|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Criticising Quiet, Respectable Churches?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
'The Magazine of Christian Unrest' often focuses on the failings of various types of evangelicalism, probably because this is the dominant background of many of the community members. But experience and research show that MOTR/liberal congregations (i.e. my 'quiet, respectable churches') in historical denominations have suffered from more debilitating problems. They've retreated from their position of public dominance, and, for the Nonconformists, private allegiance. They've declined more rapidly than the alternatives.
I'm asking whether there's any mileage to be gained from analysing their failings. Are these churches to blame for their fate in any way? Do they benefit from extenuating circumstances that don't apply to other churches? And would a bit more constructive criticism be useful for them, or would it only damage their confidence and their mission further?
(I'm talking particularly about the UK here, but other countries might have interesting examples to offer.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Some of these might be churches in which the congregation cling on to old hymns and language assuming that everyone will appreciate it as much as they do, and wondering why the numbers drop year on year.
The assumption may extend to the idea that children should be seen and not heard, that everyone grew up going to church, and that anyone who wants to try to change things is intent on reducing the content of worship and experience of church to the low level of the masses rather than trying to raise the masses to their high standard. Any mention of God's guidance and will may well be met by raised eyebrows and a readiness to escape from the conversation.
For those churches I think that time will be the greatest factor in changing their minds, but I hope that the church buildings by then won't be derelict and the damage irreversible.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Got to think about social factors too. The combination of post-materialist left-liberalism and free market neo-liberalism has landed us with a fragmented, impatient, soundbite-driven, me-centred, goldfish-attention-span, where's-the-next-kick-coming-from society which is pretty antipathetic to 'quiet, respectable' values.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Raptor Eye quote:
Some of these might be churches in which the congregation cling on to old hymns and language assuming that everyone will appreciate it as much as they do, and wondering why the numbers drop year on year.
The assumption may extend to the idea that children should be seen and not heard, that everyone grew up going to church, and that anyone who wants to try to change things is intent on reducing the content of worship and experience of church to the low level of the masses rather than trying to raise the masses to their high standard. Any mention of God's guidance and will may well be met by raised eyebrows and a readiness to escape from the conversation.
For those churches I think that time will be the greatest factor in changing their minds, but I hope that the church buildings by then won't be derelict and the damage irreversible.
That sounds a little patronising, RE. Would you describe the continuing RSC productions of the bard in the original as 'clinging onto old language'? I suspect not. So why take cheap pot-shots at people who wish to continue using perfectly good - in some cases excellent - music and words in worship?
You then go further to extrapolate that such congregations may not welcome children: IME the opposite is the case, certainly when children are under 5. The best provision for parents of very young children I ever found was at Anglo-Catholic establishments - and our experience of supposedly more up-to-date churches when our twins were small was less than welcoming in more than a couple of cases.
We also experienced a slapdash attitude to services in one parish which meant that services were like a bear-garden: on one classic occasion our 4 year-old twins asked the adults (!) behind us to stop talking during the prayers.
Still ploughing on, you accuse some more traditional congregations of being unprepared or unwilling to discuss 'God's will' and you imply class bias - why, I have no idea. I do know that the most exclusive, unwelcoming, unpleasant congregation I ever encountered, stuffed full of people proclaiming their 'personal' relationship with the Almighty, heavily promoted its evo credentials, the magnificence of their worship group, their Alpha courses, etc, etc. Not only was the congregation restricted to one particular age group and their younger children (30-50 in the main and absolutely no teens) but anyone from areas of the parish with social housing was made to feel very unwelcome.
You'll no doubt be less than happy to know that our traditional, MOR-ish parish with lots of elderly has excellent children's work, a thriving choir, musical repertoire that spans 6 centuries, and the upkeep of our mainly 13th century church is under control with a dedicated trust fund to pay for it - not because we are a rich parish but because the whole village, not just churchgoers, feel and are encouraged to see that the church is theirs and their children's. Yes, the 30-50 age-group is under-represented but we have their children and we make strenuous efforts to ensure that everyone who lives in the parish feels they have a stake in the church community.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Rather than issuing blanket, drive-by comments about "quiet, respectable" churches, how about looking at what actually works or doesn't work? The most "respectable" ACC church in the nearby city also has the largest outreach to stressed inner-city dwellers (and doesn't patronise and evangelise them forcefully). Their services are relatively high up the candle, but it works for them.
