Ship of Fools: Consumer church vs. (?) Missional church

Thread: Consumer church vs. (?) Missional 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=024630

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I was sent something about consumer church vs. missional church. It said:

quote:
Consumer church
Church is seen as a dispenser of religious goods and services. People come to church to be "fed," to have their needs met through quality programs, and to have the professionals teach their children about God. "I go to church."

This is different from:

Missional church
A body of people sent on mission who gather in community for worship, community encouragement and teaching from the Word in addition to what they are self-feeding themselves throughout the week. "I am the church."

This made me really mad, which may be that it pricks me too close to home and means I need to examine myself. But I don't think that's all of it. I hate the judgementalism it exhibits about what other people are doing in church. I disagree with the dichotomies posed (hence the question-mark on "vs." in the thread title). I hate the rejection of being fed by the church in favour of self-feeding (without denying the value in exploring outside of church). I think it's naive in thinking that any community won't have an institution grow up around it. I think it's obnoxious in thinking everyone should already know how to talk to their children about God without help from the church. (I don't say nobody knows how to do this, but I also think it's a perfectly reasonable area to ask for help. Heck, I turn to the church for help in how to talk about God to myself, let alone talking to anyone else.)

What do you think? Is Consumer vs. Missional a helpful observation, a false dichotomy, or something else? How do the issues raised in both sets of descriptions play out in your life and in the life of your church?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What do you think? Is Consumer vs. Missional a helpful observation, a false dichotomy, or something else? How do the issues raised in both sets of descriptions play out in your life and in the life of your church?

I think it's oversimplified, but is nevertheless a useful observation. Maybe whoever wrote it intended to raise hackles, in order to provoke a response!

Thinking about it a bit more, I suppose I'd say 'We are the church' instead of 'I am the church' and it'd be good to have something about feeding one another in the missional church definition. I mean, we all need simply to 'get fed', to receive encouragement and blessing from others on occasion, don't we?

My church uses the analogy of a picnic in describing our view of what church meetings should be like. Everyone brings what they can, and shares with the community so those in need are provided for - just like a bring-and-share picnic or potluck supper. A picnic still works just fine if some people aren't able to bring anything on that occasion; likewise one should never be made to feel bad if one goes to a church meeting in need of encouragement and without anything much to share with others (on that occasion).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think you can have BOTH.

I am strongly inclined to favour 'mission church' but if i am not fed well enough - 'consumer church' then I have little energy to do the mission during the week.

Posted by Codepoet (# 5964) on :

I am a clergyman, and spend most of my time trying to encourage people to think and act as per the "missional church" description in the OP. However on the rare occasions when I get a Sunday off, I just want to go to some church in the next city over and wallow in it - to be a consumer for once. I do not think there is anything wrong in that.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Is the 'self-feeding' prayer and study, or something else?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think it is a false dichotomy, because for a church to be a missional church - that is, a church reaching out to others - then people need to see it as a consumer church - that is a place where they can come and receive, partake, experience.

We live in a consumer culture, so we need to engage with that culture, not claim to be "missional" and still refuse to accept or engage with the culture around us.

The place I am currently attending, occasionally, lets me be a consumer, because that is all I want. In that, it is being missional, because people can be as much a part of it as they want.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

The thing that bothers me about the dichotomy is that it seems to assume that there are them benighted souls what need "missioning" and us blessed creatures who only need that sort of thing when we're falling short.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I've found a citation for the quote. It appears to be from the book The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball. I don't think the questions raised by the quote are confined to a consideration of emerging church compared to traditional church, though (or whatever it is emerging church sees itself as emerging from or being unlike -- I don't mean this flippantly, I just don't know a lot about emerging church).

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

Conceptually the dichotomy is certainly a false one for some of the reasons articulated thus far. I found Codepoet's post quite moving.

