|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should we lower our expectations of church?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
An ex-minister of mine used to say that we shouldn't join the ideal church if we found it because we'd only ruin it. I've always taken this as a counsel of despair, a discouragement to those who might otherwise seek or create something better.
However, someone here recently asserted that it was a perfectly reasonable comment, that church life can be highly frustrating, and that one response (among others) is to stay in place, but to reduce one's psychological investment in church life by developing other interests. In other words, it's a good idea to lower one's expectations of church.
Is this a good idea? What's the best way of doing it? Does this approach best serve the church or the individual?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Probably best just to lower expectation of life. It going to be lonely, get used to your own company and see if you can make it to its natural end alive.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, someone here recently asserted that it was a perfectly reasonable comment, that church life can be highly frustrating, and that one response (among others) is to stay in place, but to reduce one's psychological investment in church life by developing other interests. In other words, it's a good idea to lower one's expectations of church.
I don't suppose many people (even 'church idealists', so to speak) would advise Christians against having interests beyond the world of church / faith, would they...?
However, I think the questions of what are our expectations of church and whether we should lower them are really interesting. What should we expect from church? Heh, there's another question; what did you mean by 'church'? Local Christian community, all the Christian communities in a particular city / area, the wider denomination, the worldwide body of Christians?
I guess from your question that you mean the local body of Christians, but perhaps you could clarify if you like? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
Interesting question.
I've heard a similar maxim before but never thought of it as despairing before. More just a useful reality check that none of us is perfect so let's not expect better behaviour of others than we can manage ourselves.
But I haven't ever thought of it as a reason to lower expectations of church but your question made me think, why?
All I could come up with is that as a community the church can continue to grow to be better than the sum of its parts. Together we are better than the (sometimes regrettable) behaviour of individual Christians.
Maybe the thing to do is not join an ideal church, join a "very good" one instead. Because even very good can still get better.
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What did you mean by 'church'? Local Christian community, all the Christian communities in a particular city / area, the wider denomination, the worldwide body of Christians?
I guess from your question that you mean the local body of Christians, but perhaps you could clarify if you like?
I did think of writing 'C/church', particularly in relation to my last question. This would have created two emphases: If we lower our expectations how does this impact on our local congregation, and how does it impact on the wider worshipping community of Christians?
Some elderly people I know are determined to be loyal to the denomination they were raised in, even though they feel there's more spiritual energy in another. I'd say that they adjusted their expectations downwards long ago regarding their local church and the denomination, but not the Church universal.
I suppose there are some worshippers who have low expectations of every church, but it doesn't make much difference to them because they only have to tolerate their own!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The church: an imperfect institution (this side of eternity) made up of imperfect people.
If you go into a worshiping community with this in mind, you might be very surprised how God can still use imperfect pots to do marvelous things.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some elderly people I know are determined to be loyal to the denomination they were raised in, even though they feel there's more spiritual energy in another. I'd say that they adjusted their expectations downwards long ago regarding their local church and the denomination, but not the Church universal.
Yeah, that loyalty is pretty common isn't it? Personally, I really don't get it; I mean, I get it that we all have particular preferences / beliefs regarding all sorts of churchy things; music styles, doctrine around communion, length of sermon, whether or not there is a sermon etc.
But churches within denominations might vary on at least some of these points just as much as two nearby churches in different denominations. So that loyalty to a certain denomination somewhat baffles me, I must say.
On SvitlanaV2's initial question, I guess we just have to be realistic. Churches are comprised of people; people are flawed. So we'll get hurt, insulted, snubbed, humiliated, mocked and so on in our church community. But hopefully we'll also be loved, supported, cherished, welcomed, healed, encouraged in our faith etc. And may it be more of the latter than the former!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Bizarre.
Why join a church? I mean, what makes you go to the same building twice?
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
An excessively footloose approach leads to volatility, consumer Christianity and it makes long-term planning difficult. A challenge round here is the student church market, with its one or two favoured local churches at any one time and rapidly changing allegiances. On the one hand you want to cater for the demand if your church is favoured at the time and encourage people to grow spiritually, but can you justify much investment in such a fickle market?
At the other end of the spectrum, many older members would probably fall away the idea of going to church or Jesus entirely, due to church disenchantment, rather than consider moving church.
Neither position is healthy, and a balance needs to be struck.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Personally, I really don't get it; I mean, I get it that we all have particular preferences / beliefs regarding all sorts of churchy things; music styles, doctrine around communion, length of sermon, whether or not there is a sermon etc.
But churches within denominations might vary on at least some of these points just as much as two nearby churches in different denominations. So that loyalty to a certain denomination somewhat baffles me, I must say.