The smallest (and dropping) church in the group is dying because the group that stays in power cannot countenance any change from, among other things, the Greatest Hits of 1832, let alone outreach of any form.
And the place that was once "trendy" or vibrant, is now struggling to break out of the chains of 1980's worship.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I sometimes think the worst problem that besets the MOTR churches is a lack of intention. There is a tendency to do things not even because they have always been done but simply because it doesn't occur to do something different. That's not to suggest that any of the services or hymns used should necessarily change (though reflection might lead to changing them), but that they should be used deliberately, with intent. Worship and service done with clear intent speaks to those on the periphery more than habit and lip-service. MOTR churches are also often quite bad and helping people develop their faith. Often we're so relieved to see people coming in the door that we never get around to fostering discipleship, which means that people might be around the church for years, if not decades, and yet not put down roots in the faith. This can mean that the closure of a building or the departure of a minister can lead to them drifting from the church. MOTR churches have got good at not scaring people, but they've often done it by not expecting much of people either (spiritually at least, they certainly expect a lot practically).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Would you describe the continuing RSC productions of the bard in the original as 'clinging onto old language'? I suspect not.
On the other hand when I go to see Shakespeare (not the RSC admittedly) I don't see many young people (unless the plays on the GCSE/A-level syllabus).
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Curious Kitten
Shipmate
# 11953
|
Posted
As someone who cheerfully walked out of the CofE aged 10 when the Con Evo Sunday School leader at the local MOTR church wouldn't let me stay in service; I would say the biggest threat on quiet non assuming churches is the strangle hold on children's worship by ageing Con Evos who are trying change the church through the children.
The running joke in many if those parishes is the Con Evo's kids slope off to AC, RC or orthodox services when given the slightest chance if they remain in church at all.
--------------------
Happiness is not having what we want but wanting what we have.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
On the other hand when I go to see Shakespeare (not the RSC admittedly) I don't see many young people (unless the plays on the GCSE/A-level syllabus).
And do you see many young people at modern theatrical performances? The only time I've seen a provincial theatre audience full of young-ish people has been for a panto featuring some TV or pop music "star". Every other play I have seen (except those specifically aimed at children) has been shown to an audience full of grey heads, with the occasional leavening of families with roughly tween-age children.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Those places are dying because the average person in the pew can't tell you why anybody should attend church other than that's what good people do. They pride themselves on being more inclusive than the fundamentalists or more conservative Roman Catholics. Just don't ask them why anybody would want to be included in what they are doing in the first place because they haven't thought about it. When they do, many stop attending.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Got to think about social factors too. The combination of post-materialist left-liberalism and free market neo-liberalism has landed us with a fragmented, impatient, soundbite-driven, me-centred, goldfish-attention-span, where's-the-next-kick-coming-from society which is pretty antipathetic to 'quiet, respectable' values.
Well, I agree with some of that, but also isn't Christianity associated by many people today with old-fashioned moral prurience? This may be unjust, of course, but I'm not sure what is attractive today about the C of E. I used to attend a central London church which was well liberal, in fact, hippy, not quiet, not respectable, and it was packed. However, this will not play in the suburbs, I guess.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
From the inside of such churches, I would say that there are a number of contributory factors. First of all, by their very nature they eschew the superficial confidence and certainty to be found in most "successful" evangelical churches. Someone looking for answers will probably be drawn to a place that appears to know all the answers, rather than a church that says "Hmm. That's hard and there are no simple answers." Certainty IS attractive, even if it proves in the end to be false.
I think one point needs to be acknowledged. Large evangelical churches are notorious for having back doors almost as open as the front door. Lots of people pass through. The "quiet unassuming" churches tend, in my experience, to have far more stable congregations. Once someone is "in", they will probably stay.
In passing, it is a shame that so many people dropping out of evangelical churches never try another type. Too often, evangelical churches give the impression that theirs is the only type of church worth bothering with, so when people leave, they never consider the MOR church down the road.
I do think that MOR & liberal churches have to do a lot more thinking about evangelism and nurture. It's not enough to simply expect people to turn up and then join in. But too often such churches leave evangelism to the evangelicals, instead of asking "what have we got to offer others? How can we do so in a way that is not alien to our nature?" When MOR churches are doing Alpha courses, you know that they haven't really thought this through.
