a simple fact that you make it unnecessarily difficult for people if you force them to choose between, say, football practice, which may be a major part of the social life of two of the children in a particular family, or church. I suppose that if people choose the football practice you can sit and sneer that it's their problem with their priorities, but that attitude actually achieves fuck all.
Your sig is most appropriate.
When you are prepared to respond with some courtesy to my post, I will reply to yours.
For the moment, I will point out that there is more to building bridges than kidding people that being a Christian is easy. And when you have evidence that I either sit or sneer when it comes to engaging with our communities, then you are welcome to call me to Hell for it.
If the cap doesn't fit, then don't wear it. Do find the point where I specifically said that you, specifically, sneer. I do find your "it's just a matter of priorities" attitude unhelpful, however, and maintain that for many people, it most definitely is a wall, not a bridge.
Meanwhile, I'd thank you for not equating what I see as facing the reality of modern life with "kidding people that Christianity is easy."
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Changing service times helps a lot of people (also relevant for people who rely on public transport which in some areas is very unreliable on a Sunday). When I'm at my parents' even I have to attend a midweek said Eucharist because the Sunday buses are so awful (my parents live in semi-rural Hampshire, I attend a church in the nearest town as the local CoE church, and there is only one, is awful).
But it's that approach of going along to a building to spectate as somebody says some words is what Viola is most critical of. Do you have any meaningful relationships with the people you are in the audience with (choosing my word deliberately)? If you were taken seriously ill next week, would you tell them? I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I'm sure it's valid worship for YOU, but is it meaningfully fellowship? Is it fulfilling the command 'exhort one another every day'. I'm dubious that my weekly attendance at a Sunday service fulfils that, let alone an intermittent one.
Viola seems to undervalue that element of a service, but the fellowship element is often totally absent. We need to do better given our horrendously atomised society.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes but they
1) Met in the evenings because people were working during the day. I do not see any tendency in churches to move over to an evening only pattern.
2) Were not likely to be the other side of the country due to visiting. That is people while living in a place tended to stay fairly local on the whole.
3) The really early church met every day! There was no one day in seven about it. When there was a special day it seems to have been a Saturday due to Jewish context.
Jengie
1) Interestingly, we find that evening services are very poorly attended, and usually by people who have already worshipped in the morning. YMMV.
2) That is why there are churches/worship opportunities in almost every place, or at least accessible to the vast majority of people who are prepared to organise their Sunday around their worship
3) If only... We have a couple of people who do come to Mass each day, and engage in formal/informal fellowship around that. They are growing well in every way.
I think my resistance to making things convenient for all (although it never actually is) arises from a conviction that we are dealing with a faith community not a membership organisation. (In this part of the world, the membership organisations have all reduced and trimmed their identities to suit the convenience of possible members, so that there is nothing distinctive left to join.) By the time people come to faith and have expressed their commitment through confirmation (or an equivalent) I would expect them to make it a priority, at least for an hour on a Sunday.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
By the time people come to faith and have expressed their commitment through confirmation (or an equivalent) I would expect them to make it a priority, at least for an hour on a Sunday.
Sorry I've not made clear the core of Viola's complaint, which is that what happens on a Sunday in the average church is nothing close to real fellowship; that it, rather than somewhere where such fellowship DOES occur, is made the priority, is the point I'm making. Of course in practice both should be present, but if a choice has to be made, Sundays lose out.
However the real issue is that in a lot of churches there is NO real fellowship - no place where you can share the issues that are winding you up in a safe and Christian environment. Nowhere where you can safely ask the idiot question that's been bugging you for weeks which if you asked it openly might get you laughed at. Nowhere where you experience 'the family of God'. That's certainly my experience of going to mainstream church on a Sunday YMMV.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Lets take my big break above. Getting worship right is NOT going to keep people connected to the Church! Worship in some is the core activity but only ever makes proper sense in terms of wider commitment. When being a Christian is reduced to one hour on a Sunday then it is NO LONGER IMPORTANT enough for most people to care. This means in itself worship is bound to FAIL.
Therefore I have come to a conclusion that in the modern age a Just one service where we do everything is a failure to disciple people!
19th Century Non-conformity for example had
- Two services on a Sunday (Church family on the morning and an evangelical outreach entertainship one on the evening)
- Sunday School on the afternoon.
- Mid Week Bible study
- Mens and Women's fellowship group
- Other social groupings such as drama
- charitable outreach work
It was totally possible to be a church seven days a week! That was making contact with members of the church and strengthening commitment. Alright they could play tennis at the Church tennis club and talk nothing of religion, but they knew the friends that were there would also be in church on Sunday so if they wanted to see them then the needed to be in church. I know one person who came to a particular congregation at least in part because it had a badminton club. She was a member elsewhere, but finding the travel difficult, but being able to play badminton with people she also saw at church made the double connection and drew her in.
Remember worship is "worth ship", at its core is a right relating to God and to others, not the singing of hymns, the reading of the Bible or the Sacraments. These are form but it needs to make a difference outside the actual act to be genuine worship. Otherwise in worship we are like a man who looks in a mirror and then goes away and forgets what we look like. The taking out of that reassessment into our lives is done through community and it is community that draws us back to worship, the knowledge of our need to sort out who we are in relationship to God. However community I am not in contact with is community to which I do not belong.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes but they
1) Met in the evenings because people were working during the day. I do not see any tendency in churches to move over to an evening only pattern.
2) Were not likely to be the other side of the country due to visiting. That is people while living in a place tended to stay fairly local on the whole.
3) The really early church met every day! There was no one day in seven about it. When there was a special day it seems to have been a Saturday due to Jewish context.
Jengie
1) Interestingly, we find that evening services are very poorly attended, and usually by people who have already worshipped in the morning. YMMV.
2) That is why there are churches/worship opportunities in almost every place, or at least accessible to the vast majority of people who are prepared to organise their Sunday around their worship
3) If only... We have a couple of people who do come to Mass each day, and engage in formal/informal fellowship around that. They are growing well in every way.
I think my resistance to making things convenient for all (although it never actually is) arises from a conviction that we are dealing with a faith community not a membership organisation. (In this part of the world, the membership organisations have all reduced and trimmed their identities to suit the convenience of possible members, so that there is nothing distinctive left to join.) By the time people come to faith and have expressed their commitment through confirmation (or an equivalent) I would expect them to make it a priority, at least for an hour on a Sunday.
I do understand where you're coming from. But what do I say to my son when he wants to do football practice, which only happens from 9 to 11am on a Sunday morning? "Sorry. Church is more important. You can't play football."? This is just by way of example.
Moreover, you say "By the time people come to faith and have expressed their commitment through confirmation..." - but how will they get to that point if they've had to make church the only priority on a Sunday morning from the beginning?
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One of the major points of the Reformation was to get "the church" to work in the language of "the people".
For many of our incomers, what we do is "a new way of being church" - but I have to echo the comments about community upthread - we wouldn't be in business if we didn't know each other pretty well.
Except that I doubt if any of your incomers think of it in terms of "new ways of being church" because that turn of phrase is one that does not seem to exist outside of the church. It's as if even when the church is trying to be "with it" it has to invent its own language rather than use the language of "the people".
Just think of saying "news ways of being nightclub", or "new ways of being office", or "new ways of being audience" to realise how silly it can sound.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
What Karl said:
But I's go further, because the insistence on Sunday worship is making a clear message: To those whose children play Sunday football it says, "If you want to be a Christian you must do things our way or you can fuck off." One of the great evangelistic positions of our time.
It is not about us. It is not about the way we do things. It is about the Gospel message and about the people we would present it to.
The Gospel remains the same as it has always been, but the world changes, and one of the great things about the Christian church is the way she has constantly tailored the way she presents the Gospel message to the way people will understand it.
To soccer dads it could be meeting on a weekday. To others it could be a place they can discuss the faith over a pint rather than listen to a sermon in a cold church.
It isn't about convenience,it's about evangelism, spreading the faith. If the motivation is convenience then it probably won't work.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Two points to add - one specific, one general.
Specifically - I'd love to think I could use church to avoid having to be a soccer dad if that happens. Except that I couldn't; it wouldn't work, for reasons already reheared.
Generally - it's really, really frustrating to see where people have identified issues with church as it currently stands and have got off their arses and done something about it to have their efforts written off as worthless or worse by those comfortable in their traditions. It's really getting so very, very, fucking tiresome.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But what do I say to my son when he wants to do football practice, which only happens from 9 to 11am on a Sunday morning? "Sorry. Church is more important. You can't play football."? This is just by way of example.
The minister of my last church had this problem, but with basketball. He let his kids do the basketball, but I think they had to agree to go to a church youthclub at some other time of the week. (They wereolder than your children at this point.) This would have been with a different denomination, probably.
One can understand how in some ways the stricter churches avoid creating anxiety and confusion by laying down the law on which leisure activities can be practised, and when. The parents and children all know what the deal is, and just have to put with it. The parents can stay or go, and the children are obliged to obey their parents. Things are a lot clearer.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'd like to think we can aim for better than clarity.
I'm in fairly belligerent mood over this whole issue, as you might guess.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Except that I doubt if any of your incomers think of it in terms of "new ways of being church" because that turn of phrase is one that does not seem to exist outside of the church. It's as if even when the church is trying to be "with it" it has to invent its own language rather than use the language of "the people"...
People outside the church talk about "new ways of doing spirituality", which may or may not include Christianity. Perhaps the established church needs to learn to come to terms with this sort of 'mixed-economy spirituality', because that's approximately the direction that the rest of society is going.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
Do they? I've just googled the phrase and it came up with a nil return.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Karl admits to being in a belligerent mood.
We all know what he is 'against'. He has spelt it out at great length.
God knows what he wants by way of "Church".
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Karl admits to being in a belligerent mood.
We all know what he is 'against'. He has spelt it out at great length.
God knows what he wants by way of "Church".
We can always restart that Hell thread if you want to make this personal, matey.
Or you can piss off. Or you can make a useful contribution. Your choice.
[ 30. November 2012, 15:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Changing service times helps a lot of people (also relevant for people who rely on public transport which in some areas is very unreliable on a Sunday). When I'm at my parents' even I have to attend a midweek said Eucharist because the Sunday buses are so awful (my parents live in semi-rural Hampshire, I attend a church in the nearest town as the local CoE church, and there is only one, is awful).
But it's that approach of going along to a building to spectate as somebody says some words is what Viola is most critical of. Do you have any meaningful relationships with the people you are in the audience with (choosing my word deliberately)? If you were taken seriously ill next week, would you tell them? I may be wrong, but I doubt it. I'm sure it's valid worship for YOU, but is it meaningfully fellowship? Is it fulfilling the command 'exhort one another every day'. I'm dubious that my weekly attendance at a Sunday service fulfils that, let alone an intermittent one.
Viola seems to undervalue that element of a service, but the fellowship element is often totally absent. We need to do better given our horrendously atomised society.
Er yes, actually, I do have meaningful relationships with people both at the church I attend while at my parents', and my church while I'm at uni. That is why I do not attend the most local CoE church when at my parents'. Why do you feel you can presume what my relationship with others is at my churches??
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 30. November 2012, 16:23: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Organic...that's the key.
Local churches must allow space for "new ways of being church" or whatever trendy phrase you want to use to develop. The new will look different at different places. One size fits all won't work. In some places, the new might look like the older. What doesn't make sense to me is deciding what the new looks like and then replacing the old with it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Organic...that's the key.
