Ship of Fools: Should we lower our expectations of church?

Thread: Should we lower our expectations of 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=026425

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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?

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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]

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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!

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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!

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Bizarre.

Why join a church? I mean, what makes you go to the same building twice?

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

Explain last post please.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

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

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Oh, yes, and the Vineyard would have been added to the list from the late '80s onwards ...

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

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?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

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 ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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 ??

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

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.

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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%.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

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.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

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! [Biased]

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?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@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.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

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)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

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?!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@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.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

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?)

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Raptor Eye ... well, yes ...

I s'pose we all hope and trust that the Lord works in and through our efforts, flawed or incomplete and inconsistent although they undoubtedly will be.

My spiritual-director, an Anglo-Catholic from an originally evangelical background, once observed to me that during his ministry those times he's tried hardest have been the least fruitful ...

Whereas, when he's simply concentrated on feeding his flock, serving the eucharist, caring for the souls under his care ... then people have turned up and started attending church, new people have moved to the area and come alongside to help ... etc.

I don't doubt the motivation and well-meaning intentions of our vicar and his wife but it's all a bit too 'driven' for me ...

I worry that they will burn themselves and other people out in the fullness of time ... although, too be fair, they are good at delegating and at taking regular breaks - half-time, summer hols etc.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Raptor Eye ... well, yes ...

I s'pose we all hope and trust that the Lord works in and through our efforts, flawed or incomplete and inconsistent although they undoubtedly will be.

My spiritual-director, an Anglo-Catholic from an originally evangelical background, once observed to me that during his ministry those times he's tried hardest have been the least fruitful ...

Whereas, when he's simply concentrated on feeding his flock, serving the eucharist, caring for the souls under his care ... then people have turned up and started attending church, new people have moved to the area and come alongside to help ... etc.

I don't doubt the motivation and well-meaning intentions of our vicar and his wife but it's all a bit too 'driven' for me ...

I worry that they will burn themselves and other people out in the fullness of time ... although, too be fair, they are good at delegating and at taking regular breaks - half-time, summer hols etc.

It does seem as if some are trying to do what they think they should, not allowing the natural death of activities perhaps as it seems to be admitting defeat, and taking little account of the results, ie whether or not they are fruitful in the sense of bringing people ever closer to God.

In fact, as we see above, in some cases they are turning those people who find it difficult to say 'no' off from becoming involved at all, and away from a Church which seems more interested in its own perpetuity than in following Christ's teaching and allowing the guidance of the Holy Spirit to filter through.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, but I still find myself wondering what this means to all practical intents and purposes, Raptor Eye.

'Who can discern his errors?'

It's one thing to claim the guidance of God the Holy Spirit, quite another to know whether we are actually been guided by Him or not.

I don't know about you, but I can't always tell the difference ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

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'.

I once read somewhere that managing church decline takes up a lot of time and effort (for both congregations and denominations). IME that's very true. And it occurs to me that in many cases, being realistic/accepting imperfection/lowering your expectations means managing or tolerating decline in church life. I don't think church leaders offer their congregations enough honesty and support regarding this reality.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It does seem as if some are trying to do what they think they should, not allowing the natural death of activities perhaps as it seems to be admitting defeat, and taking little account of the results, ie whether or not they are fruitful in the sense of bringing people ever closer to God.

In fact, as we see above, in some cases they are turning those people who find it difficult to say 'no' off from becoming involved at all, and away from a Church which seems more interested in its own perpetuity than in following Christ's teaching and allowing the guidance of the Holy Spirit to filter through.

I see your point. Unfortunately, though, churches with very little going on don't necessarily give the impression of being guided by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes they're just churches where ... very little is going on.

There's a school of thought which says that churches are more successful when they have high expectations of their (potential) members, and that keeping members busy binds them more strongly to the church rather than driving them away. I think that's right. But there's busy and there's busy, there's church and there's church. Most people these days have to be inspired by far more than duty. I think churches rely far too much on duty to get people to do things. They're behind the times.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Lots of activity and bluster isn't necessarily a sign of the Holy Spirit's activity either ...

There are economies of scale involved too, of course. It'd obviously be easier to organise a rota that didn't burn people out if you have a congregation of around 200 people and not one of 26.

Yes, sociologically-speaking I can see how a 'high demand' style of church with a high level of expected commitment would indeed involve and get the most of its members.

In my experience of the lively 'new churches', many of them had attracted the busiest, brightest and most committed people from some of the older or more traditional congregations in the area - people who were frustrated and who wanted 'something more'. The pool of talent could be gob-smackingly impressive at times.