I've heard that evangelicals tend to be more relaxed about switching denominations. People in the MOTR mainstream churches are more loyal. This could be partly because they're older.
My main experience is of the British Methodist Church. It has a few distinctive elements that some members may miss if they worship elsewhere. E.g., the circuit system seems to be particular to that denomination, and leaving the Methodist church means leaving a whole network behind; not just church family, but church extended family.
I think there are also socio-cultural aspects that keep people in a certain church. Ethnic and/or class considerations may be in tension with one's theological or spiritual preferences. And age, of course. Ultimately, although church members may admire some aspects of another church tradition, they may still be uneasy about other aspects.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think to lower my expectations of church would be a challenge.
I think the truth is that some people expect church to be everything for them. that is wrong. It is broken, it serves a purpose, but it should not be all of your life. It should not provide all of your spiritual input, your social input. It should not be your ideal of spirituality, because it is fallible and broken.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My main experience is of the British Methodist Church. It has a few distinctive elements that some members may miss if they worship elsewhere. E.g., the circuit system seems to be particular to that denomination, and leaving the Methodist church means leaving a whole network behind; not just church family, but church extended family.
Oh yes, I understand loyalty based on a theological issue or a social issue such as the extended family thing you mentioned. It's the ephemeral, I'd say illogical loyalty that I don't get; the loyalty based on nothing much more than 'It's my denomination', as if denominations are in competition with one another like sports teams.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting thread.
I suspect there are as many potential responses to this one as there are people. Our own experience is inevitably going to come into it and levels of expectations are going to vary.
On the denominational allegiance thing, I've found that this can happen among younger, more 'vibrant' congregations just as much as among older people in the more staid and traditional denominations ... only it manifests itself in different ways.
Back in my restorationist new-church days in the 1980s and 90s, you would have been expected to seek out a 'related' church ie. one in the same network (we didn't call them denominations but that's effectively what they were) if you moved to a different part of the country. If one wasn't available you would have been expected to join one with a similar flavour or closest to it ...
So, if you were in a Harvestime/Covenant Ministries church and moved to another part of the country where there wasn't one then you'd be encouraged to find something like New Frontiers or Pioneer - or to start your own CMI church ...
You'd have been actively discouraged from joining the local Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists or whatever else - although attitudes to that did change and modify over time.
As for expectations ... I'd be interested in what SvitlanaV2's expectations actually are.
What are you expecting from a church in the first place?
If you've come from a background like mine where you've been involved with groups that thought they were the bee's knees and at the vanguard of what 'God is doing' and the pioneers of imminent world-wide revival then an adjustment of expectations downwards seems almost inevitable ...
From a starting point in MoR mainstream Methodism, though, the expectation level must surely be different and I'd be interested as to where you 'set the bar' in terms of expectations being exceeded, fulfilled or disappointed.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back in my restorationist new-church days in the 1980s and 90s, you would have been expected to seek out a 'related' church ie. one in the same network (we didn't call them denominations but that's effectively what they were) if you moved to a different part of the country. If one wasn't available you would have been expected to join one with a similar flavour or closest to it ...
I'm sure you're right Mr G and, like with loyalty to what one might call traditional denominations, I don't get it. Sure, seek out a church that does things the way you think is best / right, but sticking to your specific network / denom? It just doesn't feel necessary to me, unless one believes one's own denom is so much more correct than all the others!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be honest, I'm not sure positions like the one I've described are always 'thought through' in a rational way ... they tend to be knee-jerk reactions that somehow stick.
If you'd come around and interviewed us at the time, I'm sure we'd have all told you that we didn't believe that ours was the only thing available nor the greatest and best ... at least, not all of us would.
But the way we acted would have implied differently.
It's a tendency I can understand to a certain extent from RCs and Orthodox as it fits with their ecclesiology, but like you, I'm rather non-plussed when I find this tendency on a micro-level among certain forms of Protestant.
I once heard of someone who used to drive from Driffield in East Yorkshire over to Pudsey between Leeds and Bradford every Sunday because a tiny Pentecostal church there had the same flavour/roots as the one she'd been attending nearer home.
When the Driffield one moved in a slightly different direction she decamped to the nearest that happened to have the original flavour - and that happened to be over the other side of the county.
Similarly, I heard of someone who travelled from Northallerton down to Morley to the south of Leeds every Sunday because she wanted to go to a Church of The Nazarene - even though I'm sure she could have found somewhere nearer to home which might not have had the same label but been conducive.