Liberal/MOR churches CAN have something good to "sell". They need to find ways to do it. And be more open about the good things they already do. The work in the community, issues of justice and peace and so on; these are (or can be) really attractive to an enquirer.
They also need to learn some lessons from evangelicalism about worship that appeals and draws people in. I'm not suggesting that they need a worship group and start singing the latest thing from Hillsongs or whoever. But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
If I actually stopped and thought about it, I could come up with more things. But that's enough for now...
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It would help if they explained the point of going to church and worshipping. To a large extent people seem to be trying to attract converts and attenders by alleging its fun, to different degrees of success.
Church going certainly doesn't obviously follow from the basic outline of the story of Jesus life, or the sort of things Christians are widely thought to be called to do.
[ 12. July 2014, 15:48: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Oscar the Grouch posts: quote:
They also need to learn some lessons from evangelicalism about worship that appeals and draws people in. I'm not suggesting that they need a worship group and start singing the latest thing from Hillsongs or whoever. But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
There is no simple way in. Over the (many) years of my adolescence and adult life, I have heard folks suggesting this. There have been many attempts in my experience, but there is no short cut.
I wonder if the main block (aside from popular representations of religion) is that there are services at all and there is a point to them. If you can persuade people that we need to have or should have, or want to have, church services or see that they are intrigued enough to entertain the idea, then the services themselves can be simple or complicated or whatever. Quaker silence or two hours Byzantine liturgy are both equally bizarre to the outsider. For a non-worshipper, there is no real difference between the two.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.
We've recently admitted children to holy Communion before their confirmation so I did an instructed eucharist which explained what we did and why we did it.
The adults seem to have gained a lot from it to so we're going to make it an annual feature.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Signaller
Shipmate
# 17495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.
I have, but only once. One of the very few sermons that I actually remember, out of the thousands I must have sat through over the years, was preached in a medieval church in north Norfolk more than twenty years ago. The curate took as his text Exodus 12:26 ("What mean ye by this service"), and rather mischievously used this as a hook to explain the meaning of all the elements of the service of 1662 Mattins that was in progress. It taught me more about the CofE and its liturgy than anything I've heard since, but we were only there on holiday and I've never been back.
The congregation was about ten people, though.
Posts: 113 | From: Metroland | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.
I think it's problematic to assume the best 'way in' to Christianity is by attending services. In the old days it was via catechism and I suppose the Alpha Course is a modern way to reproduce this.
I also get the impression that if I ever felt moved to convert to Islam, the imam would not just advise me to turn up to the mosque every Friday.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.
Not CoE/TEC, but I've noticed a trend in some PC(USA) congregations toward worship bulletins on larger paper—typically 11x17/A3—with a "gutter" running either along the fold or on the outside of each page. While the liturgy/order of service is in the main part of each page, the text in the "gutter" alongside explains the "why" of particular elements, or gives some background, such as a little history on a hymn.
[ 12. July 2014, 17:24: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
This talk about making church services more accessible and understandable is all fine, but I think it'd be far better if we thought of and explained Christianity as being about following Jesus rather than about attending church services.
Our faith is, ISTM, centred on a person, not on a series of activities as such. Following what the Great Commission says, I think we should concentrate on making disciples rather than on persuading people to come to our services and gatherings.
Maybe part of the reason why (some) MOTR / liberal churches are dwindling is because their message to outsiders is 'come and join in with our weird, incomprehensible ceremonies' rather than something more inspiring like 'look at Jesus and how he calls us to live; isn't it a wonderful adventure'. Not that other 'flavours' of church consistently give out an inspiring message like this...
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
What do people go to? I should think it helpful for "church people" to go to some live music events, perhaps a fringe festival, public lectures and the like. These kinds of things are well attended in general, frequently by an all ages crowd. particularly the entertainment events involve amplified sound, people sitting, people eating and drinking, people up near the stage, some dancing. I have the sense that this is also what the Jesus-era temple looked like. How much quiet? Not so much.
--------------------
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
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
My parish consists of two churches, one of which - 'my' church - still uses the BCP and traditional hymns. The other uses the modern lectionary (and traditional hymns). Neither goes in for guitars and powerpoint sermons. Congregations at both churches have declined in the five years since I've taken an interest.