Local churches must allow space for "new ways of being church" or whatever trendy phrase you want to use to develop. The new will look different at different places. One size fits all won't work. In some places, the new might look like the older. What doesn't make sense to me is deciding what the new looks like and then replacing the old with it.
Spot on.
Although the language of this very recent address may strike you as "charismatic" ™ , I'm inclined to to think that Graham Cray agrees with you both in principle and in practice. I heard him speak on this point three of four years ago and although experiences may have changed some things, it looks to me that his core understanding is the same as it was then.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I'd be more impressed with "ways to do church" old or new if the discussion started from "why do we do church, what is it for?" When it starts with form instead of function, with "we have to meet Sunday morning because that's what people in a totally different era totally different culture did, that's putting form ahead of function or mistakenly assuming what is functional for a different culture is functional for us too.
If we start with "why do we do church?" we'll have contradictory answers, there is no one agreed concept of why we do church; but from there we can, in our several different understandings, come up with approaches (old and new) that fulfill the functions in ways that communicate with our own culture.
For one quick example, I think Sunday evening is the ideal time for the main service in our culture -- not because it is some symbolic day of the week but because for most of the population Sunday evening closes out the weekend and prepares for the work or school week. And we need a way to provide "doing church" for shift workers for whom Sunday evening (or any one specific rigid time) is not reasonably functional.
Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on
:
As much as this thread is providing a very interesting discussion, surely the OP was asking why the definite article has been dropped?
In all of the responses so far I can't see any that have explained why 'new ways of being church' is any better than 'new ways of being the church'.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Because that's how people into that sort of thing talk. They are also fond of gerunds. Don't ask me why.
Posted by Hezekiah (# 17157) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Because that's how people into that sort of thing talk. They are also fond of gerunds. Don't ask me why.
Facebook-style 'like'
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
It's because they don't approve of 'traditional' language (Latin/BCP) but are happy to replace it with a recondite form of Newspeak that God doesn't understand.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
I'm a little hesitant to suggest which languages God doesn't understand...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
A few thoughts ...
I think Jengie Jon has highlighted a key point about 19th century non-conformist churches being one-stop shops for one's social life, had people been so inclined. I've read some fascinating stuff about how non-conformist attendance/involvement in Huddersfield declined dramatically from the 1920s as improved transport, the cinema and other leisure alternatives opened up ...
I also think she's touched on something crucial to all churches - regardless of theological stance or churchmanship - and that's the community aspect - the 'sectarian' aspect in sociological terms, if you like - if we can avoid the perjorative connotations of that term for the moment.
I don't know what the answer is but I suspect that 'things both new and old' might go some way towards how we adjust and adapt yet maintain some kind of continuity with what has gone before.
I've often been struck by how my RC and Orthodox friends have a sense of continuity and universality - the Orthodoxen tell me that they could pitch up in Greece, Romania, Australia, Timbuktu or any part of the world and find themselves able to follow the Liturgy - even if they didn't know the language - because they're familiar with its structure and although there are regional and ethnic variations you know what you are going to get - the Little Entrance, the Great Entrance and so on ...
RCs undoubtedly said the same in the days of the Latin Mass - and that was one reason put forward for continuing with it, of course.
Now then, I submit that some sense of on-going prayer/worship - continued in monastic communities and celebrated in the Mass/Liturgy week by week - into which we can dip in and out DOES offer a way that people who might work shifts or have irregular life patterns can avail themselves of the ministrations of the Church.
I've often been struck in France and other continental European countries - and even in some RC churches in city centres in the North West of England - that you can wander into an RC church and find people at private prayer and devotions with their shopping bags or work paraphernalia at their side.
The flip-side, of course, is that this approach can foster nominalism, superstition or what many Protestants would consider a superficial or folk-religion kind of engagement with the faith.
However ... however ... if it is continuity we're after rather than constant innovation and change for the sake of it - then there is much to commend this approach. And it doesn't stop people gathering in house-groups/more informal groups, engaging in Lenten study, going on retreats etc etc.
On the other hand, there is much, of course, to commend the more R/reformed emphasis on the 'gathered church' - for the sense of fellowship and community that it fosters. I don't know what the r/Reformed equivalent could be of the RC retreat house, the monastery and the 'covenant community' or 'base-community' - but there will be sporadic examples around - some of the 'neo-monastic groups' and so forth.
Perhaps some kind of amalgamation/fusion of these two approaches might provide something of an answer?
That's not 'new ways of doing' or 'being' church - it's using what is already here.
On the innovation thing though, I'm not entirely convinced ... sure, things need to adapt - but be careful. In my restorationist house-church days the lead-elder/pastor decided, in his un-wisdom - to suspend Sunday services ('meetings' we called them) in favour of mid-week evening services in different parts of the city on different evenings.
The idea was that we all used our weekends to develop our 'warm contacts' and get to know outsiders etc and then we'd invite them along to the mid-week meetings ...
It didn't work and the experiment folded. Arguably, the church never fully recovered and numbers dipped quite starkly.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I'm a little hesitant to suggest which languages God doesn't understand...
I'm pretty sure God understands the language of irony...
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
On the Sunday morning issue, I've heared a fair bit of anecdotal evidence along the lines of "we started a new church plant and were prepared to be radical about when we gathered, but the time that fitted most people (in the "target" group of not-yet-Xtians (or whichever clunky term suits your predjudices)) was in fact Sunday morning". I think shift workers are a real issue ...
I've known church people who've found mid week, Saturday or Sunday afternoon footie for their kids... (YMMV)
quote:
the church must now work to create 'community' that historically existed 'naturally'.
I think a lot of the debates about styles of church and ministry/evangelism etc are underpinned by the question of what does community look like at this point in time and in this geographical/social place?
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
On the Sunday morning issue, I've heared a fair bit of anecdotal evidence along the lines of "we started a new church plant and were prepared to be radical about when we gathered, but the time that fitted most people (in the "target" group of not-yet-Xtians (or whichever clunky term suits your predjudices)) was in fact Sunday morning". I think shift workers are a real issue ...
I've known church people who've found mid week, Saturday or Sunday afternoon footie for their kids... (YMMV)
Yes, the fact that Willow Creek meets on a Sunday morning is that it is the time non-Christians are most likely to be willing to turn up, NOT because it's when the church has always met. Indeed the starting point of Willow Creek is that Sunday morning isn't church, it's a shop window to make God accessible to outsiders. The Christians meet to do church at another time. Unfortunately a lot of people have absorbed the idea of making their main service seeker friendly, but without also buying into the idea that 'church' is at another time. The result is that the sheep are on a thin gruel that doesn't really help them grow.
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
the church must now work to create 'community' that historically existed 'naturally'.
I think a lot of the debates about styles of church and ministry/evangelism etc are underpinned by the question of what does community look like at this point in time and in this geographical/social place?
Good question - but it's a major breakthrough to recognise that there is a problem, that it's one the church CAN address, and therefore WE need to do something about it.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One of the major points of the Reformation was to get "the church" to work in the language of "the people".
For many of our incomers, what we do is "a new way of being church" - but I have to echo the comments about community upthread - we wouldn't be in business if we didn't know each other pretty well.
Except that I doubt if any of your incomers think of it in terms of "new ways of being church" because that turn of phrase is one that does not seem to exist outside of the church. It's as if even when the church is trying to be "with it" it has to invent its own language rather than use the language of "the people".
Just think of saying "news ways of being nightclub", or "new ways of being office", or "new ways of being audience" to realise how silly it can sound.
Don't be daft me ol time zone - ever heard of home working or hot desking? Both "new ways of doing office."
[ 01. December 2012, 07:44: Message edited by: Truman White ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
On the Sunday morning issue, I've heared a fair bit of anecdotal evidence along the lines of "we started a new church plant and were prepared to be radical about when we gathered, but the time that fitted most people (in the "target" group of not-yet-Xtians (or whichever clunky term suits your predjudices)) was in fact Sunday morning". I think shift workers are a real issue ...
I've known church people who've found mid week, Saturday or Sunday afternoon footie for their kids... (YMMV)
quote:
the church must now work to create 'community' that historically existed 'naturally'.
I think a lot of the debates about styles of church and ministry/evangelism etc are underpinned by the question of what does community look like at this point in time and in this geographical/social place?
Yeah, but come on Twangist, most of the people who join your church plants are Sunday-morning transfers from other congregations, not non X-Ian's. You want to see incarnatioinal mission, with people meeting on other days if the week because that fits with non x-Ian C21 lifestyle, go have a look at some Fresh Expressions.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've seen church planting done in Baptist and in 'new church' settings and what happens is a fair bit of transfer growth - either from other churches or, most commonly, from churches already within the church-planters' own orbit - but there has always been a small core of unchurched/new Christians that come along at some stage. The question is, would they have done so without the church planting initiative in the first place?
I don't know whether it's any different with Fresh Expressions.
The Willow Creek model looks a bit shallow to me - 'a mile wide and an inch deep' as they say - but in purely pragmatic terms it seems to have worked for them in the context of suburban Chicago. But from what I've read the movement has peaked and there are second and third generation kids dropping out left, right and centre. Some of them are finding their way into more traditional ways of doing church - others aren't go anywhere and simply dropping out ...
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
I think that JJ touches the core of the issue in this passage:
quote:
So in a sense I want to start people thinking about what it means to belong to the Church in the modern world. What sort of things should we expect of members? What sort of contact is necessary? Can we find ways of keeping in contact when people spend two out of three weekends visiting grandchildren? How do we help people who move to elsewhere to find a place to worship? Do you need to have fellowship with other Christians even when you do not make Sunday worship? Do you need to find ways of supporting regular private devotion?
The destructive part of this analysis lies in the idea of having to have people contact - or at least the same people contact. Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God. But we go there to meet God, not to meet the others. It's a great thing to meet and to share fellowship with the others (indeed it can be the key to growing in holiness, and I am most unlikely to be able to do so without them) but first and foremost it's about meeting with God.
This of course turns ES's paradigm on its head, because REAL Church comes about when the touching-place with God comes about, not when we have fellowship.
Where it works, it seems to me that Emerging Church is no more than contextualising what is already there. When it hasn't worked, it's because it's reimagined Church in the community's image and not in God's.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Well why in that case have church at all, surely we can manage it all quite nicely in our bedrooms on our own. Pay the priest to bless the bread and wine and then get on with it yourself. Sorry can't have that the priest is another person they might just get in the way of our relationship with God.
It is first not "I meet God" but "we meet God. Remember the second commandment in the summary of the Law or John 4:20. The worship of God is never separated from our relationship to each other. The worship of God is allied very closely with fellowship with others. The eucharist is amongst other things both a re-enactment of a meal shared with friends and also a for-enactment of the of the great feast in the Kingdom.
However it is not that I am getting at. I am a creature of flesh, I need hooks to draw me back to communal worship, especially for the times when my pattern of worship has become disturbed and so it itself does not act as well as a draw back. The times when I have moved and so am faced with going to a new church. The times when I have been ill and not able, am I really up to it this week, a lie in sounds so nice and I am not really up to it. That so easily becomes the new habit.
Think of the times when you come back from holiday, you sit down at your work place and things just do not come back as easily as they did before you went away. You spend the first morning trying to make sense not just of what has happened but what you were doing immediately before you left. The patterns have been fallen by being away and you have to find them again before you can really become effective. You do the work because it is your job.