I can understand the Orthodox - and the RCs in rural areas - travelling considerable distances for church as they don't have quite the same level of opportunities here in the UK. But some of them seem fixated on going where best suits them rather than something closer to hand.
I've heard of people driving past Orthodox churches of different jurisdictions to get to one with their own particular jurisdictional flavour.
So it's not just a Protestant thing ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, if you were in a Harvestime/Covenant Ministries church and moved to another part of the country where there wasn't one then you'd be encouraged to find something like New Frontiers or Pioneer ...
Until their respective apostles (or should I say "popes"?) fell out with each other and broke off contact, that is ...
quote:
You'd have been actively discouraged from joining the local Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists or whatever else.
Definitely; they were dead and God's Spirit had left them. We know that's true, because Arthur Wallis says so.
[ 01. November 2013, 11:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
I've heard of folk who travel a long way to church, and I can understand that some people want to go where they feel most comfortable and understood. If they have the means to travel then why not? There's the opposite argument that people should be supportive of their local church, but that's not very helpful if you belong to a small but distinctive denomination or prefer a theological emphasis that's not well-represented in your area or town.
Moreover, looking at it from the other side, do the clergy really want people in their congregations whose bodies are present but whose hearts and minds are elsehwere? I suppose it depends on the expectations that the clergy have of the laity.
As for my own expectations, I'm not sure what they are. Neither am I sure that I want to present my vague feelings for public scrutiny. But maybe there are general principles that can be applied all sorts of situations, not simply mine (or yours).
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I respect that, SvitlanaV2. I'm not asking you to bear your soul necessarily.
I'm happy to stick with general principles as far as possible.
On the issue that Jammy Dodger raised about 'good' churches - surely these are in the eye of the beholder?
My wife sometimes sings in a rural medieval parish church north of here in exchange for practicing with their choir on Friday evenings.
Some people travel a fair way to be part of the choir there.
I know other people there who travel from there down to our local parish church here because they prefer the style and the youth/kids work (even though there are moves afoot back in their original parish to lay these things on and which are proving quite successful).
So what is seen as 'good' is going to vary in each instance. The people who like the choir wouldn't be seen dead in our parish church by and large ...
@Baptist Trainfan ... yes, I lived through several 'apostolic' fallings-out and none of them were pretty ...
On the whole, there was some kind of unwritten order of preference.
If you were involved with Covenant Ministries, say, as I was, then your next best options, as it were would probably have been ranked in the following order:
- Tony Morton's group in Southampton (for a while)
- New Frontiers
- Barney Coombes and Basingstoke
- Pioneer
- Antioch ministries (Derek Brown)
- Ichthus
And if they weren't available then it might have to be ...
- Pentecostal (with some of the Grapevine and 'newer' end of the AoG being admired)
- Baptist
- If you really, really had to ... Anglican, Methodist etc.
Mind you, the sequence would have varied at different times with fallings-out and so-on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Oh, yes, and the Vineyard would have been added to the list from the late '80s onwards ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the issue that Jammy Dodger raised about 'good' churches - surely these are in the eye of the beholder?
Agreed a lot of the things that might attract you to a particular congregation are "in the eye of the beholder" - say worship style (also agree with what you and South Coast Kevin were saying about denominational labels not being the important criteria).
But I guess I am wondering whether there are some underlying principles or values that would mark a church out as "good" - and I would suggest one of those qualities is community (regardless of worship form or style) - is the church a good community to be a part of and is it having a positive influence on the community around it*. Again - doesn't mean it's perfect but people are being loved and cared for.
*And does that at least mean you need a good core of people who live locally not just a church full of those commuting some distance?
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I suppose much depends on whether you are attending at a time when you are strong, or weak. If at a strong time of your life, you may be able to take part in a church set-up which is far from ideal, being one of the movers and shakers helping it to become a success in the future. However, if you are going through a time of difficulty or crisis, it may be more important that you attend a church which can really help you and give you strength.
I've seen people join my church at such a time - they find it helpful while they sort themselves out, but then feel strong enough to return to their more demanding role in their main church.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
An excessively footloose approach leads to volatility, consumer Christianity (.. yada yada yada ..). A challenge round here is the student church market (.. yada yada yada ..) but can you justify much investment in such a fickle market?
You can't say consumer attitude is bad, and then refer to people in consumer terms.
[ 01. November 2013, 22:06: Message edited by: wishandaprayer ]
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
ISTM that the best church is the one in which we feel loved and welcome by the people and by God.