Practically speaking, on the other hand, I think the dichotomy does raise an issue as to how, fundamentally, we see church. I think a better way of expressing the issue is to ask the extent to which we see church as a) existing for the benefit of its members, or b) existing equally for the benefit of its members and the wider community or communities in which it is set. Perhaps the alternative to being a missional church is simply being a non-missional church.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I second what Shroedinger's Cat and tclune say above.

I also am put off by the individualism implied in the description for "missional church" - "self-feeding" and "I am the Church" - but maybe because it seems to imply an ecclesiology I happen to disagree with (where church/the Church is an assembly of like-minded individuals).

The language actually masks the fact that there isn't really a huge distinction between the two: after all, what is the difference, really, between "to have their needs met through quality programs" and "community encouragement"; or between "to have the professionals teach their children about God" and "teaching from the Word"? The passive voice in the first, plus a little clever phrasing. It's the same thing, though. A little rugged individualism gets added to the second as well - the bit about "self-feeding" through the week. That makes it sound as if the Church exists to supplement and reinforce what you're already doing on your own. That will appeal to a certain demographic.

However, it's not entirely fair to judge this dichotomy out of context (seeing that it's from a book), but then again, the OP sounds like this was presented out of context on some kind of mailing. Someone felt that this particular citation from the book summed up some important concept. I'm curious to know more about that - was it a mailing (promotional or otherwise) or a personal communication?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

'Consumer church' didn't strike me at first glance as an entirely suitable term for British churches, but perhaps it could be useful.

Maybe the CofE, which has been called 'the church for people who don't go to church', is the perfect combination of consumer church and missional church. This is because it benefits from 'brand awareness' and so can attract casual and fringe attenders who don't want to participate in running the church; on the other hand, it also has the resources to be able to engage in mission.

However, since the average church is much smaller (and perhaps poorer?) in the UK than in the USA, the likelihood that any regular and able-bodied church member here will be able to exist indefinitely as a consumer rather than a producer sounds unlikely. If you go to a cathedral or a megachurch it might be possible, but that's not where most people would be heading.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'Consumer church' didn't strike me at first glance as an entirely suitable term for British churches, but perhaps it could be useful.

Maybe the CofE, which has been called 'the church for people who don't go to church', is the perfect combination of consumer church and missional church. This is because it benefits from 'brand awareness' and so can attract casual and fringe attenders who don't want to participate in running the church; on the other hand, it also has the resources to be able to engage in mission.

However, since the average church is much smaller (and perhaps poorer?) in the UK than in the USA, the likelihood that any regular and able-bodied church member here will be able to exist indefinitely as a consumer rather than a producer sounds unlikely. If you go to a cathedral or a megachurch it might be possible, but that's not where most people would be heading.

Semantics, I think (and judementalism of "those other people, who just come to church once a week and then forget all about being Christian the rest of the days")

I do see a difference between some churches which primarily provide support etc. to people who are already Christians, and a Church which primarily seeks to "convert" people. I have seen the latter in a very negative light (personal experience), but I know that the former can sometimes become an insular community forgetting that there is a missionary component to Christianity. The ideal Church, in my mind, is a balance of the two, with an an emphasis on one or the other dependent on the community they are in, the needs of that community, and the availability of other providers of those two aspects. no Church (parish/congregation) should be only one or only the other.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Anyuta

You quoted from me, but I wasn't being judgmental about people who only attend church once a week. I didn't mention that. (It's being discussed on another thread, actually.)

Speaking from experience, my ex-minister bemoaned the fact that ours was a 'Sunday church', and that it was difficult to get people to come at other times for study groups, prayer meetings, etc., so I do understand the phenomenon. My personal view is that since we stress Sunday attendance so much and have such a high regard for the sermon, it's hard to expect congregations to take any other church meeting quite as seriously. Some churches manage it because they just have higher expectations of members in general. Or perhaps there are particular demographics at play.(E.g. lots of young single adults, far from home and needing new friends and guidance.)

All churches need a number unaffiliated attenders, of course, because it's from this group that future church members and committed worshippers and church leaders are eventually made. So yes, ideally, a church must be a mixture of both.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

I think it is helpful.