Jengie
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've seen church planting done in Baptist and in 'new church' settings and what happens is a fair bit of transfer growth - either from other churches or, most commonly, from churches already within the church-planters' own orbit - but there has always been a small core of unchurched/new Christians that come along at some stage. The question is, would they have done so without the church planting initiative in the first place?
There's an inviting anticipation and hopefulness in something new. You are joining something that has a pretty much agreed purpose but doesn't come with a load a baggage and in-group/out-group circles.
The trick in an old church is making a program (a new Sunday school class, a new evening event) that really is new, instead of pre-shaped in rigid ways by the old church's expectations of who does what and why so the "new program" is just the same old program again.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God. But we go there to meet God, not to meet the others.
I'd go further than Jengie Jon regarding this comment - we don't need to go anywhere specific to meet with God because he is omnipresent. So whatever the reason for going to church services, it's not exactly to meet with God. But there is something important in the gathering together or else, like Jengie Jon says, let's not bother with the messy stuff of sharing our lives with one another.
I get a bit frustrated by the talk of 'meeting with God' or 'going to worship God'. Isn't the Bible clear that we can meet with God any time, any place, and that our worship of God is to be found in a whole life lived in joyful obedience to him?
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God. But we go there to meet God, not to meet the others.
I'd go further than Jengie Jon regarding this comment - we don't need to go anywhere specific to meet with God because he is omnipresent. So whatever the reason for going to church services, it's not exactly to meet with God. But there is something important in the gathering together or else, like Jengie Jon says, let's not bother with the messy stuff of sharing our lives with one another.
I get a bit frustrated by the talk of 'meeting with God' or 'going to worship God'. Isn't the Bible clear that we can meet with God any time, any place, and that our worship of God is to be found in a whole life lived in joyful obedience to him?
At risk of trading frustrations, I get very frustrated with those who can't absorb what is for me a relatively simple point. For me, and for many other Christians, the bible is not normative. It is informative, even instructive, but it is not normative. Therefore, I don't take part or avoid specific activities, including worship, based simply on the bible. There are other instructive sources: anglican thinking identifies these as reason, tradition and (for some at least, including me), experience.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is first not "I meet God" but "we meet God. Remember the second commandment in the summary of the Law or John 4:20. The worship of God is never separated from our relationship to each other. The worship of God is allied very closely with fellowship with others. The eucharist is amongst other things both a re-enactment of a meal shared with friends and also a for-enactment of the of the great feast in the Kingdom.
Jengie
Sorry - unless you are a multiple personality it is first I. Of course (as I said) the meeting is in the context and the company of a cloud of witnesses. And this is why it doesn't just happen elsewhere, why the Church is essential - because the Church is that cloud of witnesses. Yes, you are a creature of flesh, which means your relationship with God is contingent on your limited nature. Only God fully reconciles the individual with the collective in God's nature as Trinity. It's the same human nature that makes it essential for us to have a sense of place when meeting God. Of course, SCK, God is present everywhere, but you are not, and there are places where God's presence is clearer to you than anywhere else.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I s'pose what I was suggesting is that if we somehow ALL had a set pattern like the RCs and the Orthodox (or as the Anglicans used to) - then if we were back from holiday or had just moved to a new town or whatever, then wouldn't we simply slot straight back in as we'd already know what to expect?
Or this is simplistic?
It probably couldn't work now, anyway, because the horse has bolted and the stable door is swinging on its hinges ...
But it strikes me how many RC and Orthodox people seem very comfortable and un-self-conscious in church - and simply dip in and out of it as needs must.
Ok, this could get a bit towards the church as a filling station idea - let's nip to Mass and get some fuel, quick confession, say prayers by rote ... off we go ... Vrooo-oom ...
But it could always be augmented by retreats, weekly fellowship, the odd purge-out such St Patrick's Purgatory or a trip to Mount Athos (if you have the necessary dangly genitalia) or whatever the equivalent might be ...
Part of the problem, it seems to me, with the Protestant world is this constant need to innovate and shift things around all the time. I felt seasick after a few years in the restorationist house-churches because we kept changing things every five minutes and trying ever new and ever increasingly desparate ways to re-invent ourselves or to settle back into what we saw as a religious rut that needed to be avoided at all costs ... whilst all the while feverishly digging an even deeper rut for ourselves ...
There is a balance somewhere, of course.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Yes, the fact that Willow Creek meets on a Sunday morning is that it is the time non-Christians are most likely to be willing to turn up, NOT because it's when the church has always met. Indeed the starting point of Willow Creek is that Sunday morning isn't church, it's a shop window to make God accessible to outsiders. The Christians meet to do church at another time. Unfortunately a lot of people have absorbed the idea of making their main service seeker friendly, but without also buying into the idea that 'church' is at another time. The result is that the sheep are on a thin gruel that doesn't really help them grow.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Yes! Even worse, often the main service is 'thin gruel' without even expecting many 'seekers' to come to it, or without any active publicity to recruit them.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Gamaliel
High and regular attendance within the Roman Catholic Church was only maintained for longer than Protestantism because of how long it was a grievous sin not to attend mass. Threat of Hell fire kept the attendance up. Not your normal style is it but to rely solely on worship to do it then you have to sink to those levels. As that dropped so did attendances, surprise, surprise.
AberVicar
Not from where I am standing and believe me I have done a lot of thinking about person identity. It seems to me that we only become an I in relationship to a wider community, humans are a communal animals, that is how God made us (Genesis 2:18) therefore I do not believe that you can separate off your relationship to God from that to your other human being. God in the end will hold you responsible and therefore worship brings us as related beings in connection to God. Why do you think Jesus suggested you should first make peace with your brother before you made an offering on the altar?
Jengie
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Not from where I am standing and believe me I have done a lot of thinking about person identity.
Jengie
QED methinks.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Not from where I am standing and believe me I have done a lot of thinking about person identity.
Jengie
QED methinks.
Not QED, because the I, I speak only exists in relationship to others.
Jengie
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Let me take a bit you quote and let me show you some of the others:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is first not "I meet God" but "we meet God. Remember the second commandment in the summary of the Law or John 4:20.
Firstly you appear the "I meet God" is a quote from you, then I use some modern liturgist's words because I use the words "Summary of the Law" and finally I also use a biblical reference which I see I got wrong. So those are present within that text.
There is a fourth person I am aware of within the text and you are probably not aware of. An individual who made strong point of just this distinction. I am not naming names, he is a fairly public person within church circles and he was there in a private capacity when he did it.
So you heard one person, but probably picked up on three more. Yet there was a fourth person I was also indirectly quoting. So who is responding me or the other people. If I present them honestly then I am being fair in what I say, but if I twist the words then I am also misrepresenting them.
That is in one brief sentence.
You are assuming that my understanding of "I" is that it is innate. I am highly dubious of that and the evidence suggests that it is a construct of western society and that the western "I" does not exist in other cultures.
Jengie
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
And yet it is uniquely you who put together that string of text. It is uniquely you who offer arguments against the existence of that unique 'you' when engaged in worship.
Let me return to the core of what I said earlier
quote:
Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God.
You notice that I include as a core element in that experience in communion with others. Yet the communion with the other does not erase, eclipse, or define the 'I'. This is what I am trying to say when using the doctrine of the Trinity to demonstrate that in Christian teaching God is the only one able to hold the individual and collective together perfectly (wouldn't the Church be a wonderful place if human beings could do that?).
At the same time, your argument is shot through with reference to the 'I' as a priority - in the example of choosing to visit family on Sundays; in the choice not to attend a church in the place where family is; in the assertion that as a creature of flesh you need stuff to keep you worshipping. I see the validity of all these points, yet they still all begin with the 'I' before progressing to the necessary communion with the 'us'.
One final point
quote:
You do the work because it is your job.
Indeed I do - and because it is my 'job' as well as my life, I do Church sometimes/often just because I have to. If on a Sunday off I can't get to a place where the worship will 'do something for me' I will go where it is possible to go. I like to hope that when I am not having to preach myself I can sit and learn from a good preacher, but if one is not on offer, I still go, and still organise my Sunday around it. And this is because I still need to meet God in communion with (whichever) others.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... Jengie Jon and Abervicar - have either of you read 'Being as Communion' by John Zizoulas?
It's a very dense Orthodox perspective on this one - it's a long time since I read it and I'm not sure I followed it all, but essentially I took it to mean that we only truly find ourselves in community with the Trinity and with others - so very similar to what Jengie Jon is proposing ... although I would agree with Abervicar that for all her references to community her postings on this issue are - inevitably? - shot through with issues of personal circumstances and preference.
As a Reformed Christian then Jengie Jon is committed to 'semper reformanda' and shuffling things around - which is fair enough to some extent but I do wonder whether we are all re-arranging deck-chairs on the Titanic.
I'd agree with Jengie Jon's point that it was fear of Hell fire that kept the numbers of the RC faithful up for longer than within Protestantism ...
And it's a pertinent point.
But the stable door is open on that one too. We're never going to close it without re-introducing medieval concepts of hell fire and Purgatory and so on ... and I don't see that happening anytime soon either in RC or Protestant settings.
The point I was making wasn't that the RCs, nor the Orthodox nor anyone else has it or had it sussed - far from it. I was simply wondering whether there were models of sustainability and spiritual formation there which we could use and adapt to meet the situation we now face - which is survival and conservation mode.
If you like, the Christian faith in the UK is now in the position that rare species such as the mountain gorillas or the blue whale found themselves in before the likes of Diane Fossey or Greenpeace intervened.
We need strategies to maintain our life and to sustain a modicum of spiritual and numerical growth. We ain't seeing the 'revival' that the charismatics and restorationists were desparately prophesying for years and years ...
If it is true - and I believe it is - that we are seeing people only able (or willing) to attend church say once or twice a month then it strikes me that some kind of seasonal/lectionary approach is the right way to go. Our vicar has chucked out the lectionary and prefers to rely on six-week themed series in non-conformist style.
The difficulty with this - other than the content is pretty naff by and large - is that I only ever hear one or two of the sermons in the series. It presupposes that we are all going to attend every Sunday. We aren't.
If we kept to the lectionary and I was following the same pattern in my personal devotions then I wouldn't be out of synch and could match my own reading with the day's sermon ...
And so on.
I would suggest that a pattern like this, augmented with some kind of study-group or fellowship group or something during the week would be a good way to go. It would be more sustainable, I think - but there might be flaws in the argument - I don't know ...
We are in maintenance and conservation/survival mode. Right across the board - other than among particular ethnic/migrant communities and to some extent among evos/charismatics in some of the larger cities - although that's a revolving door ...
I'm suggesting that some kind of liturgical framework allied with the best aspects of the 'sect' or 'conventicle' - or the base-community or retreat-house if you prefer - would be the best option we have to sustain religious community.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... Jengie Jon and Abervicar - have either of you read 'Being as Communion' by John Zizoulas?
Not only have I read it but I attended his lectures on it at the Greogorian in 1983, and it is one of the main influences on the views I am expressing here.
The nature of koinonia (communion) was also the focus of my doctoral studies. Being in communion with others, though, values as well as transforms the individual.
As an example, relevant to today's liturgy, I and no one else shall have to give an account of my life at the Last Judgement. Yet I hope that there will be many to speak up for me, as I hope I will have the chance to speak up for others too.