The trouble is, we're not always warm and welcoming ourselves, or ready to worship God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I suppose much depends on whether you are attending at a time when you are strong, or weak. If at a strong time of your life, you may be able to take part in a church set-up which is far from ideal, being one of the movers and shakers helping it to become a success in the future. However, if you are going through a time of difficulty or crisis, it may be more important that you attend a church which can really help you and give you strength.
I've seen people join my church at such a time - they find it helpful while they sort themselves out, but then feel strong enough to return to their more demanding role in their main church.
I relate to this. Our needs and expectations of church don't remain constant, and not all churches expect the same of us. I recently told a local vicar that I was attending a particular church because I was grateful that little was expected of me there, but that a time would come when I'd be able to offer more to - and by implication expect more from - a different church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Yes.
The latest edition of the Anglican Journal arrived today, with the usual provincial supplement. Bible drivel, political posturing and attempts to inspire do not comfort when more pews seat less bums every year. We're left without the traditional church, and casting vainly on what we must do to keep up with the times and adapt. The church doesn't lead. It follows.
I don't know what church should look like, but I suspect it'll be sans buildings, probably clergy who have lives and jobs outside of it, and probably something electronical.
?? Is Ship of Fools some kind of church ??
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Hi Svitlana -
I'm a Methodist. My kids go to an RC primary school. Last night they were at a school youth club event followed by a 'service of lights' at the church - a way of avoiding trick-or-treat, I guess. So I went to the service to join them, and the experience is relevant to the ideas in this thread on denominational allegiance and 'what we look for'.
The priest is a lovely, lovely man, and I respect him greatly. The youth club leaders are young-ish, committed to tough work in a tough area and along with a good few of the teachers (some of whom were present) seem full of warmth, and, dare I say it, The Spirit.
I can't honestly say things like that about my own church, which I struggle with greatly, and which often feels like a disfunctional social club. I'm probably burned-out there.
But the service last night was, for me, super-odd! 5 decades of the rosary, with kids! Lots of silence, ditto! Candles! Wierd hymns! (OK, so not so different to John Bell stuff...but new to me, from the 'other side', you know...and no-one puts any grunt into their singing!). Responsive recitations that I don't know! (Not just the Hail Mary, which my kids delight in me stumbling around, and not just the 'for thi...' moment in the Lord's Prayer by which prods light themselves up in flashing neon.)
So 'spiritually' something says 'Join your kids! Deal with the strangeness! Forget your suspicion of Marian devotion!'. But something else says, more strongly at the moment, 'no, what about Horatius Bonar? 'Fulda'? 'Being in love with a (projected?) vision of 18th C. charismatic/evangelical/social-action fusion, which was perhaps in its last-gasp even as you were yourself a child?'
Tough, innit.
M.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back in my restorationist new-church days in the 1980s and 90s, you would have been expected to seek out a 'related' church ie. one in the same network (we didn't call them denominations but that's effectively what they were) if you moved to a different part of the country. If one wasn't available you would have been expected to join one with a similar flavour or closest to it ...
I'm sure you're right Mr G and, like with loyalty to what one might call traditional denominations, I don't get it. Sure, seek out a church that does things the way you think is best / right, but sticking to your specific network / denom? It just doesn't feel necessary to me, unless one believes one's own denom is so much more correct than all the others!
It depends on how unique the theology of your own denomination is(or in the CoE, your churchmanship). It'd be pretty hard to find a non-RC sung Eucharist outside of the CoE, for example, or a Lady Chapel in a non-Anglican Protestant church. One's Eucharistic theology in particular can really force you to stay in one particular denomination.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
From a local church perspective (as opposed to a global Church one!), this has been an issue since I moved to where I live now. My town's Anglican churches basically vary from nosebleed-high to snakebelly-low, with not very much in-between. Not much choice for MOTR Anglicans here! Most Anglican churches are also on the conservative side, at either end of the candle (I am in one of the small cluster of AffCath churches). However because my church has an older congregation (albeit truly lovely), I have started to go to the open evangelical Anglican church's evening service and 18-30 homegroup/social activities in addition to my AffCath sung Eucharist on a Sunday morning, because I do need church friends of my own age. I'd bet a lot of people in areas with not a great deal of choice in churches go to more than one church to fill their needs.
Re other denominations, it has been something I've considered in the light of certain Dead Horses, but no other denomination (in England anyway) matches my theology like the CoE. Weekly Eucharist outside of the RC and Orthodox churches, for example, is going to be pretty hard to find in a non-CoE church.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with so much of this, what Jammy Dodger and SvitlanaV2 and Chorister have said and also elements from what Mark in Manchester and Jade Constable have found.
Speaking for myself, I s'pose my expectations of church are at the lowest they have ever been. That said, I arguably had too high expectations in the first place so this may be correcting an inbalance.