My local church has been thinking about whether there should be a second 'deeper' service for those who want more teaching etc. etc.

A review was conducted complete with a marketing like questionnaire to determin what the church anted and whether there would be support for another service.

The problem is that those who are well served by the normal offering are apathetic and those who would be attracted by an alternative offering would not be in the sample. This is obviously a marketing approach that is treating the congregation as a consumer. There should be no surprise if the congregation develops a what is in for me attitude to being Church.

It is an attractional come-to-us approach. It bitches about what kind of music there should be, how long the talk should be and what refreshments should be served. It might offer a programme by way of an introductory offer as a free pen might be offered for a new insurance policy.

To be missional would mean going outside and focusing on the other who are not present. It is asking 'what needs to be done to bring church here?' It is travelling with seekers rather than being the final destination.

Yes I need training and equipping. I also believe that discipleship is an on the job process. We need to find someone to follow, failing that find mentors who can help us experiment. That is a real challenge.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

One thing I think churches can do is to get more creative with their weekday activities. There's no reason these have to be such "churchy" things as Bible studies, although it's great to offer those. There's nothing wrong with churches hosting knitting groups, book discussion groups (without requiring the books to be Christian or religious in theme), yoga classes, and so forth. It's a great way to help people feel comfortable and welcome, while also creating the much-needed recognition that the Church is interested in the whole person and in community. I think that sort of thing is especially desirable in an increasingly secular culture where it's easy to think that the Church has nothing to do with one's life.

And to complicate matters - at the church where I work, we have an outreach ministry whose participants - the ones reaching out - are mostly non-members! Churches offering the opportunity for people to do good in the community might draw non-Christians as well as non-members into the Church's mission.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
One thing I think churches can do is to get more creative with their weekday activities. There's no reason these have to be such "churchy" things as Bible studies, although it's great to offer those. There's nothing wrong with churches hosting knitting groups, book discussion groups (without requiring the books to be Christian or religious in theme), yoga classes, and so forth. It's a great way to help people feel comfortable and welcome, while also creating the much-needed recognition that the Church is interested in the whole person and in community. I think that sort of thing is especially desirable in an increasingly secular culture where it's easy to think that the Church has nothing to do with one's life.

And to complicate matters - at the church where I work, we have an outreach ministry whose participants - the ones reaching out - are mostly non-members! Churches offering the opportunity for people to do good in the community might draw non-Christians as well as non-members into the Church's mission.

Ah! But to what purpose? To get more bums on seats on the main event?

Perhaps the litmus test is whether the success of the out reach is measured by growth of the congregation or extend citizenship to those that never darken the door of the church building.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

churchgeek and Midge

I would have loved a church reading group, but churches need to be wary of offering too many community leisure activities. British Nonconformist congregations in the Edwardian era suffered from trying to do too many things. They stretched themselves too thin, used resources and manpower that couldn't then be devoted to evangelism. And they didn't usually manage to draw the non-church participants of these activities into the worshipping and spiritual life of the church. This was unsustainable in the long term.

(Interestingly, some of the church sports clubs took on a life of their own, e.g. Aston Villa Football Club, which started out as part of a Methodist church. But I don't think the churches themselves reaped the benefit of this.)

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

A false dichotomy, I think, like any strict delineation between an "institutional" church and a "relational" church. Every particular congregation or church is individual and there is surely a sliding scale between any extreme positions.

What struck me was that neither church type described mentioned the sacraments.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think the big question here is who is doing the sending for those "sent on mission" in the missional church.

If you ask that question of missional church enthusiasts, in my experience they will look at you as though you're brain-damaged and say "well, Jesus of course!"

But what it can often boil down to is that those in a missional church are expected to allow themselves to be "sent" on whatever the church leadership decides is the mission. Wittingly or unwittingly, it's a mindset that seeks to have lots of available and willing volunteers for the local church's programmes, which are conflated with the Mission of the Church™. This state of affairs has not been helped by corporate culture and its "mission statements" leaching into church culture.