There is a place for any theology that tries to hold the individual in balance with other individuals in communion. In my view, things go wrong when you either say it's all about me (in which case I might just as well go it alone) or it's all about us (in which case I think you are losing sight of the very elements that make up the 'us')
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - I 'get' that, Abervicar.
I'd agree with that, for what it's worth.
I'm not angling too strongly for responses, necessarily, to my call for some kind of continuing or somehow 'timeless' liturgy into which we can all dip in and out as necessary, augmented by personal prayer/study and participation in communal activities (of whatever kind - study groups/retreats etc) but I would value some feedback on that point from posters on this thread.
The idea of re-inventing the wheel or more 'fluid' forms of church may be all very well and good to some extent - but I s'pose what I'm envisaging is some kind of channel/cable or power-line of continuing liturgical prayer/ministry into which individual 'hubs' or connectors somehow tap into - and with tributaries or branch-lines ...
Goodness knows how this would work in practice - but I do wonder whether a model of this kind would take us away from the purely individualistic ...
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I think that JJ touches the core of the issue in this passage:
quote:
So in a sense I want to start people thinking about what it means to belong to the Church in the modern world. What sort of things should we expect of members? What sort of contact is necessary? Can we find ways of keeping in contact when people spend two out of three weekends visiting grandchildren? How do we help people who move to elsewhere to find a place to worship? Do you need to have fellowship with other Christians even when you do not make Sunday worship? Do you need to find ways of supporting regular private devotion?
The destructive part of this analysis lies in the idea of having to have people contact - or at least the same people contact. Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God. But we go there to meet God, not to meet the others. It's a great thing to meet and to share fellowship with the others (indeed it can be the key to growing in holiness, and I am most unlikely to be able to do so without them) but first and foremost it's about meeting with God.
This of course turns ES's paradigm on its head, because REAL Church comes about when the touching-place with God comes about, not when we have fellowship.
Where it works, it seems to me that Emerging Church is no more than contextualising what is already there. When it hasn't worked, it's because it's reimagined Church in the community's image and not in God's.
But we won't build real fellowship without making the effort to spend time with the same people on a regular basis. Real fellowship develops out of a sense of trust, and that is slow to build up. Our modern, mobile, atomised societies make this very hard to achieve - unlike more traditional societies where it is almost inevitable. Therefore for our churches to be places where people will 'exhort one another DAILY', where they will 'confess their sins to one another', where the members will truly be 'brothers and sisters', requires a priority on relationship making that is very counter-cultural. Of course for it to be truly 'the church' and not just another social club then there must be the reality of God in the midst. But it is a laughably dangerous belief that a service where everyone rushes off afterwards in any way constitutes 'fellowship' - yet many churches do base their church life on that: just because of the magic stuff at the front, it must be for real. If the members of a family aren't talking to each other, then it's a deeply dysfunctional family. Yet that's the reality of what calls itself the church, the family of God, in much of the West.
We have a problem.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But we won't build real fellowship without making the effort to spend time with the same people on a regular basis. Real fellowship develops out of a sense of trust, and that is slow to build up. Our modern, mobile, atomised societies make this very hard to achieve - unlike more traditional societies where it is almost inevitable. Therefore for our churches to be places where people will 'exhort one another DAILY', where they will 'confess their sins to one another', where the members will truly be 'brothers and sisters', requires a priority on relationship making that is very counter-cultural. Of course for it to be truly 'the church' and not just another social club then there must be the reality of God in the midst. But it is a laughably dangerous belief that a service where everyone rushes off afterwards in any way constitutes 'fellowship' - yet many churches do base their church life on that: just because of the magic stuff at the front, it must be for real. If the members of a family aren't talking to each other, then it's a deeply dysfunctional family. Yet that's the reality of what calls itself the church, the family of God, in much of the West.
We have a problem.
I'm with you here. Some might even argue that because we are made in the image of a God who is a relationship among three persons, we cannot be truly human (fully living out that image) unless we are in community with others.
Interestingly, I've heard the opposite from some people, particularly one in an evangelical college fellowship who debated whether it was worth being in any kind of Christian organization, or whether the socialization distracted from his personal relationship with God.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Do we?
I'm not so convinced.
I'm not saying that fellowship isn't important, but a lot depends on where we're at and what stage we are in life and what 'Stage of Faith' we're at - if Fowler comes into it.
I was in a restorationist house-church for 18 years, as many of you know, I've harped on about it often enough. The depth, intensity and quality of the fellowship was very, very strong ...
And yet it was also highly claustrophobic. You could spend your whole life among Christians and hardly see anyone else other than at work or your relatives. I lost most of my non-Christians friends and had to work hard eventually either to regain them or make new ones.
I know there's a balance - but if people want to dash off immediately after a church service and get on with the rest of their lives, that's up to them.
I'm all for building a sense of church community but it makes me feel uncomfortable when I hear people talking about their 'church family' and so on. I hardly ever socialise with people in my church and rarely attend the social events - although I do support the annual charity quiz and one or two other things.
Perhaps I'm different, I've over-dosed on Christian fellowship in the past and now feel the need to do other things. I'm not really interested in what goes on at house-groups and so on. If people want to go to them, fine, just don't expect me to go along and listen to their drivel about what God is supposed to have said to them this week ... or their half-arsed grasp of Bible stories and so on.
The thing I've found with some churches is that the apparent closeness of the fellowship is a veneer. The relationships there aren't as strong as people imagine. As soon as they leave or no longer feel part of the 'programme' the close fellowship miraculously evaporates.
Sure, there'll be strong and enduring friendships and that's great - but why should we see church as a one-stop shop for all these things? Why not have other friends as well?
I can see the thing about 'exhorting one another daily' - but how does that work out in practice? Are you saying that Christians should see each other every single day? That might be fine for a base-community or a monastery or something - or fair enough if you happen to bump into some from church and have a natter with them over a coffee or something ...
I'd suggest that there is something as potentially dysfunctional about a church where everyone is living in one another's pockets all the time as there is about one where people don't know each other and simply clear off home after the service.
It depends on a whole range of factors and circumstances.
If I look at my wedding photos I'll see loads and loads of people from the church I belonged to back then - few of whom I'm in meaningful contact with. The level of fellowship was great - and I don't have anything as close as that now - but in a lot of ways I'm not sure I need it as much.
I'd be quite interested in having a 'spiritual director' or 'soul-friend' and I might even be happy enough to 'confess my sins' to someone I trusted - such as a priest or minister. But I'm not going around laying bare my soul to everyone at my local church - why should I?
Posted by Quizmaster (# 1435) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Repeat after me:
I be church;
You be church;
He/She/It be church;
We be church;
You be church;
They be church.
Now, tell me to which conjugation you belong...
--Tom Clune
Surely only the first person plural works.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Backing up a bit ... I think my response to Ender's Shadow was a tad harsh (even for Ender's Shadow ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
However, I'm not entirely convinced that lack of fellowship is an enormous problem across the board. I doubt there are that many churches - irrespective of churchmanship - where people don't know at least some of the others in the pews. You may find that isn't the case in some uber-sacramental settings or in cathedrals etc but generally speaking most church-goers these days are there in a voluntary capacity and chatting to other people, 'fellowshipping' and so on is part and parcel of the whole thing.
If Ender's Shadow wants some intense and full-on fellowship I'm sure he can find some. The mistake he's making is to expect that everyone else wants the same.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
''New ways of being church'' - my knee jerk response is that this phrase sounds like a charismatic let's get back to basics mantra.
It's the sort of phrase any one from the emerging church might use as well. With their emphasis on ''coffee, candless and couches'' like any new group they have to ask fundamental questions and this is is just such a question.
The house church movement asked this sort of question in the 80s and 90s. Indeed picking up the fellowship thread by ES and Gamaliel, the charismatic movement could be quite radical and there were a number of examples of people living ''in community'' together and this was seen as a new and radical way of ''being church''......until some examples of heavy shepherding cropped up and some brothers were more ''equal'' than other brothers and many radical church communities became acrimonious and some split and split again to form splinter house churches ad infinitum (as protestant sects are wont to do).
There are a lot of disaffected charismatics/ex house church members out there who have earnestly looked at this question; many of them have in fact moved back (or forwards) to the liturgical wing of the church.
Saul the Apostle
[ 04. December 2012, 06:09: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
I think there's some throwing the baby out with the bathwater going on here... Of course, churches in which close fellowship is emphasised can go too far and fall into heavy shepherding or at least the Christian ghetto situation, where spending time within the church community is so strongly encouraged that there's little time / energy left to be with non-Christians.
But that doesn't make the principle of close fellowship wrong. Gamaliel, I wholly agree that there's a balance to be found - let's not 'bare my soul to everyone at my local church' but also let's not 'simply clear off home after the service'. I for one am I huge fan of small groups, as they provide a great context in which one can get to know a smaller group of people more deeply (which just can't happen solely at a Sunday service, in my experience).
Without the deepening of relationships, I think it's so easy to drift in one's faith. It's fine when you're feeling motivated and spiritually strong - you read the Bible, pray, and so on in your own time because it's a joy. But when troubles come, or simply your routine gets disrupted and the faith levels dip - without the close group of Christian friends who will from time to time ask me how I'm getting on in the faith (and who won't take 'Yeah, fine' for an answer!) I find I drift away from God alarmingly quickly. I certainly need that small group of people who will encourage and challenge me in my faith, and I'm rather envious of people who can get along fine without such a group!
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
We have a problem.
We certainly do, though it isn't the same problem you suggest.
The problem is that the view of family and communion/fellowship taken in your argument is both too unrealistic and too limited. Family comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes, as do all forms of relationship. When Jesus declares all around him to be his brothers and sisters and mother, he is taking on everything that has love at its heart. And every community that has God's love at its heart - even if only for an hour a week - even if only from time to time - surely shares in some measure that sense of fellowship.
Yet there is more. Gamaliel reminds us of the practice of Catholics and Orthodox, which is based on a far wider view of communion - it is communion with Christ and with all others who are in communion with Christ throughout the world. Whenever we pray we share in that communion, and we are never isolated. Whenever we share in the Eucharist we are sharing in communion not only with believers throughout the world but also with those who have gone before us - the communion of saints.
However dysfunctional families may seem, most of them remain families and are valued for what they are rather than for what some people think they could be.
Think about the best friendships - those where your friend is there for you in the hour of need even if you aren't in contact for months or even years. You can't define REAL Church by some ideal human community, REAL Church is where (sometimes despite ourselves) communion with God takes place.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
ABerVicar
Cmmunion with God can take place at home, too. You don't need to brave the cold weather for that.
Some church planter types say that the challenge of evangelism today is that it has to go hand in with relationship, that people want relationship far more than they want truth. This is a sort of postmodern position that probably won't find much agreement here.
I suppose it depends on the kind of people we're talking about. People of a certain age and background, who've made all the friends they need, and have no need of 'support' from other people in the church, might not find much to be gained from the 'church as family' model. But congregations with mostly elderly, female members, or congregations that are trying to meet the needs of young people in a harsh urban environment, probably do need to see themselves in this way to some extent.
This means we need different kinds of churches, which is an obvious thing to say.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
ABerVicar
Cmmunion with God can take place at home, too. You don't need to brave the cold weather for that.