But as Chorister and SvitlanaV2 have said, a lot depends on where we ourselves are 'at' in whatever phase or season in life we're going through.
Looking back, I'd say that a full-on, very strong community aspect suited me in my student/post-student single days.
Gradually, though, as I took on more responsibilities it became less attractive. The last thing I wanted when I was struggling with complex issues at work was full-on involvement with churchy things.
The community thing was also very applicable early in my marriage and when the kids were young - particularly as we lived some distance from our wider families. But as the kids got older I was wary of exposing them to some of the aspects we were finding increasingly difficult in a full-on charismatic evangelical setting.
Now, in my 50s and self-employed, I probably attend church less than I've ever done since my evangelical conversion aged 19.
I will accompany my wife to the 9am service every three weeks or so when she's playing the organ. I will lead the intercessions at the 9am service once every six weeks or so.
In between, I hardly ever attend and I certainly find every reason not to go to the lively 11am service. I'm not opposed to 'lively' per se, but it sets my teeth on edge where we are.
Then, on high days and holidays, I will accompany my wife when she sings at a medieval parish church to the north of here - festivals like Candlemass and Advent etc.
I no longer attend house-groups - and have not done so for about four or five years - I steer well clear of the all-day prayer things they hold every now and then and rarely attend the socials - I even missed the Christian Aid Quiz this year.
On occasion I will visit other churches and during Lent I will run a group for Churches Together. I'll also get involved with some church-based activities in an artsy way through some of the creative writing groups and activities I'm involved with.
I no longer expect everyone at church to be my big buddy. I now have more friends outside of my own church or in other churches - across a broad spectrum for various Free Churches to RC and Orthodox.
I edit the parish magazine once a month and will help out with bits and pieces at other times.
But that's the limit of it.
Whether this is good, bad or indifferent I have no idea. My spiritual mainstay is my often erratic rhythm of daily prayer and Bible reading - based on the lectionary, and a session with my spiritual director (a wise Anglo-Catholic priest) every six weeks or so.
We've discussed the possibility of my finding some kind of extra-parochial, extra-churchy group such as the lay Franciscans or one of these neo-monastic groups you can affiliate to ... in order to provide the kind of spiritual sustenance that I don't find on my own doorstep.
With the best will in the world I find my parish church very hard to take and I don't feel particularly drawn to any of the other churches in town - although I do visit the other Anglican parish (liberal catholic) now and again.
So, low expectations of church. But continuing involvement in terms of long-suffering attendance, some positive ecumenical Lent events and some arty events hosted in one or other of the churches when the opportunity arises.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
Haven't got much to add just having read your post Gameliel just wanted to acknowledge it in some way - thanks for sharing your experiences. I am now seriously thankful for the church situation I am in at the moment - feeling very, very fortunate.
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squirrel
Shipmate
# 3040
|
Posted
I've been let down by every church I've ever joined, and there were quite a few. So, yes, I've lowered my expectations.
My parents were pretty serious RCs, but they nevertheless saw the church as a place to attend Mass, and have certain rituals like baptisms and funerals. They warned me against getting too involved in other goings-on, citing the hypocritical behavior of many of the people most involved in the parish. My grandmother, a deeply religious woman, described them as "eating the lace off of the altar."
Later in life I decided to forget my family's advice and try and get more out of church- friends, a place to volunteer, etc. Now I'm starting to think Grandma was right.
[ 02. November 2013, 21:59: Message edited by: Squirrel ]
--------------------
"The moral is to the physical as three is to one."
- Napoleon
"Five to one."
- George S. Patton
Posts: 1014 | From: Gotham City - Brain of the Great Satan | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's different strokes for different folks, Jammy Dodger. If you're happy in the church you're in, then great.
I've had times where I've been very happy in church but much as I have quite a 'high' ecclesiology in some respects and appreciate the importance of it, I no longer see church as a 'one-stop shop' for everything one might possibly need ... which is how some evangelicals seem to regard it.
Nor am I intending any criticism of the people at our parish. What irritates me clearly doesn't irritate them.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd also say that I'd be a difficult dude to please. Not simply because I'm an awkward so-and-so - as often evidenced on these boards - but because those of us who've been around the block a few times and seen/sampled different styles and theological positions often find it hard then to settle anywhere.
It goes with the territory.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
I have been pondering the title question of this thread for the last few days and finally I have an apparent window of internet connectivity.... (don't hold your breath!)