I'm a non-believer with a liking for churchy matters, and it is the BCP service that draws me. It puzzles me that guitars and drums are supposed to be the way forward now. I would never attend a church that went in for that sort of showiness, and when I consider my almost entirely atheistic (or nones/indifferent) circle of acquaintances I can't think of a single one who would say, 'Oh wow, I really want to go to a church that talks in modern language,' or 'Yeah, I'm going to church because they've got a band in now.'
Surely there's more to it than that? As for the Alpha course, doesn't one has to be of a certain frame of mind before that would appeal? The very idea of being taught about something so 'out there' as speaking in tongues repels me, and I'm actually interested in Christianity/churchgoing. From what I see, the Alpha course has little in common with standard C of E worship and preaching (thank goodness, or I'd never set foot in church again).
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Not sure that guitar and drums equals showiness or big evangelical services like Hillsong - or at least, acoustic guitar and piano services (sometimes with flute/violin etc) are quite normal for very MOTR Anglican/Methodist/URC/Baptist etc churches. I wouldn't necessarily define being MOTR by the use of organ, traditional language etc - increasingly, that suggests high church not MOTR, and is often an Anglican thing that does not apply to other mainstream denominations. It makes sense - smaller churches find it easier to manage a piano and a guitar than a big organ.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
public lectures
[..]
How much quiet? Not so much.
Every public lecture I have attended has involved an interested audience sitting in respectful silence whilst the lecturer spoke, and has usually had a short period for questions at the end.
If yours are noisy, you must go to a different kind of lecture.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
rather than something more inspiring like 'look at Jesus and how he calls us to live; isn't it a wonderful adventure'.
This is the other problem. The gospel is no longer a surprise, and its key tropes have been repeated countless times from mummers plays to Harry Potter. People of faith often present themselves as awestruck, gobsmacked and enthralled by material which is essentially mundane and unremarkable to most of the population.
In its raw state, the gospel narrative is not particularly dramatic versus other stories most people have heard.
Charismatic churches overcome this problem initially by highly emotive services and music intended to be entertaining. Some MoTR folk attract people for the aesthetics. But neither is a long term solution.
[ 12. July 2014, 18:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not sure that guitar and drums equals showiness or big evangelical services like Hillsong - or at least, acoustic guitar and piano services (sometimes with flute/violin etc) are quite normal for very MOTR Anglican/Methodist/URC/Baptist etc churches. I wouldn't necessarily define being MOTR by the use of organ, traditional language etc - increasingly, that suggests high church not MOTR, and is often an Anglican thing that does not apply to other mainstream denominations. It makes sense - smaller churches find it easier to manage a piano and a guitar than a big organ.
Actually, in the Methodist circuithere the use of guitars and flutes, etc. isn't terribly common. (In fact, when I was growing up guitars popped up more often than they do now.) The organ still dominates proceedings unless the organist is taking a break - or unless a church is holding a deliberately 'alternative' service. Some circuits are probably a bit less 'traditional', though. I wish there were a map of the different circuits highlighting the styles that are customary or are in development in each one!
Methodist traditionalism doesn't particularly include 'traditional language', although, I'm more used to hearing the older version of the Lord's Prayer. The new hymnbook has updated the words in some of the hymns. This book has its detractors, and I'm one of them.
[ 12. July 2014, 19:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Not sure that guitar and drums equals showiness or big evangelical services like Hillsong - or at least, acoustic guitar and piano services (sometimes with flute/violin etc) are quite normal for very MOTR Anglican/Methodist/URC/Baptist etc churches. I wouldn't necessarily define being MOTR by the use of organ, traditional language etc - increasingly, that suggests high church not MOTR, and is often an Anglican thing that does not apply to other mainstream denominations. It makes sense - smaller churches find it easier to manage a piano and a guitar than a big organ.
Actually, in the Methodist circuithere the use of guitars and flutes, etc. isn't terribly common. (In fact, when I was growing up guitars popped up more often than they do now.) The organ still dominates proceedings unless the organist is taking a break - or unless a church is holding a deliberately 'alternative' service. Some circuits are probably a bit less 'traditional', though. I wish there were a map of the different circuits highlighting the styles that are customary or are in development in each one!