Whether this was a good or a bad thing, I don't know ... you pays your money, you makes your choice.

On one level some of the older or more traditional outfits were denuded of some of their most active and creative members. On another level, they were all gathered in one place - however temporarily - where critical-mass and muscle could get things done.

It all depends, of course, on what we want to see achieved and how we measure 'success'.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience of the lively 'new churches', many of them had attracted the busiest, brightest and most committed people from some of the older or more traditional congregations in the area - people who were frustrated and who wanted 'something more'. The pool of talent could be gob-smackingly impressive at times.

I wonder if SvitlanaV2 might be dead right to note that churches with high expectations of their members / participants can be fruitful. Perhaps that's part of the attractiveness of these "lively 'new churches' ".

With the flip-side being that churches where people aren't expected or particularly encouraged to get involved may well find that's exactly what happens; people don't get involved very much and the bulk of the organisational burden falls on a small minority of people.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I once read somewhere that managing church decline takes up a lot of time and effort (for both congregations and denominations). IME that's very true. And it occurs to me that in many cases, being realistic/accepting imperfection/lowering your expectations means managing or tolerating decline in church life. I don't think church leaders offer their congregations enough honesty and support regarding this reality.

Mmm, but it's not always the fault of church leaders. There are many Christians who were brought up with certain models of congregational life and cannot accept that times are now different or that it is not a sin to close something down. So they flog themselves trying to do church "properly".

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I think there are a number of things at work here, and I'm not sure it's possible to neatly separate them into separate strands.

For a start there is the removal of the church building as a 'third place' with the end of any kind of mass attendance of church. It's been partly replaced by church itself as a third place.

There is also the promotion of the church as a source of social provision - for a number of motives, not all of them completely benign.

Finally, there is managerialism in church leadership more generally; with it's associated re-casting of church as something that needs to be seeker driven, and which has to constantly grow to be relevant.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience of the lively 'new churches', many of them had attracted the busiest, brightest and most committed people from some of the older or more traditional congregations in the area - people who were frustrated and who wanted 'something more'. The pool of talent could be gob-smackingly impressive at times.

... Some of the older or more traditional outfits were denuded of some of their most active and creative members.

I appreciate that many of these folk truly felt they could achieve nothing in their "old-church" set-up. But, by leaving, they contributed to older churches' demise - or, at least, to their further failure to move with the times. I suspect that many such churches lost "bright young people" in the 70s and 80s and now have a big gap of late-middle-aged folk to take up the leadership ... we do!

[ 04. November 2013, 15:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience of the lively 'new churches', many of them had attracted the busiest, brightest and most committed people from some of the older or more traditional congregations in the area - people who were frustrated and who wanted 'something more'. The pool of talent could be gob-smackingly impressive at times.

Though this kind of thing often has a fairly short shelf-life. The best outcome is that it grows to the point where it can sustain all the activities it does without burning out any particular set of people and where there are actually invisible boundaries beyond which it doesn't seek to grow (for instance, somewhere like Soul Survivor). Then there are varieties of blow up - from total collapse, to regeneration via vampirism, where a movement sustains itself by recruiting at the same rate it burns out new folk.

There is only so long that a new thing remains 'the new thing', and sooner or later it requires people to faithfully commit themselves to doing the same thing year after year without much thanks.

In this vein, I was challenged recently by a presentation given by an organisation which on the face of it was an unlikely source for christian ideas. They had found that generally people were able to sustainably volunteer for between 2-5 hours a week, if a particular individual did much more than this, they would be approached to find out if something was wrong. It seemed that the Church could learn loads from this approach.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think that is certainly the case, Baptist Trainfan ... less so in cities I think, but in the case of smaller towns and in ribbon-development conurbations like the South Wales Valleys the effects of the 'brightest' and liveliest commuting to larger and more gung-ho churches down in Newport and Cardiff and so on was certainly to undermine things on a local level.

It always struck me how many of those coming in from older denominations would complain about how badly they were treated and so on, without taking account of the devastation their leaving left in their wake ...

I can think of a number of faithful and very understanding Baptist ministers, for instance, who were literally broken-men when the lively crowd upped-sticks and went elsewhere ...

@South Coast Kevin - yes, I think that SvitlanaV2 is right when she observes that those churches which expect a high degree of commitment do 'succeed' and sustain themselves more effectively than those that don't ...

However, it can come at a cost. That's what I'm trying to evaluate here. There's always a down-side, always a shadow. I'm sorry, but there it is ...