I think for me the answer has to be yes and no at one and the same time: on previous threads I've given the history of my multifaceted church background so I won't repeat it but it seems to me that there are certain things we shouldn't lower our expectations about: e.g. legal issues like commitment to safeguarding and integrity in finance but in all else to do with church be positive yet realistic. I completely agree with others that people need different things during different seasons of life and likewise have different things to offer during those seasons sometimes only being able (as the psalmist said) to offer "a broken spirit as a sacrifice".
If I've leaned nothing else I have learned to give whatever I can as part of a worshiping community and to look to God within that community rather than pinning all my hopes on the people.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd also say that I'd be a difficult dude to please. Not simply because I'm an awkward so-and-so - as often evidenced on these boards - but because those of us who've been around the block a few times and seen/sampled different styles and theological positions often find it hard then to settle anywhere.
It goes with the territory.
Likewise. I'm a Minister, so that doesn't give me the choice ... but, if I wasn't, I don't know which church locally would suit me 100%.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that recognising that is part of the solution, Baptist Trainfan. It helps us to manage our lack of expectation as it were ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
More seriously, it does help us to be realistic, which isn't a counsel of despair at all.
Re-reading my missive about my current position and Jammy Dodger's response, I found myself thinking, 'Heck, Jammy Dodger's feeling sorry for me ... and there's no need ...'
Why? Because things are as they are and we all have to compromise or put up with things to some extent or other. Even if we were in a church which completely suited us 100% down to the ground, that would be the case.
I don't know where this expectation comes from that everything has to be fine and dandy all the time. Life's not like that, relationships are not like that, church is not like that ...
Let's get over it already.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Re-reading my missive about my current position and Jammy Dodger's response, I found myself thinking, 'Heck, Jammy Dodger's feeling sorry for me ... and there's no need ...'
Phew! That's a relief!
I'm still wondering about this idea of what "good" looks like (sorry if this is sounding like a broken record) but whilst I totally agree that we shouldn't have expectations around everything being "fine and dandy" and sailing through church life without a bump or a scratch (which is totally unrealistic we're all human) but even if things are not ideal/perfect/great even - are they good - are we better people by being part of that community?
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It sounds as though some denominations make it fairly easy for people to paddle at the shore of church life without getting very deep.
However, the Methodist Church in my experience is desperate for well-educated and able-bodied workers to take up posts in local churches. This must be partly because Methodism has a higher age profile than almost all the other denominations. Whatever the reason is, it's not easy for anyone who fits the profile to get away with just turning up to services for a long period of time.
My experience is instructive. I became a church steward - and my colleague was roped into the job after barely a year at the church; I was asked to consider being a worship leader; every now and then I was encouraged to consider becoming a local preacher. Most of the other people who could have done the jobs had already done them for years in their younger years and needed a rest. There was a shortage of pastoral visitors, most of whom were themselves elderly people. The Sunday School was desperate for people to put themselves forward for training, rather than simply 'helping' the main leader..... It's not surprising that our church closed, you may say, but most Methodist churches seem to face similar problems to a greater or lesser extent.
In such situations there's little benefit to lowering your expectations, because you'll still be expected to give of yourself if you have the ability. But there's a limit to how much you can honestly give the church if you're not expecting to get much out of it.
[ 03. November 2013, 18:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Jammy Dodger - yes, I think that's true. I'd say I'd learned a lot and was probably a 'better person' as a result of the various church experiences I've been through.
Although, there's no way of knowing if things had turned out differently and I'd not become involved with the churches I've been involved with but became involved with some other form or expression instead ...
@SvitlanaV2 ... I'm not sure that many denominations allow people to simply paddle in the waters of church life ... perhaps apart from some of the more sacramental traditions where people may simply dip in and out. Some RC churches seem reminiscent of eucharistic filling-stations to me ... people drop in and top-up and off they go again ...
But I'm sure you'll find people doing all manner of things behind the scenes, running things and keeping the show on the road the same as there is elsewhere.
In my own case, I'm guarding my level of involvement jealously. There are constant prods and demands at our parish church for people to do this, that and the other. It's beginning to take over the entire waking lives of some people there.
It seems to me that there is desperation all round ... and that this very desperation is counter-productive because it drives people away.
What you've raised here, though, is an interesting slant on the 'expectations' thing. You seem to be expressing 'expectations' in terms of the expectation of level of involvement.
In my own case, I manage my level of involvement. I refuse to go to home-groups and to New Wine Men's Days and to New Wine itself and to anything else that I know would set my teeth on edge. The vicar and his rather pushy wife have both backed off even trying to suggest these things.
What I do, though, is to edit the church magazine once a month - it takes me about 4 hours, usually on a Saturday - and lead prayers every 4, 5 or 6 weeks ... depending on the rota. My wife plays the organ at the 9am service every 3rd week.