Methodist traditionalism doesn't particularly include 'traditional language', although, I'm more used to hearing the older version of the Lord's Prayer. The new hymnbook has updated the words in some of the hymns. This book has its detractors, and I'm one of them.
Organs are certainly uncommon for Baptists, URCs etc though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Is music really the issue though ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The Baptists have generally moved in a more 'contemporary' direction than the Methodists when it comes to worship styles. Methodists tend to be older, which must be significant. My experience of the URC is that they don't really go in much for contemporary worship either, but again, it's probably different elsewhere.
Is music significant? I think it is to the extent that young people like to participate actively rather than just spiritually in worship. If there's a worship band, they can be a part of it somehow; if there's just an organist, they can't. Traditional choirs might be attractive if they had a mix of ages, but they're often dominated by older people and by children; people in their teens and 20s-30s must feel a bit left out.
London is fortunate because it benefits from young Christians who've all congregated there to find work, and they're present in sufficient numbers to be able to feel at home in all kinds of church environments. But outside London, and perhaps parts of the South East, many MOTR churches simply can't offer that kind of atmosphere. I suppose it doesn't matter what kind of music you have if you've already lost your diversity in terms of age, class, gender, etc.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. ... a dedicated trust fund
2. ... the whole village, not just churchgoers, feel and are encouraged to see that the church is theirs
I take your point: unfriendly churches transcend denominational and theological boundaries. Two of the worst offenders I've come across were at the extremes: one a liberal high church Anglican, the other a swing from the chandeliers charismatic. Both served to make me and my young family (at the time) feel unwelcome enough to walk out without a backwards glance.
Your church sounds a great place to be but you're clearly better off than most who don't have the safety net of trust funds (1. above). (Who decides though how these get spent - the village or the church?
As for point 2, again it's great to have ownership but doesn't God get a little credit there soemhow
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Baptists have generally moved in a more 'contemporary' direction than the Methodists when it comes to worship styles. Methodists tend to be older, which must be significant. My experience of the URC is that they don't really go in much for contemporary worship either, but again, it's probably different elsewhere.
Is music significant? I think it is to the extent that young people like to participate actively rather than just spiritually in worship. If there's a worship band, they can be a part of it somehow; if there's just an organist, they can't. Traditional choirs might be attractive if they had a mix of ages, but they're often dominated by older people and by children; people in their teens and 20s-30s must feel a bit left out.
London is fortunate because it benefits from young Christians who've all congregated there to find work, and they're present in sufficient numbers to be able to feel at home in all kinds of church environments. But outside London, and perhaps parts of the South East, many MOTR churches simply can't offer that kind of atmosphere. I suppose it doesn't matter what kind of music you have if you've already lost your diversity in terms of age, class, gender, etc.
Yes, but before all that you need to see the point of worship in the first place.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE] Organs are certainly uncommon for Baptists, URCs etc though.
The organ is used here - and we have a very proficient and skilled worship group with a range of ages. We also use traditional language for the Lord's Prayer.
Our fellowship has been described as "a vibrant church in the heart of (town) .... made up of a diverse range of people. We have a passion to deepen our relationship with God and to tell others of His love."
I guess it's a mix of traditional and contemporary rather like most Baptist Churches in the Baptist Union.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But create services that can be a "way in" for people unused to church and baffled about Eucharist and anthems and creeds. Something simpler and more accessible but not simplistic or so different from normal that it is misleading.
I have never encountered a (C of E / TEC) church that either teaches or explains liturgy. People "learn what to do" by showing up and copying other people, but often without any clear idea as to why.
We've recently admitted children to holy Communion before their confirmation so I did an instructed eucharist which explained what we did and why we did it.
The adults seem to have gained a lot from it to so we're going to make it an annual feature.
It's done at least quarterly here
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is music significant? I think it is to the extent that young people like to participate actively rather than just spiritually in worship. [...]
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, but before all that you need to see the point of worship in the first place.
True. My comments assumed that someone might be vaguely interested in the first place, but if that interest isn't there at all then something else would be needed.