Some church planter types say that the challenge of evangelism today is that it has to go hand in with relationship, that people want relationship far more than they want truth. This is a sort of postmodern position that probably won't find much agreement here.
Of course it can take place at home, yet this is where JJ's and others' arguments come into their own - it doesn't happen in isolation.
I would agree wholeheartedly with the view that evangelism takes place hand in hand with relationship. I just think that the relationship is first with God - and the human relationships take all sorts of shapes and sizes.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And why not? Liturgical types don't go to churches with praise bands, and hands in the air Charevos aren't often found at Solemn Mass. So why should those of us for whom neither does much not seek out the like-minded to find a way that does work for us, just like everyone else does?
I quite like liturgical services with hands in the air. Recently attended the late service at St.Aldates - it was a Eucharist. It was simply being Church, a community of Christians gathered around the table. The question is more how we gather around the table, how deep or tight our orbit is. I am aware however that for some Christians the table is not central, and I have to say I believe them to be wrong - but that would be an ecumenical matter
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I get a bit frustrated by the talk of 'meeting with God' or 'going to worship God'. Isn't the Bible clear that we can meet with God any time, any place, and that our worship of God is to be found in a whole life lived in joyful obedience to him?
Such language is where the Charismatic and Catholic collide. A non-Charismatic friend of my expressed his frustration that Christians desiring prayer waited for 'ministry time' on Sunday rather than inviting their Christian neighbours to come and pray with them in the here and now. The same could be applied to the Mass. If we do claim a particular supernatural encounter with God at the centre of our church life then how we 'orbit' that ongoing event is as much 'being church' as the event itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
''New ways of being church'' - my knee jerk response is that this phrase sounds like a charismatic let's get back to basics mantra.
A member of the congregation recently asked me where Monasticism was in the Bible. I suggested the question is rather where is the non-community life found in the pages of Acts. New Ways of being church are almost inevitably old ways of being church.
As an ordained person I am free to live that early rhythm of daily prayer and Christian contact, as well as reaching out to the spiritual Kuiper belt. Others still yearn for it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I would agree wholeheartedly with the view that evangelism takes place hand in hand with relationship. I just think that the relationship is first with God - and the human relationships take all sorts of shapes and sizes.
Obviously, the Christian is called to put God first. But in our current missionary landscape, commentators often say that 'belonging comes before believing'. This means that if seekers, new Christians and the Christians on the fringes of church life (and indeed, Christians of long standing whose faith is just weak, for whatever reason) are to give themselves fully to the life of faith and service they may need people they can rely on, and to feel that they're not out of place. Otherwise they may drift away - as so many have.
I agree with you that not everyone needs this sort of thing from a Christian friend. They may need different things, or else be very self-reliant.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Edward green said: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
''New ways of being church'' - my knee jerk response is that this phrase sounds like a charismatic let's get back to basics mantra.
A member of the congregation recently asked me where Monasticism was in the Bible. I suggested the question is rather where is the non-community life found in the pages of Acts. New Ways of being church are almost inevitably old ways of being church.
As an ordained person I am free to live that early rhythm of daily prayer and Christian contact, as well as reaching out to the spiritual Kuiper belt. Others still yearn for it.
Good point Edward. I think my angle was that charismatic groups often seem to ask quite ''radical'' questions initially as they set up, but these questions can be asked by all churches (and indeed perhaps should be).
Charismatic groups will often ask a question as posed in the OP, but then become as moribund and self serving as other wings of the church can be.
In my experience, charismatic groups can become a ''nice little earner'' and there is nepotism, greed, and a total lack of originality, so for me when someone asks a question like: ''new ways of being church'' my bull shit radar gets turned on
Saul the Apostle
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
StA - IME, this has very little to do with Charismaticism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Not necessarily, Karl, but I can see why Saul has cited it as such as it is often the charismatic churches that are making such a big deal about 'new ways of being church.'
Of course, they haven't cornered the market on that, but it's more common to hear this sort of thing in charismatic churches than those of other traditions.
Backing up a bit ...
@SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin on the relationships thing ...
I don't think anyone here is seriously suggesting that we don't need other people to help sustain and develop our faith. Even if all we do is to interact virtually with people here on these Boards we are having some kind of interaction - for better or worse. Not that I would claim Ship-of-Fools as a kind of 'church' though.
I know people in this town who only ever attended the occasional 8am BCP service at the more liberal Anglican parish and special festival services such as Easter and Christmas. The rest of the time you won't see them anywhere near church. In one instance I know of this is because the woman's husband disapproves and so 8am attendance is the only option available that doesn't irritate him or provoke comment. Sounds bad, but there it is. To be fair to him, he is happy to help out at 'non-religious' things that happen in the parish.
If you talk to the clergy at that church they are actually quite warm and positive about some of these people. If they can only ever make the 8am service every now and then, that's fine by them.
The things I'm objecting to aren't the valid sociological points that SvitlanaV2 is making - and yes, I agree that close and intense fellowship can be helpful for young adults in a harsh urban environment, for instance.
Nor are they the points that South Coast Kevin is making about the helpfulness of small groups and so on. I've benefited from small group interaction myself. I'm sure I still could, in the right setting and circumstances.
No - it's the highly judgemental Ender's Shadow attitude that suggests that unless we're meeting up with one another all the time our discipleship is somehow flawed and compromised.
There are all manner of ways in which people interact with church in its various forms - and some people go in for close relationships and others don't.
We have to be wise to that and not issue some kind of blanket solution that we think will cover all the bases - because no such solution exists.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Not necessarily, Karl, but I can see why Saul has cited it as such as it is often the charismatic churches that are making such a big deal about 'new ways of being church.'
Of course, they haven't cornered the market on that, but it's more common to hear this sort of thing in charismatic churches than those of other traditions.
Can't say I've ever come across it, but perhaps the phrase gained currency after I moved away from the charismatic scene in the mid to late 90s. If that's the case then I take StA's point; one of my criticisms of the charismatic churches. as they largely operate, is that they are in fact not that different from the established churches that they sought to provide an alternative to in the first place. It's a cosmetic change compared to the wholesale innovation that I personally think the church is going to need to indulge in order to survive and grow in the future.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
I don't want to hijack the thread and discuss charismatic - non charismatic etc. but when I saw the OP I thought of this group.....
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/
This is an outfit supported by (Bishop I think) Graham Cray and it states:
quote:
Fresh Expressions encourages and resources new ways of being church, working with Christians from a broad range of denominations and traditions. The movement has resulted in thousands of new congregations being formed alongside more traditional churches.
I am not citing this as a positive or negative thing (the little I know of it has actually been positive and Graham Cray is I am sure a positive chap). In fact it is a self evident truth that if we don't move forward we move backwards and things like this and another example is ''Messy Church'', have been successful in doing church differently.
My over arching comment here is fine, but let's not see ''new'' as somehow better, there are many ways to come together as church and the 1662 service is as valid as a hanging from the chandeliers pump up the volume charismatic hoe down. They are just well.....different and will attract different sorts of groups.
Saul the Apostle
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
The Fresh Expressions initiative is very careful not to allow itself to be characterised by any particular form or spirituality, In some contexts, a nice quiet 1662 service can indeed be a Fresh (and very welcome) Expression.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE]If that's the case then I take StA's point; one of my criticisms of the charismatic churches. as they largely operate, is that they are in fact not that different from the established churches that they sought to provide an alternative to in the first place. It's a cosmetic change compared to the wholesale innovation that I personally think the church is going to need to indulge in order to survive and grow in the future.
As someone who has been involved in Fresh expressions for some time, I share your cynicism.
What began as fresh and exciting, has rapidly become stale, bland and predictable. It isn't Fresh anymore - it's pretty mainstream when you offer cafe Church, Messy Church, alternative worship etc. within the usual hierarchy or parish set up.
Even the charismatic fresh expressions of house and community churches still follow the old 1970's/80's model "The old churches aren't working: we're young fresh and vibrant: new wine in old winekins - no, new wine in new wineskins." It's all rather passe and it's hard not to be cynical when someone comes to you with what he (it's usually a he btw) says is a new idea. It's hard too not to pick a book off the shelf about Restorationism and ask him to read it to demonstrate that this "new thing" is only "new" to him.
Some personal reflections from practical experience. In 11 years between wood and water - a small area (10 mile radius say) in the SW of England - I saw, on average at least one group a year who told me that God had sent them there to plant a church because the existing ones weren't doing the job. That didn't include the church splits of which they were many of the "me too" charismatic church variety.
None have lasted. The shortest lasted 6 weeks, the longest about 6 years. The damage to existing churches has led to a 30% decline in attendance plus an acceleration of church closures. One or two buck the trend and have grown but they seem a bit more light on their feet to change and relevance. The area is known as a tough area for ministry and many don't last the course. There's high burnout (it was nearly me too) and a lot of moral failure too in the area.
The damage to the witness of the gospel is incalculable.
Going back to Fresh Expressions, it may bring more people into the building but hs it brought more people into church? It's one thing going through a door, it's quite another buying into the values of that community in a way that is alien to so many people (the whole idea of committing to buying in that is).
IMHO the whole thing is just another fad to get people through the doors of a church unless and until the issues of hierarchy and boundaries are resolved.
Fresh Expressions "works" best, IME and observation, where it happens a way away from (but perhaps at arms length contact with) an existing set of church structures and assumptions. Reopen a closed church, meet in a village hall, share bread in someone's home - all develop a new link to God far better IME and IMHO than putting on an arts and crafts fun day or pram service in a church.
When people come to church as a rsult of the latter, they will find the same old, repackaged - and it will all look like a kind of spiritual misselling. It's simply offering the veneer of a new thing to hook you into the system of the old and existing. Cynically, it's hard to escape the opinion that some churches see people as recruits - to do the work and give the money - not all of them value people for who they are.
If Fresh Expressions is seen as church in itself without trying to move people into existing structures, then it's more likely to last, possibly to succeed.
Problem is, from what I see on the ground, most existing churches feel threatened by this approach (Fresh Ex as church in its own right, not with its identity prescribed and proscribed by its parent). Most FeX units end up as clones and wither, instead of being unique and flourishing. FeX can work and work well - but it does work best when autonomy comes early and any control isn't control but support. I don't see many of the historic denominations (and office holders within them) being ready to relinquish such power.
Fresh Expressions doesn't have to be that cutting edge either - sometimes (and I've personally been involved in the examples which follow) it's as straightforward as setting up a group after a children's club (20 years on this is a congregation of 100 meeting in a school); sometimes it's reopening a closed church a denomination wishes to close down (15 years on this is an active fellowship of 60 people meeting in a restored building with a part time minister); sometimes it's revitalising a tired and dwindling church with new energy and resources (a small group of people who went to the large baptist church in another village, committed themselves to the familky service at the Anglican Church in their home village. 6 from a home group went to the village church following a request from the vicar to help with music for a service. Now it's a thriving family service with new leadership and new vision - the baptist church was happy to release them to work for God in this way. (Sadly, not all the Anglican hierarchy have been as pleased but that's another story ....)
In essence then, Fresh Expression is at a real crossroads - it's hardly a new way of being or of doing church.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
This.
With the additional comment that further complications often arise when considering who should be paying the costs of the Fresh Expression...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Those are very interesting and pertinent observations, EE. Sobering too. Thanks for sharing them. You've actually helped to clarify some of my thinking around these issues ... although I'm not sure I've got any answers!