Despite leading a church myself, in my darker moments I wonder whether the whole contemporary church exercise isn't just a huge misunderstanding. Jesus sends his disciples on a mission. The church is simply what happens when they get together along the way. We've managed to make it a lot more complicated than that.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think it is a false dichotomy, because for a church to be a missional church - that is, a church reaching out to others - then people need to see it as a consumer church - that is a place where they can come and receive, partake, experience.

I think this somewhat misses the point of what's meant by 'missional church'. It's not about a place at all, rather it's about a community of people. A church might be highly missional but hardly ever have visitors or newcomers at their Sunday meetings - because the people that comprise that church are demonstrating and telling of the good news of Jesus through the various activities of their daily lives.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Is the 'self-feeding' prayer and study, or something else?

I've not read the book the quotation apparently came from but I'd guess the author had those things in mind, as well as intentional acts of service, meditation, confession / accountability, celebration with others, fasting and so on. Anything that helps us connect and engage with God...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

What do you think? Is Consumer vs. Missional a helpful observation, a false dichotomy, or something else? How do the issues raised in both sets of descriptions play out in your life and in the life of your church?

It seems to me as through this is a way of trying to express the difference between being Christians living a life for Christ in the world and being, well, people who go to church on Sunday.

The actual sentiments in the statement you posted, though, seem to have grown some extra baggage. There is a strong low-church bias in the choice of language and emphasis. Presumably these definitions were produced by some kind of low church evangelical movement, and encapsulate the way they see church. I don't think the specific statements fit very well in a high church environment.

As a reminder that we shouldn't let ourselves get drawn into putting up the barricades and gazing at our own spiritual navels, it's fine, but I worry that it's easy to focus on "mission" to the exclusion of anything else, leading to a spiritually and theologically shallow practice.

Given that my own tendencies are towards introspection, a missional kick up the behind every now and then is probably rather what I need, though.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The thing that bothers me about the dichotomy is that it seems to assume that there are them benighted souls what need "missioning" and us blessed creatures who only need that sort of thing when we're falling short.

--Tom Clune

Yes.

I quite often hear: 'We must do things we don't like in order to attract other people.' Which is fine and noble as far as it goes, as long as it's properly addressed the question: 'If we don't like these things, why do we suppose other people will like them?'

(Actually there's also a rather insidious variant that goes: 'We must do things you don't like, and that I just happen to like, because my tastes are more normative than yours ...')

[ 27. February 2013, 08:20: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's very difficult. Being inauthentic, doing things you don't like, solely to attract other people, sticks out like a sore thumb, especially when it means some middle aged vicar trying to be down wid da yoof in the commonly parodied manner*.

However, what do you do when the subculture, likes and dislikes of a congregation has become so narrow and distinctive that it immediately says to anyone not already on the inside "you are not of us"? Not spiritually, but socially?

You can be as welcoming and friendly as you like, but at the same time be saying "I do hope you like Spring Fayres, beetle drives and brass band concerts, because otherwise you're really going to struggle to fit in!"

*or a choir of four old ladies and one old bloke quavering their way through a squared out version of "Lord I lift your name on high" to half speed organ acoompaniament; don't tell me you don't know exactly what I mean!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It's very important (speaking from experience) to have a strong base from which to be sent out. If the base is neglected, everyone spends all their time trying to shore it up and doesn't have the strength or time to look outwards.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It's very important (speaking from experience) to have a strong base from which to be sent out. If the base is neglected, everyone spends all their time trying to shore it up and doesn't have the strength or time to look outwards.

I think you need to unpack that big time, because I think I know what you're driving at but I haven't really clue what it means in the real world.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Well an example would be family or marriage, when someone doesn't have any energy to be useful outside the home because they are too busy trying to deal with all the problems inside it. I'm sure you can think of other examples. If you think of the existing church members as a family, they need to feel secure in their own relationships and worth if they are to have the energy and interest in going out to introduce themselves to others.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

What does that mean in day to day real terms? I'm really struggling to bridge the gap from abstract to concrete here.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It's very important (speaking from experience) to have a strong base from which to be sent out. If the base is neglected, everyone spends all their time trying to shore it up and doesn't have the strength or time to look outwards.
I think you need to unpack that big time, because I think I know what you're driving at but I haven't really clue what it means in the real world.