I could get more involved but I don't want to. I've got other things to do and it would only annoy me going to home-groups where I'd listen to stuff I've been moving away from for the last 20-odd years.
I'll post leaflets through doors for them every now and again - Easter and Christmas - and sometimes give lifts to old biddies and so on.
But, as is obvious, my main focus lies elsewhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It seems to me that there is desperation all round ... and that this very desperation is counter-productive because it drives people away. What you've raised here, though, is an interesting slant on the 'expectations' thing. You seem to be expressing 'expectations' in terms of the expectation of level of involvement.
It is an interesting point - most churches I guess (even those with paid workers) are heavily dependent on volunteers for large swathes of their activities hence the desperation. It gets us into the issues in two other threads ongoing at the moment - the theology of work one (which raised issues around 'using' people) and the faith in action one (as some churches might expect to see "faith in action" in terms of involvement in church-led activities)
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
If you can get away with not doing something because you know it'll be done by someone else, that's fair enough. But if there's little sign that anyone else is available or interested, that's a problem for the life of the church. Some people may feel they have to commit themselves at that point, even if they'd rather be doing something else. Not ideal, but as everyone's said, church life isn't ideal. (Though if the vicar has several tolerable options rather than one great but reluctant option, that's probably closer to being ideal!)
However, I wasn't claiming that church life has to match up to an ideal. A church might be flawed and helpful for you or flawed and not helpful for you. It might be 'perfect' for someone else, but it might drive you crazy. I think it makes a lot of sense to join a church that's perfect (or very suitable) for you - if you can find it.
OTOH, in some cultures it's accepted that not every church/denomination can serve the same social and spiritual purpose, and joint or multiple church allegiances are fairly common. It seems to have fallen out of fashion in the UK, but maybe it's coming back again.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I'm still wondering about this idea of what "good" looks like (sorry if this is sounding like a broken record) but whilst I totally agree that we shouldn't have expectations around everything being "fine and dandy" and sailing through church life without a bump or a scratch (which is totally unrealistic we're all human) but even if things are not ideal/perfect/great even - are they good - are we better people by being part of that community?
I have to believe there's something good to be gained from being part of any church community, even if it's only for one service. But for me at the moment, the question is whether the gains that are reaped on close contact are commensurate with the effort that you usually have to put in if you become part of that group.
This does sound rather mercenary, I admit. We believe it's better to give than to receive. But don't we have to receive something in order to be truly fruitful? You've made reference to the 'Theology of work' thread, and the concern that some people are being 'used'. To an extent, I do feel that I was used at my last church. What I gave to the church took priority over what I received. Even the minister admitted that church stewards are always on duty and can never really relax enough to be be properly fed during worship. There weren't enough stewards, so things just had to be this way. That was the system. But I don't think I could cope with that sort of situation again! I'd expect greater spiritual returns, that's for sure.
Maybe the great army of church volunteers should just go on strike. Subvert the system from within! Why should 20% of the people do 80% of the work - and then be told that they're too obsessed with churchy things?? I'd rather just participate in my small group fellowship and take the minutes for ecumenical meetings. At least my involvement there is valued.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
My church's (IMO) rather radical solution to the problem with a minority of people doing most of the work, is to have a rota system for pretty much everything. Some of the rotas are voluntary but for (a) setting up the hall we use on Sundays, (b) planning and leading part of the Sunday service, and (c) serving drinks, each home group takes a turn. If you're in a home group then you'll be encouraged to help out when your group's turn comes up.
It's not perfect but I think it's a heck of a lot better than having an entirely voluntary sign-up system. Key for me is that it creates an ethos of everyone having something to offer and being expected to chip in. It's not just about going along to the service to be 'fed' by others.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back in my restorationist new-church days in the 1980s and 90s, you would have been expected to seek out a 'related' church ie. one in the same network (we didn't call them denominations but that's effectively what they were) if you moved to a different part of the country. If one wasn't available you would have been expected to join one with a similar flavour or closest to it ...
In part this was merely a development of an earlier train of thought which saw all standard denominations as nominal and therefore hardly Christian in some way, and so one had to find a Pentecostal church nearby etc.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
Some of the people I know who have been burnt out/ hurt by membership of some churches are those who were part of churches (mainly outside historical denominations but not exclusively so)with a very visionary leadership eager to start numerous worthwhile projects but unable to provide adequate pastoral care so church members unwittingly became units to be consumed in the cause.