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, but I still find myself wondering what this means to all practical intents and purposes, Raptor Eye.

'Who can discern his errors?'

It's one thing to claim the guidance of God the Holy Spirit, quite another to know whether we are actually been guided by Him or not.

I don't know about you, but I can't always tell the difference ...

It takes practice, and I still sometimes try to run ahead, but I can tell the difference in the end by the results.

I have only attended one church in which the words and actions of the minister tallied, a growing church in which I grew spiritually. Although he was a good leader, he didn't focus enough on discernment imv, which meant that others were running ahead, or simply going their own way assuming that they were being led by the Holy Spirit. Their activities either led to blind alleys or led others astray, e.g. with 'healing' services in which people fell over like ninepins but were not actually healed.

In my experience, God does not want people to overdo it, but to be where he wants them to be at the right time and with the right people, so that his work is done and progress is made. Time spent in prayer and worship is as important, if not more so, than activity. Some do more than others, but the wages are the same. It's both a duty and a joy to serve God, even if what we're called to do is not what we would prefer to do.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

When you look back at church history, there have been some appalling instances of churches having very low standards indeed - it is surely a miracle that the church has kept going, but it somehow has. I remember being shocked when I first learnt about absentee vicars, typically the Lord of the Manor's third son, who joined the church because it was expected of them not through any religious conviction. They might turn up to take a service occasionally, or hand all duties over to curates, but enjoyed collecting the tithes in the meantime!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So you're saying that the leading of the Spirit can only rightly be discerned in retrospect, Raptor Eye?

If that's the case, then we are always going to be second-guessing to a greater or lesser extent.

Sure, we can hone our discernment muscles but we're never going to be 100% on the button.

As for the falling over like ninepins and not actually being healed - well, yes ...

That's not a great deal to do with discernment but almost everything to do with suggestibility. Some people are more suggestible. It's easy to make them fall over. I've done it plenty of times in the past. I don't go near anything like that now.

I found that all it took was a bit of practice to induce what looked like a move of the Spirit. Much of this stuff is learned behaviour and the cues can be very subtle.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater but the older I get the less fixated I am with whether I'm where God wants me to be and what's the right time, right people and so on ...

It strikes me that the will of God isn't some kind of razor's edge or type-rope. We could any one of us done other things to what we've ended up doing and would that be any more or any less the 'will of God' or the leading of the Spirit?

I s'pose I go by broad principles these days rather than any specific sense of 'guidance' and so on ... looking for 'words' or for 'confirmation' and all the rest of it as we used to in my more charismatic days.

Sometimes you've just got to get on with things.

And yes, it is a joy and privilege to serve the Lord in whatever capacity and whatever situation we find ourselves in ... but I s'pose I'm getting less 'vatic' and pietistic about the whole thing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, I meant 'tight-rope'. I'm wondering what a 'type-rope' looks like ...

Please don't get me wrong, though, I'm not suggesting that God doesn't lead and guide ... just that I don't tend to see it in such a 'heeby-geeby'- for want of a better term - remarkable coincidences and surprising providences sense in the way I used to.

That's not to say that it can't happen that way at times.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I understand that some churches keep moribund 'Young Wives' Meetings', etc., going for far longer than is necessary. But I've never been part of a church where chopping out a bunch of activities wouldn't have had a detrimental effect. More likely the opposite, IME. Nevertheless, I suppose some churches are strong enough to discontinue certain groups and meetings without impairing their vision or disempowering some of the members.

[ 04. November 2013, 20:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand that some churches keep moribund 'Young Wives' Meetings', etc., going for far longer than is necessary. But I've never been part of a church where chopping out a bunch of activities wouldn't have had a detrimental effect. More likely the opposite, IME. Nevertheless, I suppose some churches are strong enough to discontinue certain groups and meetings without impairing their vision or disempowering some of the members.

The trouble is keeping activities going that are achieving nothing other than draining resources is not sustainable either. I have had experience of one church that has successfully retired old ministries to free up time and resources to put into others - not always easy or without issues but the better path. I guess it just takes courage to bite the bullet.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I see your point. Unfortunately, though, churches with very little going on don't necessarily give the impression of being guided by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes they're just churches where ... very little is going on.

There's a school of thought which says that churches are more successful when they have high expectations of their (potential) members, and that keeping members busy binds them more strongly to the church rather than driving them away. I think that's right. But there's busy and there's busy, there's church and there's church. Most people these days have to be inspired by far more than duty. I think churches rely far too much on duty to get people to do things. They're behind the times.