There's been research which shows that some non-churchgoers would be interested in going to church at some point in the future. This includes former churchgoers, who are a relatively large group. 'Back to Church Sunday', which seems to be a mainstream rather than an evangelical initiative, has picked up on this. I don't know how successful B2CS has been.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That is pretty much the definition of preaching to the converted though isn't it ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
That sounds a little patronising, RE. Would you describe the continuing RSC productions of the bard in the original as 'clinging onto old language'? I suspect not. So why take cheap pot-shots at people who wish to continue using perfectly good - in some cases excellent - music and words in worship?
You then go further to extrapolate that such congregations may not welcome children: IME the opposite is the case, certainly when children are under 5. The best provision for parents of very young children I ever found was at Anglo-Catholic establishments - and our experience of supposedly more up-to-date churches when our twins were small was less than welcoming in more than a couple of cases.
We also experienced a slapdash attitude to services in one parish which meant that services were like a bear-garden: on one classic occasion our 4 year-old twins asked the adults (!) behind us to stop talking during the prayers.
Still ploughing on, you accuse some more traditional congregations of being unprepared or unwilling to discuss 'God's will' and you imply class bias - why, I have no idea. I do know that the most exclusive, unwelcoming, unpleasant congregation I ever encountered, stuffed full of people proclaiming their 'personal' relationship with the Almighty, heavily promoted its evo credentials, the magnificence of their worship group, their Alpha courses, etc, etc. Not only was the congregation restricted to one particular age group and their younger children (30-50 in the main and absolutely no teens) but anyone from areas of the parish with social housing was made to feel very unwelcome.
You'll no doubt be less than happy to know that our traditional, MOR-ish parish with lots of elderly has excellent children's work, a thriving choir, musical repertoire that spans 6 centuries, and the upkeep of our mainly 13th century church is under control with a dedicated trust fund to pay for it - not because we are a rich parish but because the whole village, not just churchgoers, feel and are encouraged to see that the church is theirs and their children's. Yes, the 30-50 age-group is under-represented but we have their children and we make strenuous efforts to ensure that everyone who lives in the parish feels they have a stake in the church community.
I'm not taking pot-shots, or meaning to be patronising, simply making some observations which might feed into the op, if we're criticising 'respectable' MOTR churches with a view to pin-pointing some of the reasons why they are in decline.
I have come across all of the attitudes I mentioned. I am more than pleased to hear about your thriving church. I assume that your outreach to children does bring in contemporary language suitable for their age group, without assuming that this would lower its standards. There may be ways of doing the same for the 30-50 age group, with the right will and attitude, without necessarily bringing in drums and guitars (which are not to my taste btw).
It's fine to use Shakespeare language where those engaging in or listening to it are able to begin to grasp its meaning. It may not be suitable for someone who is not yet able to speak English. If a seeker comes to a service one Sunday morning, the liturgy may be so foreign as to make it difficult to grasp.
Similarly, if a seeker who has little experience of singing in public is confronted by a book of 19th century hymns, it may be very trying.
--------------------
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
Doublethink
Possibly. But perhaps it's a question of strategy. The church needs labourers if it's going to reach the unconverted, and if the church can harness the already converted who've drifted away, then there'll be more hands to do the work.
This should be easier for the MOTR than for the evangelicals, because people don't normally leave MOTR churches because they've lost their faith; they drift away because their priorities have changed, they're bored, too busy, etc., whereas evangelicals, so I'm told here, tend to have more dramatic reasons for leaving. So MOTR congregations should be far more proactive about reaching out to leavers. They're notoriously bad at doing this, whereas evangelicals are generally accused of pestering leavers to get them back!
Nurturing someone to the point of conversion is a much harder job, and apparently it takes much longer and requires much more involvement in a person's life than used to be the case. I think the blunt reality is that most churches - mainstream churches in particular - just aren't willing to expend that level of effort. I.e., it isn't what current churchgoers feel they've signed up for, and it's not what their clergy expect of them. And the clergy themselves are busy with other jobs, and aren't necessarily interested or supported in that particular ministry anyway.
[ 12. July 2014, 21:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Define MOTR.
I tend to think of MOTR in non-conformist/Free Church terms as a somewhat 'beige' and inoffensive style that can be encountered in many Methodist, URC and some Baptist churches.
I don't see that as being at all inaccessible or 'wierd and incomprehensible' to outsiders.