There does seem to be an underlying assumption, though, that the 'old' is somehow wrong or inadequate. I'm sure you're right about aspects of the heirarchy within Anglicanism and some of the other historic churches - although in my experience the restorationist/new church heirarchy ended up being just as - if not more - inflexible.
I've been reading 'Chasing Francis' by Ian Morgan Cron, which is novel (with a theological message) about a burnt-out US megachurch pastor who finds his faith rejuvenated and revolutionised through his encounters with Franciscan spirituality.
He then ends up setting up a new church ...
Whoops ... I've given away the ending.
It's a good read - if a little contrived in places - and touches on a lot of these sort of issues - although in a more US-style consumerist setting.
Elements resonate with me. I like the idea of having a stable core - be it represented by monastic groupings, the 1662 Prayer Book or whatever else - that anchors things whilst we experiment and explore.
I think one of the issues is what we are expecting to connect people into. Is Messy Church, for instance, an end in itself or is it intended to feed people into the non-Messy Church that's going on the rest of the time?
The historic Churches, such as the RCs and the Orthodox - may not be quite as innovative in evangelism and outreach (although I suspect they'll have to become so in the fullness of time) but they do, at least, have a sense of trying to embed people into the eucharistic community as the heart of what they are all about.
I just wonder whether all these pram services and Messy services and what-have-you are going to create a simulcra of fellowship and integration rather than the thing itself. They will remain peripheral. How would a Messy Church look in four or five years time? It'll constantly be changing as kids/families grow out of it and others come in. It might be fun while it lasts and worthwhile in and of itself but where do you take it and where do you take people once they're involved?
They can't stay doing finger-prints and origami for ever, can they?
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If Fresh Expressions is seen as church in itself without trying to move people into existing structures, then it's more likely to last, possibly to succeed.
This goes to the heart of the debate: is 'Fresh Expressions' about new churches / congregations, or is it a convenient label to hang on new evangelistic endeavours designed to draw people into involvement with existing structures? The two are very different, but are routinely confused - certainly the statistics for FeX seem to be counting them both, without making any attempt to distinguish them. Both ARE valid - but it's unhealthy to label them with the same name.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If Fresh Expressions is seen as church in itself without trying to move people into existing structures, then it's more likely to last, possibly to succeed.
This goes to the heart of the debate: is 'Fresh Expressions' about new churches / congregations, or is it a convenient label to hang on new evangelistic endeavours designed to draw people into involvement with existing structures? The two are very different, but are routinely confused - certainly the statistics for FeX seem to be counting them both, without making any attempt to distinguish them. Both ARE valid - but it's unhealthy to label them with the same name.
Well, you could do worse than go to the FE website and find out:
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/about/whatis
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/guide/about/whatis
Pretty clear, no?
To which statistics are you referring?
[ 06. December 2012, 09:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If Fresh Expressions is seen as church in itself without trying to move people into existing structures, then it's more likely to last, possibly to succeed.
This goes to the heart of the debate: is 'Fresh Expressions' about new churches / congregations, or is it a convenient label to hang on new evangelistic endeavours designed to draw people into involvement with existing structures? The two are very different, but are routinely confused - certainly the statistics for FeX seem to be counting them both, without making any attempt to distinguish them. Both ARE valid - but it's unhealthy to label them with the same name.
Well, you could do worse than go to the FE website and find out:
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/about/whatis
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/guide/about/whatis
Pretty clear, no?
To which statistics are you referring?
The CofE statistics claim 1000 but I simply don't believe that most of those are anything but routine evangelistic opportunities - such as 'pram services' - being relabelled as 'Fresh Expressions' in order to win the parish kudos. OK - so I'm being cynical here ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Also the FeX website itself muddies the water when it includes: quote:
Exisiting congregation renewal
The renewal of an existing congregation through mission, especially through careful listening to the non-churchgoers the congregation is called to serve. This might involve radically reshaping the provision of all-age worship, for instance, or rethinking a midweek service.
as a part of its definition.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I don't think that muddies the waters at all. If the focus is on the non-, un- and de-churched, and is not merely an exercise in funnelling people into existing "real" church, then it can qualify as a Fresh Expression
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
I have written about Fresh Expressions at length. It is part of Rowan's legacy but has suffered from a degree of mission drift backwards and forwards over the years from its roots in Mission Shaped Church.
FE Practioners range from post-Alt.Worship Anglo-Catholics to New Wine style Charismatics, and it is supported by Methodist, Anglican and Presbyterian (CoS) Churches. The original vision encompassed existing forms of church seeing renewed interest but eventually the focus has become engaging with the un-churched which is a rather difficult group to pin down in many contexts.
FE has some success stories, especially related to church planting in new contexts. However succession has been a huge issue with communities collapsing after the initial pioneer has left. Much like some of the ultra-montain Anglo-Catholic church plants of the past some FE communities have little sense of connection with the body that initially funded and enabled them. This is not the way I see New Frontiers planting churches.
From an Anglican perspective this suggests a lack of confidence in our own body of tradition - not tradition in the sense of sitting in pews, using two brass candlesticks and having flowers every Sunday - but tradition in the sense of what we believe to be uniquely true about Anglicanism.
Which is where I struggle with elements of the Emergent church movement too. In response I tongue in cheek coined the term paleo-emergent to suggest an engagement with trends in culture that is rooted in the ancient - especially for me the early church of the first few centuries. That is how I understand the heart of the Anglican Reformers or of the Wesleyan revival.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Part of the problem with the CofE, it seems to me, isn't so much a clinging to outward and old traditions (as its critics elsewhere may see it) but a lack of confidence in its particular ethos and in Anglican distinctives.
Too many evangelical charismatic Anglicans seem embarrassed by their own Anglican tradition and seem out to disown it. Our vicar is horrified whenever I come out with anything that sounds remotely Anglican in the traditional sense ...
A lot of these New Wine guys strike me as Vineyard, New Frontiers or even Bethel wannabes ...
None of which is anything I'd wannabe ...
The converse may be the case among extreme Anglo-Catholics.
It's a genuine dilemma.
I used to know an evangelical Anglican parish that had a big issue in that once it'd ditched the choir robes and its 'Prayer Book evangelicalism' and introduced drum-n-bass and so on, it couldn't compete with the large independent charismatic church down the road which could do drum-n-bass and so on far much better ... nor with the Methodists up the road who had a nice new, warm building without box pews and who could offer thoughtful, 'low-church' hymns/liturgy in a way that the non-charismatics found conducive ...
It was squeezed from both directions.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that Anglican parishes set out to give crash courses in Lancelot Andrewes, George Herbert, Nicholas Farrar or whoever else we might see as exemplifying key aspects of the Anglican tradition - but if it were less embarrassed about its heritage and trying to be cool and trendy and not doing that very well either ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course, we could say that all these 'distinctives' are provisional and if they no longer 'meet a need' then they should be consigned to history ...
Nevertheless ... it strikes me that by their very nature initiatives like Messy Church and pram-services and so on - effective and laudable though they may well be - are short term. Perhaps fluidity is the key.
But I worry about fluidity if it doesn't have a 'core' to it - an anchor in the received tradition.
One could cite the 'semper reformanda' thing but how far do we take that? I've cited the example here before about Sarah Palin's home town in Alaska where there are 70+ churches for a population of about 1500. There must be churches there in someone's front room with about 3 or 4 members ...
What's the point?
Ok - so Judaism has its divisions and distinctive movements - I used to live mid-way between four synagogues of varying traditions in Leeds and it was interesting to see who was going where ...
But all this plethora of new this and new that and emerging this and emerging that ...
I suppose we are in survival and maintenance mode ... but even so ...
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Gamaliel
This is the second time you have used part of that quote please note what it is in full
quote:
Ecclesia reformata semper reformandasecundum verbum Dei
Roughly translated
The church reformed and always being Reformed by the word of God.
Not a simple matter then of doing what suits the age.
Jengie
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Edward Green
I'm interested in your experience of FE. One criticism I've heard is that it tends to be very middle class. Would you agree? I'm not classist, but there are many parts of the country that'll be ignored by 'new ways of being church' if this is true.
General concerns that the CofE is becoming overwhelmingly charismatic/ evangelical are perhaps also influenced by class and geography. My ecumenical wanderings haven't yielded much in the way of evangelical Anglicanism, which suggests that evangelical CofE congregations are concentrated in certain areas and regions and scarce in others. It would be interesting to see some sort of table or graph that highlighted the national hotspots. Maybe there's a glut of such churches in the South East?
Talking of traditions, I did have an article about cell groups in the sacramental/liturgical tradition. Perhaps this represents the future for Anglicanism of this type?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, Jengie, fair call ...
I understand the context in which you'd use the term and I wasn't 'getting' at you personally - it's just that I've heard it being used to justify constant innovation, change and flux - admittedly not in the kind of circles in which you move and which you represent.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@SvitlanaV2 - some time ago I came across a suggestion that the 'Christianity of the future' would be a 'refined form of Catholicism' ie. it would have sacramental elements and a broadly catholic spirituality - but perhaps without the spikey and knobbly bits ...
I was intrigued by this idea.
I do think that base-communities, small groups and so on are going to play a vital role in the future - in whatever tradition and setting we're talking about ... and perhaps some of the neo-monastic groups that have been discussed on these boards before are part of that.
I think you've noted, though, that such things do tend to be very 'middle class' - which does make me wonder what the church of the future may have to offer those from a different demographic to those it seems to cater for now.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I used to know an evangelical Anglican parish that had a big issue in that once it'd ditched the choir robes and its 'Prayer Book evangelicalism' and introduced drum-n-bass and so on, it couldn't compete with the large independent charismatic church down the road which could do drum-n-bass and so on far much better ... nor with the Methodists up the road who had a nice new, warm building without box pews and who could offer thoughtful, 'low-church' hymns/liturgy in a way that the non-charismatics found conducive .
If Anglican churches (at least in England and probably Wales) got on with doing what they are there for - that is, the Cure of Souls (all of them within the parish, or ministry area, or whatever they are now to be called) - and thereby developed in action the core of the worship that sustains their life, they might rediscover something very precious and distinctive.
It could even be a Fresh Expression!
Actually, thinking about it: plenty are doing this already.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think you've noted, though, that such things do tend to be very 'middle class' - which does make me wonder what the church of the future may have to offer those from a different demographic to those it seems to cater for now.
Living and working now for some years in a context that is emphatically not middle class has made me very sceptical about church-growth and parish renewal initiatives that come from the leafy suburbs. Come to think of it, they all do.
Doing old-fashioned Church well seems to be having some effect here...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I used to know an evangelical Anglican parish that had a big issue in that once it'd ditched the choir robes and its 'Prayer Book evangelicalism' and introduced drum-n-bass and so on, it couldn't compete with the large independent charismatic church down the road which could do drum-n-bass and so on far much better ... nor with the Methodists up the road who had a nice new, warm building without box pews and who could offer thoughtful, 'low-church' hymns/liturgy in a way that the non-charismatics found conducive .
If Anglican churches (at least in England and probably Wales) got on with doing what they are there for - that is, the Cure of Souls (all of them within the parish, or ministry area, or whatever they are now to be called) - and thereby developed in action the core of the worship that sustains their life, they might rediscover something very precious and distinctive.
It could even be a Fresh Expression!