Isn't duty to God, a desire to serve, inspiration in itself? A prayerful person doesn't necessarily (or usually?) equate to someone who is busy busy busy. Mary and Martha come to mind. Through which are we most likely to see God?

Is it busy-ness that gives us an impression of the Holy Spirit at work? If not, what?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
The trouble is keeping activities going that are achieving nothing other than draining resources is not sustainable either. I have had experience of one church that has successfully retired old ministries to free up time and resources to put into others - not always easy or without issues but the better path. I guess it just takes courage to bite the bullet.

Yes, and people who are "released" from doing one thing won't automatically transfer their energies to something else. They may simply be tired and relieved to be given permission to give up the struggle. Or, in some cases, they "take the hump" over their pet activity being closed down and leave the Church entirely!

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So you're saying that the leading of the Spirit can only rightly be discerned in retrospect, Raptor Eye?
If that's the case, then we are always going to be second-guessing to a greater or lesser extent.
Sure, we can hone our discernment muscles but we're never going to be 100% on the button.
<snip>
I found that all it took was a bit of practice to induce what looked like a move of the Spirit. Much of this stuff is learned behaviour and the cues can be very subtle.

No, I'm not saying that only in retrospect may the leading of the Spirit be discerned. The results come in the here and now more often than not, in a tangible way.

I agree with you that if we do hone our discernment muscles, we may come to know the difference between a moment when the Holy Spirit gives us affirmation whether individually or collectively, perhaps with a deep sense of peace, and those events in which a charismatic leader manipulates emotions with suggestion, or where we imagine our own peace to affirm our own desires.

That is of course only one method God uses to provide affirmation, and the same is not provided to everyone or at each event. As soon as we think we can predict God's input, we can shelve the idea that it is from God. Nor should we be looking for 'signs', but if we're sensitive to the Holy Spirit we will see them when they do come, and notice that things are coming together in extraordinary ways.

quote:

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater but the older I get the less fixated I am with whether I'm where God wants me to be and what's the right time, right people and so on ...

It strikes me that the will of God isn't some kind of razor's edge or tight-rope. We could any one of us done other things to what we've ended up doing and would that be any more or any less the 'will of God' or the leading of the Spirit?

I s'pose I go by broad principles these days rather than any specific sense of 'guidance' and so on ... looking for 'words' or for 'confirmation' and all the rest of it as we used to in my more charismatic days.

Sometimes you've just got to get on with things.

And yes, it is a joy and privilege to serve the Lord in whatever capacity and whatever situation we find ourselves in ... but I s'pose I'm getting less 'vatic' and pietistic about the whole thing.

Please don't get me wrong, though, I'm not suggesting that God doesn't lead and guide ... just that I don't tend to see it in such a 'heeby-geeby'- for want of a better term - remarkable coincidences and surprising providences sense in the way I used to.

That's not to say that it can't happen that way at times.

You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I suggest that it's an easy thing to do if we're not careful when we reject the ethos of one approach to God to take up another. The pilgrimage on the way of Christ isn't divided up into lanes.

I agree that God wants us to do everyday things in our day to day lives, and like Paul the tent-maker we shouldn't expect others to carry us, we must do our share. Administration needs to be done, as does hospitality, visiting, building maintenance, etc. and it's a good thing to use our skills natural and learned in these areas.

But if God calls someone to a specific task, this may mean giving up others, even if the latter came naturally and the former did not. I do think it important to listen, so that we are doing what God wants us to do, and being where God wants us to be, if on that occasion or in that moment God is trying to lead us. If we don't, we start to dry up as our branch of the Church.

If that's pious or 'heeby-jeeby' then there's a company of Biblical names, Church fathers and theologians over the centuries who share in those traits.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes, and no, I must confess that I do find some of your posts rather pious sounding, Raptor Eye, but it may be more a question of tone than content ...

That said, it is easy to run from one extreme to another and the temptation for someone like myself who has probably over-dosed on the vatic and the charismatic in the past to run in the opposite direction and elide any sense of guidance and so on ...

I tend to think that the 'still, small voice' tends to work in and through our natural circumstances though ... that it's not so much a question of strange and extraordinary providences - although these can happen - but of simply getting on with our lives in as godly a way we can.

I'm not writing everything off which comes from the charismatic end of things and I'd suggest that all Christians are essentially 'charismatic' by virtue of our baptism and its actualisation, as it were, or our confession of Christ and our actualisation of that - however we tend to look at it according to whatever tradition we've operated or operate within.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0