I clearly remember being in a planning meeting discussing community projects where I had to fight for almost an hour to get the others present to understand what I was saying and to agree not to start another project at that point as people were showing clear signs of strain.....It was hard work as the group was made up of lovely people who were all visionary and could not initially see the danger.
People who have been damaged in such situations (and I'd count myself in part in that group)have to lower their expectations of church or they risk real danger. My question both then and now is do churches sometimes need to lower their expectations of their members?!
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Don't get me wrong, SvitlanaV2, I do what I can, when I can. I'm not shirking responsibility ... but it can be tough committing to things that your heart isn't in.
To be honest, I think I would happier at one or other of the other churches but suspect there'd be different problems/points of difference there too.
@SCK - the rota system works well and I think you'll find that many churches operate similar systems - and not just Vineyard or charismatic/evangelical ones.
I think Mrs Beaky has nailed the issue in terms of the livelier, more 'visionary' end in that what we're finding is an equal and opposite problem at both ends of the spectrum.
In SvitlanaV2's case, a declining and eventually closing church in a mainstream denomination that is, arguably, nearing the end of its natural life ... it was a case of all-hands on deck to keep the thing afloat ... until eventually it was clear that it was a case of abandoning ship ...
This could lead to burn-out, frustration and the sense that people were being 'used'.
At the lively, active, 'visionary' end of things we find people being drawing into increasingly demanding levels of church activity to the extent that they:
- Often lose contact with people outside of church, the very people they are meant to be 'evangelising'.
- Lose contact with the wider society and what's going on and worthwhile causes/activities going on in their own community that could benefit from Christian involvement and support.
- Eventually burn-out, become disillusioned or cynical.
There must be a middle-way between both poles.
For my part, I now find the more 'visionary' evangelical charismatic style churches rather claustrophobic. They'll take over your every waking hour given half the chance.
Ok, time was, back around the turn of the 19th/20th century when churches and chapels were hubs of the community and involved with all manner of social activities that people were drawn to because there wasn't anything else apart from the pub and the Music Hall.
They had sports clubs, magic-lantern slide shows, rail and charabanc outings, Christian Endeavour groups and so on and so forth. The Brownies and Guides and so on attached to churches and chapels today came out of all of that.
But things have changed. I do see a role for churches in providing support for lonely people, help with mums and tots, Job Clubs, visiting the elderly, various arty activities - many church buildings make excellent venues for exhibitions, concerts and so on.
And yes, all of this needs people-power.
I'm not knocking church involvement nor the 20% of people who seem to do 80% of the work - the same principle applies elsewhere in the voluntary sector - but it's a case of cutting our cloth accordingly.
Our vicar and his wife seem to think that because their entire waking lives revolve around church (she's given up a professional job to help in the parish) then everybody else's should do the same.
I'd suggest that it's their level of expectation that should change, not mine.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Chris Stiles - yes, but this tendency wasn't restricted to Pentecostalism. It was apparent among the Brethren too.
The restorationist outfit I was involved with was effectively a Pentecostal/Brethren fusion with some Baptist input and influence.
It could become overwhelming, to the extent that we had very few contacts/friends outside of church. That said, these groups were successful for a time in attracting new converts although this was always a smaller trickle than was achieved through transfer-growth from elsewhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There must be a middle-way between both poles.
<snip>
But things have changed. I do see a role for churches in providing support for lonely people, help with mums and tots, Job Clubs, visiting the elderly, various arty activities - many church buildings make excellent venues for exhibitions, concerts and so on.
And yes, all of this needs people-power.
I'm not knocking church involvement nor the 20% of people who seem to do 80% of the work - the same principle applies elsewhere in the voluntary sector - but it's a case of cutting our cloth accordingly.
Our vicar and his wife seem to think that because their entire waking lives revolve around church (she's given up a professional job to help in the parish) then everybody else's should do the same.
I'd suggest that it's their level of expectation that should change, not mine.
I wonder where God comes into all this, as opposed to our ideas of what 'church' should be?
Is there truth in 'unless the Lord builds the house, the weary labourers toil in vain'? Ps 127:1 (Solomon?)
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, someone here recently asserted that it was a perfectly reasonable comment, that church life can be highly frustrating, and that one response (among others) is to stay in place, but to reduce one's psychological investment in church life by developing other interests. In other words, it's a good idea to lower one's expectations of church.
Is this a good idea? What's the best way of doing it? Does this approach best serve the church or the individual?
I go to church to worship God.
The people that worship with me are a bonus. I love and accept them as best I can and they me.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer speaks to this exact point very, very well.
His main idea is that visionary dreaming of the perfect reality is something God hates.
quote:
God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all other sin the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