Actually, thinking about it: plenty are doing this already.
And plenty aren't. And those of us in the areas where they aren't either have to do something ourselves or give up on the whole thing.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Exclamation Mark said: quote:
What began as fresh and exciting, has rapidly become stale, bland and predictable. It isn't Fresh anymore - it's pretty mainstream when you offer cafe Church, Messy Church, alternative worship etc. within the usual hierarchy or parish set up.
Even the charismatic fresh expressions of house and community churches still follow the old 1970's/80's model "The old churches aren't working: we're young fresh and vibrant: new wine in old winekins - no, new wine in new wineskins." It's all rather passe and it's hard not to be cynical when someone comes to you with what he (it's usually a he btw) says is a new idea. It's hard too not to pick a book off the shelf about Restorationism and ask him to read it to demonstrate that this "new thing" is only "new" to him.
Some personal reflections from practical experience. In 11 years between wood and water - a small area (10 mile radius say) in the SW of England - I saw, on average at least one group a year who told me that God had sent them there to plant a church because the existing ones weren't doing the job. That didn't include the church splits of which they were many of the "me too" charismatic church variety.
None have lasted. The shortest lasted 6 weeks, the longest about 6 years. The damage to existing churches has led to a 30% decline in attendance plus an acceleration of church closures. One or two buck the trend and have grown but they seem a bit more light on their feet to change and relevance. The area is known as a tough area for ministry and many don't last the course. There's high burnout (it was nearly me too) and a lot of moral failure too in the area.
The damage to the witness of the gospel is incalculable.
You are bang on the money here EM. Well stated.
It is interesting in the circles I am around, there is lot's of talk about ''new'' ''fresh'' and even the ''radical''.
Frankly it's all passe indeed. It comes down to (I am speaking about the charismatic churches across England here by the way not one specific church) a large v. v. expensive sound system, lots of bells and electronic whistles and some musical ability and that's in fact about it.
New ways of being church? Not on your nelly.
Saul
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
StA - what I know as "New ways of being church", "Fresh expressions", "Emerging Church" and all the rest of it has bugger all to do with charismatic worship and worship bands. I'd describe all that as one of the "Old ways of being church".
This thread would do a lot better if we agreed on what we're actually talking about.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I used to know an evangelical Anglican parish that had a big issue in that once it'd ditched the choir robes and its 'Prayer Book evangelicalism' and introduced drum-n-bass and so on, it couldn't compete with the large independent charismatic church down the road which could do drum-n-bass and so on far much better ... nor with the Methodists up the road who had a nice new, warm building without box pews and who could offer thoughtful, 'low-church' hymns/liturgy in a way that the non-charismatics found conducive .
If Anglican churches (at least in England and probably Wales) got on with doing what they are there for - that is, the Cure of Souls (all of them within the parish, or ministry area, or whatever they are now to be called) - and thereby developed in action the core of the worship that sustains their life, they might rediscover something very precious and distinctive.
It could even be a Fresh Expression!
Actually, thinking about it: plenty are doing this already.
And plenty aren't. And those of us in the areas where they aren't either have to do something ourselves or give up on the whole thing.
And this advances the discussion exactly how?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, it explains in part where I'm coming from, I'd hope, in a parish where the church most certainly does attend itself to "the cure of all souls" in the parish.
So horror of horrors, we've had to go elsewhere. Nine years we spent trying to make it work, so don't imagine this was a simple matter of "oh, we don't like it here, let's shop around until we find what suits us."
In the end we had to ask what would help us build our faith and that of our children, and what was becoming pure joyless duty and driving the kids insane with boredom. Fortunately we have found a home in exactly the sort of FE setup that a lot of people on here see fit to deny the value of. For us it's a godsend.
It'd be wonderful if all the parish churches did as you are describing, but they don't, and people like me can't force them to either.
[ 06. December 2012, 15:40: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In the end we had to ask what would help us build our faith and that of our children, and what was becoming pure joyless duty and driving the kids insane with boredom. Fortunately we have found a home in exactly the sort of FE setup that a lot of people on here see fit to deny the value of. For us it's a godsend.
It'd be wonderful if all the parish churches did as you are describing, but they don't, and people like me can't force them to either.
I've not come across anyone in this thread denying the value of FE or New Ways of Being Church. There's been plenty of questioning on how far some of them are fresh, new or even Church.
I don't quite see how your first statement stacks up. If your original (home?) parish is doing an excellent job of the cure of souls for all, that is exactly what it means. In what way are you excluded? (in which case it isn't for all) or have you excluded yourself (in which case, prayers and good luck to you, but it that really their fault?)
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My ecumenical wanderings haven't yielded much in the way of evangelical Anglicanism, which suggests that evangelical CofE congregations are concentrated in certain areas and regions and scarce in others. It would be interesting to see some sort of table or graph that highlighted the national hotspots. Maybe there's a glut of such churches in the South East?
I doubt it; you don't say where you are, so I can't drop any hints as to where the Evangelicals are hiding in your area. My suspicion however is that the priests from an Evangelical tradition will be there in many parishes - after all Evangelicals have been providing about 50% of ordinands for many a long year now - but not rushing to impose a particular form of worship on their churches; remember that 'traditional' 'low church' worship, using liturgy and hymns, would have been what any Evangelical parish would have offered until the 1970s. So I suspect they are there - just not obvious!
PS It's always a fun game to go into a church at a time other than a service and play 'spot the party it belongs to'. The missionary societies supported is often a give away. The names of the services can help. Manifestos from 'Open Synod' group is a big give away - or the latest edition of New Directions...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In the end we had to ask what would help us build our faith and that of our children, and what was becoming pure joyless duty and driving the kids insane with boredom. Fortunately we have found a home in exactly the sort of FE setup that a lot of people on here see fit to deny the value of. For us it's a godsend.
It'd be wonderful if all the parish churches did as you are describing, but they don't, and people like me can't force them to either.
I've not come across anyone in this thread denying the value of FE or New Ways of Being Church. There's been plenty of questioning on how far some of them are fresh, new or even Church.
I don't quite see how your first statement stacks up. If your original (home?) parish is doing an excellent job of the cure of souls for all, that is exactly what it means. In what way are you excluded? (in which case it isn't for all) or have you excluded yourself (in which case, prayers and good luck to you, but it that really their fault?)
There was a typo - it should have read "certainly doesn't".
It's hard to pin down exactly what's irritating me on this thread, but there seems to be a quite negative vibe and some of it seems to derive from ignorance about what FE in particular is.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
Well without wishing to stray very far in to All Saints territory, you were very scratchy earlier on, and said so. Perhaps you are bringing your own frustration to the argument instead of letting it develop its own momentum.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if any of the contributors here denied the value of a fellowship in which you and your family have been able to build your relationship with God. As far as I can see, there has been some real effort to look at what FE ought to be offering in order to make a lasting difference, and there has been some concern that people can get so caught up in FE that they throw out the old stuff where it is still working.
In my patch, I have inherited five church buildings, one of which is home to a still thriving very traditional pattern of Church life. One died as a church years ago, and despite the pain caused in the local community we have been able to close it. My challenge (yes i know it's our challenge, but it's a leadership issue too) is to establish an FE in the outlying areas near the closed church which will not either replicate what has already clearly failed, or replicate what others in the area are already doing. It must be able to sustain the Cure of Souls, so open to all, and needs to be sustainable in its own context.
This is a big ask. Thank God it's in God's hands and not just in ours! ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
BTW - this is what the 'building bridges' is all about...
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Well, to quote a well known French phrase....
quote:
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Plus of course that there is ''nothing new under the sun'' etc etc etc.
But church can get moribund very quickly and I am surprised to see a very strong glass ceiling in UK churches. Even the very ''successful'' ones can't seem to break into real church growth and this lack of growth is not just in the traditional sector but in the house church/charismatic movement too.
Saul
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Edward Green
I'm interested in your experience of FE. One criticism I've heard is that it tends to be very middle class. Would you agree?
...
General concerns that the CofE is becoming overwhelmingly charismatic/ evangelical are perhaps also influenced by class and geography ... Maybe there's a glut of such churches in the South East?
Talking of traditions, I did have an article about cell groups in the sacramental/liturgical tradition. Perhaps this represents the future for Anglicanism of this type?
Church is rather middle class full stop in some areas. Our Fresh Expression is the least Middle Class of the congregations, but in a sense it is more of a Charismatic Church Plant than explicitly a Fresh Expression. There are elements of it that fit the description.
Charismatic Anglicanism certainly seems to be in the ascendency, although plenty of Charismatic Clergy end up way outside their tradition by the time they get to the parish. Not enough suburban shacks to go around. The same thing happened with Anglo-Catholicism of course.
The small discipleship group is very much part of the Sacramental tradition, New Monasticism is a very intentional extension of this which relates to Fresh Expressions.
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Living and working now for some years in a context that is emphatically not middle class has made me very sceptical about church-growth and parish renewal initiatives that come from the leafy suburbs. Come to think of it, they all do.
Those of us in rural ministry would concur. Sub-urban models of church, however old or fresh are different to rural models. One of the villages I serve has a group of young families who have come into the church (see below for un-churched comments), they meet twice a month, once for lay led Sunday Club and once for a very hands on 'Children around the Altar' style Family Communion. I don't care if its a FE or not, but it is very different pattern to 'Minister in Church with us every week'. Equally we run a monthly spirituality group that draws people from a wide range of backgrounds who are committed to a simple rule of life. Influenced by New Monasticism but significantly less intense than some of the communities out there - and the members of our 'order lite' worship in different places and at different times on Sunday.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's hard to pin down exactly what's irritating me on this thread, but there seems to be a quite negative vibe and some of it seems to derive from ignorance about what FE in particular is.
I am on the National Rurual FE Round Table. Any negativity or criticism from me should be read as criticism from within rather than without.
The biggest issue I have comes down to limiting FE to the un-churched. Every school in this area is a Church School. The one in my benefice I lead worship in on a weekly basis and treat it as an 8th congregation. One of my villages gets 250 on Christmas Eve for the Crib Service - which is greater than the population of the village! Very few people then are completely un-churched.
The community with our explicit FE is more transient, people come and go. FE style events have been successful, but building stability and community has been far more difficult.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Funnily enough, I'd very much agree with your last point, as being far from un-churched myself. We were getting very close to de-churched, however.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Funnily enough, I'd very much agree with your last point, as being far from un-churched myself. We were getting very close to de-churched, however.
Well in a sense when I left my Charismatic Church in my 20's and joined the local more catholic Anglican Church and started an Alt.Worship group I was almost de-churched. Ironically as I type this I have just come back from a Charismatic worship service ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Well without wishing to stray very far in to All Saints territory, you were very scratchy earlier on, and said so. Perhaps you are bringing your own frustration to the argument instead of letting it develop its own momentum.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if any of the contributors here denied the value of a fellowship in which you and your family have been able to build your relationship with God. As far as I can see, there has been some real effort to look at what FE ought to be offering in order to make a lasting difference, and there has been some concern that people can get so caught up in FE that they throw out the old stuff where it is still working.
In my patch, I have inherited five church buildings, one of which is home to a still thriving very traditional pattern of Church life. One died as a church years ago, and despite the pain caused in the local community we have been able to close it. My challenge (yes i know it's our challenge, but it's a leadership issue too) is to establish an FE in the outlying areas near the closed church which will not either replicate what has already clearly failed, or replicate what others in the area are already doing. It must be able to sustain the Cure of Souls, so open to all, and needs to be sustainable in its own context.