I'm a complete paradox junky, but isn't it essential to do both? Don't we have to maintain a strong community of faith, both to recharge "missioners", to maintain the health and strength of their mission, and to give those "missioned" something which feels worth joining? Don't we need to reach out from that community into the wider world, because the whole of creation belongs to God? Is this not also essential to the health of the body of the church as well? How do we tell whether we're getting the balance right?

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the big question here is who is doing the sending for those "sent on mission" in the missional church.

If you ask that question of missional church enthusiasts, in my experience they will look at you as though you're brain-damaged and say "well, Jesus of course!"

But what it can often boil down to is that those in a missional church are expected to allow themselves to be "sent" on whatever the church leadership decides is the mission. Wittingly or unwittingly, it's a mindset that seeks to have lots of available and willing volunteers for the local church's programmes, which are conflated with the Mission of the Church™. This state of affairs has not been helped by corporate culture and its "mission statements" leaching into church culture.

Despite leading a church myself, in my darker moments I wonder whether the whole contemporary church exercise isn't just a huge misunderstanding. Jesus sends his disciples on a mission. The church is simply what happens when they get together along the way. We've managed to make it a lot more complicated than that.

I think that being missional is realising that we have arrived rather than being sent. We find ourselves in a field of family, friends community, work and beyond. It is about working out how to cultivate where we already are. Each of us bring skills as ploughman, craftsman, supervisor, or shepherd to combine with the effective running of the farm.

To mix metaphors, we are a complex garden ecosystem rather than a mono crop. The sunny border needs different treatment from the damp shady patch. Different crops are sown, planted out and harvested in their various seasons. We grow together as a community with large trees providing the shelter and support for the forest floor and climbers. The church cannot be expected to thrive by just providing the needs of a hungry crop like cabbages.

The church should be Like a show garden or a model farm; demonstrating heaven on earth. It isn't perfect unfortunately.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
churchgeek and Midge

I would have loved a church reading group, but churches need to be wary of offering too many community leisure activities. British Nonconformist congregations in the Edwardian era suffered from trying to do too many things. They stretched themselves too thin, used resources and manpower that couldn't then be devoted to evangelism. And they didn't usually manage to draw the non-church participants of these activities into the worshipping and spiritual life of the church. This was unsustainable in the long term.

(Interestingly, some of the church sports clubs took on a life of their own, e.g. Aston Villa Football Club, which started out as part of a Methodist church. But I don't think the churches themselves reaped the benefit of this.)

I suspect there a whole diocese that would like their attendance to match even those of Aston Villa! And similar numbers of visiting opposition fans.

This is exactly my concern. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons- simply to get new people through the door. I think we should be more prepared for new congregations or expressions of church to form around our out reach rather than expecting these to come to the church that originated them. The parent church may die out. But how many of the 7 churches of revelation are still with us?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
The church should be Like a show garden or a model farm; demonstrating heaven on earth.

I'm not at all sure that's right. It sounds scarily like a theocracy to me.

Besides, the whole point of the Church on earth is that we are not yet in heaven. At best we are a bride being prepared, and we celebrate the Lord's death "until he comes". The only role of the elders in heaven appears to be casting their crowns before the Lamb. Few elders (or others with similar roles) in churches I know seem to think that's what their remit entails.

I might go for the church being "an attempt at an expression of the values of the Kingdom of God" but even then I tend to think this is a byproduct rather than a raison d'être. I think a lot of this musing about what the church is for is work creation for full-time leaders who are completely out of touch with the life experience of their membership.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
....

But what it can often boil down to is that those in a missional church are expected to allow themselves to be "sent" on whatever the church leadership decides is the mission. Wittingly or unwittingly, it's a mindset that seeks to have lots of available and willing volunteers for the local church's programmes, which are conflated with the Mission of the Church™. This state of affairs has not been helped by corporate culture and its "mission statements" leaching into church culture. ......

From my experience this is an accurate description of what is happening in the CofE. Plans for achieving a 'missional church' are made at diocesan level and individual congregations are expected to fit in with what has been planned for them, which may mean reorganisation of parish boundaries, church mergers and church closures. This can take years and in the meantime congregations are persuaded/manipulated through the necessary processes. Anything which may stand in the way, including perhaps local efforts at genuine mission, is blocked or undermined.

Those in leadership, especially at senior levels, may see certain congregations as having a consumer mindset, which they are critical of, but at the same time they don't want any fundamental change if this might disrupt the long-term plans.

ETA The plan for the 'willing volunteers' may be that they willingly cease to exist.

[ 27. February 2013, 12:04: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anyuta

You quoted from me, but I wasn't being judgmental about people who only attend church once a week. I didn't mention that. (It's being discussed on another thread, actually.)

I actually didn't mean to quote anyone, but was responding to the OP... I just had a momentary brain fart and hit the "quote" button in the wrong post! [Hot and Hormonal]

(yeah, I know.. preview! but that takes whole SECONDS out of my day [Razz]

)

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What does that mean in day to day real terms? I'm really struggling to bridge the gap from abstract to concrete here.

An example for you, Karl.

There's a monastery just down the road from me, where I sometimes go to a Tuesday night eucharist (which, incidentally, ranges from "moderately full" to "packed"; I've never seen the size of the Sunday congregation, but it may well be smaller) there. They have three young interns, men in their early twenties. In a sermon a few weeks ago, one of the brothers related that one of the interns had finally mustered up the courage to say, at dinner in the refectory, that he felt like he should be closer to the front lines of ministry. The brother responded that while they may not be on the front lines, they serve many of the people who are (i.e., clergy and dedicated laity) by providing a space for rest, retreat, and rejuvenation. Specifically, they do this through literally having retreats, as well as by providing a place for people (and in this sense, clergy especially) to experience to wonder and beauty of the eucharist without having to worry about all the details of celebrating it!

For me, it's about active vs. recharging activities. The "active" side is feeding the poor, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner, housing the homeless, organizing the community, fighting for justice, etc. The "recharging" side of things includes regular Sunday worship, weekday communal and individual prayer, the sacraments, fellowship, food, retreats, structured teaching or catechism, hearing or preaching the Word, etc.: all things that, while they seem "frivolous" to secular people who engage in those same "active" things, are vital to our spiritual health as well as sustaining the active side.

I can't see how a congregation that does only one of those would be responding to God's call to us.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

There's a element which I don't think has been brought out here. Pilgrimage is supposed to be a central part of the Christian experience and journey, to me at least. We need fellow pilgrims, and we need people who are on the same journey on whom to practice. This then allows the learning experience to work on both. I think this is lost if the purpose of a congregation is reduced to either "getting them through the door" or "keeping them there". The kingdom (or commonwealth) of God is not a crowd control exercise, and we do not need to kettle people into it.

[ 27. February 2013, 13:37: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

Another element not brought out so far is money. In the CofE, "getting them through the door and keeping them there" is necessary to maintain the buildings, pay for the stipends/salaries/pensions and everything else needed to keep the show on the road. So much effort goes into maintainence that there's little left for genuine mission. We use the language of mission for what is essentially maintaining the status quo.

[ 27. February 2013, 15:24: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What does that mean in day to day real terms? I'm really struggling to bridge the gap from abstract to concrete here.

By building the existing congregation into a team, who know each other well and support each other, I guess. That can happen through fun events and meals and church away days / holidays as much as through the more spiritual ways eg. study and prayer groups.

But the people who are saying there must be both inside growth and outreach are right - the two have to happen simultaneously. I'm just aware, from personally experienced situations, that putting too much emphasis on one without the other leads to a one-sided, weakened church.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0