This is a big ask. Thank God it's in God's hands and not just in ours!
BTW - this is what the 'building bridges' is all about...
Best of luck. Sorry for earlier getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Thanks everyone for your very kind replies to my mumblings and ramblings. Over the years I've seen a fair few FE developments as (past) national chair of a denominational network of such things.
It's a live issue for me at the moment - that is, the real need of running a FE in the same community as the exisitng church. Messy church, cafe, coffee shops, schools work, prayer on the streets is all happening. But to remain vibrant and to speak into people's lives, noen of it would work within the existing church - nor should it. How we run two "streams" or "expressions" side by side in one relatively discrete geographical area is the real challenge.
I'm really only commented on FE and not emerging/emergant/post emergant church. I've not come across much of this even in a large urban context and cerytainly not in the previously very rural ministry. A l,ot of this, ISTM, is small "interest groups" that can be very emphemeral and which make few demands on those who attend. It doesn't much resonate with what I understand of what the church should be - welcoming and winsome to all, permanent (cos that's when it affects the world around it) and which recognises that belief does require some propositional statements and responses.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
[Sorry missed edit window - I can't type that fast].
It doesn't much resonate with what I understand of what the church should be - welcoming and winsome to all, permanent (cos that's when it affects the world around it) and which recognises that belief does require some propositional statements and responses.
Interesting post from AberVicar (thanks) about the cure of souls in a "parish". I find that a lot of Anglican churches seem to assume this - rather less actually do it. Some just seem to see the parish and its inhabitants as a cash cow resource to maintain the building. (Notice I said some - and it's IME!). There are many honourable exceptions of course.
Tbh in a previous ministry we found that as a (non Anglican) church, we stood in that position for many people in the village. We did a lot of funerals (always no charge) and a considerable amount of the work in a (church) school. In the local area we weren't the only non anglican church working in that way - and it is recognised as a very traditional area between wood and water.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Church can get moribund very quickly and I am surprised to see a very strong glass ceiling in UK churches. Even the very ''successful'' ones can't seem to break into real church growth and this lack of growth is not just in the traditional sector but in the house church/charismatic movement too.
Sociologists and historians suggest that churches go through certain stages, don't they? Some blame evangelicalism's drift away from doctrine into morality. Church hagiographers tend to complain that the spiritual passion and fervour of the first generations of church planters or founders tends not to be replicated in succeeding generations.
In terms of church growth, I've read that some churches do grow, but reach a certain point and find it difficult to grow further. For the largest churches, the explanation is that growth above a certain number (say 200 people) requires a different set of skills from church leaders, and they probably don't have these skills to acquire them. A new form of church management is also required when you have a 'megachurch', which may be difficult to put in place if your denomination normally organises congregational leadershipb tightly along particular lines. One Anglican commentator said that no CofE vicar gets to grow a congregation to significant levels by obeying the rules!
Another piece of research I look at suggested that people often evangelise amongst their family and friends; but once you've exhausted them, what do you do next? Even Alpha has failed to draw in complete strangers, on the whole. Practising Christians often end up with fewer and fewer non-Christian friends as time passes, which means they have fewer opportunities to evangelise.
There are many reasons for the stultification of churches in the UK. The Bible surely provides many answers, although we rarely look to the Bible for help on church growth issues....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Most church-growth pundits I've come across are always referring to the Bible. Whether they do so in context, of course, is another issue ...
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Funnily enough, I'd very much agree with your last point, as being far from un-churched myself. We were getting very close to de-churched, however.
I've recently finished the year long Mission Shaped Ministry training course for FE. I'd highly recommend it. I was particularly struck by the emphasis on building Christian communities for the un-churched and de-churched as a defining feature of any FE. Every success in your enterprise KLB....
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering;
For what purpose? I'm asking because these are totally alien to my experience. And I think I'm relieved about that-- and not just for the time commitment, because I speak as someone who attended or officiate at daily evening prayer for several years and wish there were an opportunity to do it again. I'm impressed by the commmitment and dedication of those who do this sort of thing, but how can it be required, and by the same people who probably diss the Catholics for speaking of "mass obligation"...?
What goes on in these cell meetings? One hears horror stories about how they can be thinly disgused brainwashing sessions done by lay leaders in a strict hierarchy leading up to the head honcho. It would take something like that, I'd think, to cause people to leave the church as walking wounded and spend years after as "recovering Christians," of which there are millions. Assuming that the proceedings are more benign than that, what are they?
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Personally I have no hesitation in arguing that meetings in home during the week should have a higher priority that the Sunday gathering;
For what purpose? I'm asking because these are totally alien to my experience. And I think I'm relieved about that-- and not just for the time commitment, because I speak as someone who attended or officiate at daily evening prayer for several years and wish there were an opportunity to do it again. I'm impressed by the commmitment and dedication of those who do this sort of thing, but how can it be required, and by the same people who probably diss the Catholics for speaking of "mass obligation"...?
What goes on in these cell meetings? One hears horror stories about how they can be thinly disgused brainwashing sessions done by lay leaders in a strict hierarchy leading up to the head honcho. It would take something like that, I'd think, to cause people to leave the church as walking wounded and spend years after as "recovering Christians," of which there are millions. Assuming that the proceedings are more benign than that, what are they?
I think the priority of the midweek 'cell' meeting depends on the mission of the church. In my own experience, the most successful cell meetings were based on the 'mission group' concept. Essentially, a group within a church decide who they want to reach with the Gospel, and whom they want to reach them with. The broup's focus may be geographical, a people group, a marginalised group in society, or based around a particular style of mission. Since people come together around a common vision, rather than being arranged as a group by the church hierarchy, the risk of brainwashing and damage is very much diminished.
The genius of the Fresh Expression approach is that it values a 'mixed economy' of church expression. I can think of many reasons why a service of daily evening prayer could be an ideal mission expression, as well as providing vital opportunity for spiritual engagement for time-pressured people. I can personally think of a number occasions when I've been working away from home when the chance to drop into a church for prayer has been a literal Godsend.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Alogon, in many, if not most evangelical settings the small, mid-week group meetings are where the instruction, teaching and catechesis takes place. Sometimes well, sometimes badly, sometimes indifferently.
At best, I think it can serve a useful purpose for many people - and Enders Shadow clearly feels that they should be a priority as far as he is concerned. The problem is, I suspect he'd expect it to be become a priority for everyone else as well. He often appears very critical and rather dismissive of churches that don't go in for that sort of thing.
In some ways, these groups play a similar role to that of the 'spiritual director' in more Catholic or sacramental circles. And I'm sure there are both good and bad examples of those.
My brother-in-law and other strong, but increasingly broader, evangelicals still value groups of this kind very highly. I don't, although I would have done at one time.
I can't really see why they should take priority though. Mind you, if you have a very low approach to the sacraments then it's probably inevitable - nature abhors a vacuum - that you're going to find some alternative and sacralise that. In some circles they appear to have 'sacralised' the mid-week meetings in the same way as they have 'sacralised' the so-called 'worship time' (as if the whole thing isn't a worship time).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can see the point Ramarius is making but I feel uncomfortable with the terminology. A 'cell' is where they look you away ...
I can see the point, too, about dropping into a church to pray and that being a Godsend if you are working away from home. I've often done that if a church is open during the day - even if it is just to sit and contemplate in silence for a few minutes.
I've been working in London for a few days a week recently and when I've been there on a Monday evening I've often dropped into a Compline service at 10pm in a residential setting.
Whether I'd be as keen to go along to a house-group or similar if I were working away, I very much doubt ... although if I were there all week for weeks on end I might value something like that ... although the standard evangelical house-group holds little appeal for me these days.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see the point Ramarius is making but I feel uncomfortable with the terminology. A 'cell' is where they look you away ...
It is also the basic building block of a large living organism, AKA the Body of Christ, as someone wrote above that the church should be.
So I can understand why the term would be used if one believes in an important role for such small groups.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Alogon, in many, if not most evangelical settings the small, mid-week group meetings are where the instruction, teaching and catechesis takes place. Sometimes well, sometimes badly, sometimes indifferently.
At best, I think it can serve a useful purpose for many people - and Enders Shadow clearly feels that they should be a priority as far as he is concerned. The problem is, I suspect he'd expect it to be become a priority for everyone else as well. He often appears very critical and rather dismissive of churches that don't go in for that sort of thing.
In some ways, these groups play a similar role to that of the 'spiritual director' in more Catholic or sacramental circles. And I'm sure there are both good and bad examples of those.
My brother-in-law and other strong, but increasingly broader, evangelicals still value groups of this kind very highly. I don't, although I would have done at one time.
I can't really see why they should take priority though. Mind you, if you have a very low approach to the sacraments then it's probably inevitable - nature abhors a vacuum - that you're going to find some alternative and sacralise that. In some circles they appear to have 'sacralised' the mid-week meetings in the same way as they have 'sacralised' the so-called 'worship time' (as if the whole thing isn't a worship time).
I've leapt up the candle and have gone from a MOTR, gently evangelical Anglican place with fortnightly Eucharist to a liberal Anglo-Catholic shack with full-on sung Eucharist every week. Interestingly I have found myself missing small groups which are as you say, a large part of evangelical church culture. We've got something not too dissimilar at the chaplaincy at uni which fills the gap without me having to attend an evangelical church (and we don't have any kind of small group arrangement at my church), but it is interesting that I apparently feel the need for both smells 'n' bells and small groups. The mixed economy of FE does seem very inspired in light of that.
/former FE sceptic
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks Jade Constable - I suspect I would feel the same if I climbed further up the candle. At the moment I'm teetering somewhere in the middle which probably means I'm losing out at both ends. I no longer have the small-group interaction at one end and I only occasionally have the full on candle-lit 'hit' at the other ...
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Interestingly I have found myself missing small groups which are as you say, a large part of evangelical church culture.
The small group, be it lay guild, rosary circle or shared rule was very much part of the catholic tradition too when it was growing. Sadly it has been lost.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see the point Ramarius is making but I feel uncomfortable with the terminology. A 'cell' is where they look you away ...
It is also the basic building block of a large living organism, AKA the Body of Christ, as someone wrote above that the church should be.
So I can understand why the term would be used if one believes in an important role for such small groups.
Do new monastics have cells?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sort of. 'Chapters' and such. Or so they might have been called at one time.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
They have chapter houses or rooms for formal discussion or business meetings. They might also have cells to sleep and be alone. The only modern, functioning religious house that I've seen inside to any great extent is Saint Norbert Abbey in DePere, Wis. Their chapter room is just east of the church proper-- separated, as I recall, only by a hallway going north-south which leads to the many cells around the arms of the building. These are like individual college dormitory rooms, except narrower and more austere.
Using the word "cell" in prisons quite deliberately derives from the monastic model. The ideal (dating from the nineteenth century) is that prisoners will spend time in the penitentiary meditating on their offenses in order to repent and emerge as better people.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think, Alogon, that Ramarius is thinking of 'new monastic movements' - the sort of quasi-monastic networks such as The Northumbria Community etc.
They aren't actual monks, but they do take a 'rule of life' and so on.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
And yes we may have cells. Certainly at college we were encouraged to form cell groups. Although mine is scattered to the four winds.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0