But neither has it got anything that is likely to 'grab' people - at least, not at first sight.
I wouldn't describe as MOTR those churches with liturgies that take more getting into - such as High Anglican, the non-folk mass RC and the Orthodox.
I could understand people being baffled by 1662 BCP language, but by and large that's not what people are confronted with in MOTR Anglican settings.
So I'm not sure that 'accessibility' is the only issue at stake. There are other factors at work.
--------------------
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
On the discipleship thing, I can see what South Coast Kevin is saying but it would take a hefty shift to move the locus and focus of discipleship away from congregational settings.
How would we go about doing that? We'd have to provide some context for the discipleship to take place within and then we're back into meeting mode again ...
I struggle with this.
I've been at a music festival event all day and probably had about 7 significant conversations with people - mainly about arts activities (I chair a local arts group). I bought someone a pint. At no point did I mention Christ in any way. How would I - or should I - have done so?
'You know, this music festival is all very well and good, but it's a lot more exciting to follow Jesus ...'
I agree with Kevin that the Christian faith is all about following Christ. But where's this 'wonderful adventure' that he's talking about?
For most of us, our lives have ups and downs the same as anyone else's. We work, we eat, we sleep, we have families ... we may have to care for elderly relatives ...
I often think of my Great Aunt Nell who spent much of her life dribbling on a couch because she had severe cerebral palsy. Her sisters had to heave her on and off the toilet. Where was the 'wonderful adventure' there? Yet she was very devout and the vicar brought her communion week by week. At her funeral he said he'd learned more about faith and long-suffering from Nell than anything he'd been taught at seminary.
This talk of the Christian faith as a 'wonderful adventure' ... what 'wonderful adventures' have you had recently South Coast Kevin?
And how do you go about making disciples? How many disciples have you made recently?
I don't think that MOTR/liberal churches have 'wierd incomprehensible ceremonies' particularly. People waving their arms around and speaking in tongues is a lot wierder than anything that goes on in MOTR/liberal churches.
Yet the more apparently exciting charismatic churches are the ones which have grown - or at least, not shrunk so rapidly.
Why? Because they offer an immediate 'hit'. There appears to be something 'there' - even if it may look wierd. People are drawn to things that appear to offer immediate answers.
Charismatic churches are often very friendly too - and the sense of community and belonging can and does draw people in. They can also be quite 'creative' places and tend to attract talented and creative people - and they offer outlets for that creativity and talent too.
It strikes me that it's the charismatic and evangelical churches that can be more meeting-centric and service-centric than the MOTR and liberal ones. They need the warmth and closeness of fellowship to reinforce their belief system and also to provide the sense of close-knit community that can be their biggest 'draw'.
I'm not saying that's wrong, simply observing that this is how these things work.
I've known charismatic churches that have tried to 'deconstruct' themselves and become less meeting-centric and so on. All that happens is that they fizzle out. Because the whole impetus and raison-d'etre of those churches is to provide close fellowship and community. Remove that element and the whole thing unravels.
It sounds terribly pious to say, 'We're not about meetings, we're about following Jesus.'
Well, good luck to you. Try not going to any meetings for the next 6 months and get involved in other things. Then tell us how many disciples you've made during that period.
It'd be worth doing as an experiment.
A final point. I've noticed around here that many of the people from churches that could be described as MOTR or liberal are the same people who run Rotary, who are involved with planning and organising the carnival, U3A events and all manner of other community activities.
They are often very public-spirited. They serve on the town council. They are involved with this, that or the other committee or charity.
They do other stuff as well as attend church services.
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Popping in a bit late to say to Oscar (post #12) and various people after that:
There is some desire among "teetering" evangelicals to try out MOTR or "mainline" churches. The perils to those churches are spelled out by Rachel Held Evans who is definitely trying to bridge that gap.
[ 12. July 2014, 22:31: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
An example of MOTR CofE church mission which is all about finding out more about Jesus and the point of church. Same thing done here in May. That's more for developing faith of those already attending.
There are ways of introducing what church is about. When I was running the toddler church I did a lot of explaining why things are done - it was mostly aimed at the parents, not the children. And again when I was going into the uniformed groups to explain the parade services in advance. Messy play is another place when this could be done.
One MOTR church I know of (not here, not locally, but I have attended it a few times) is haemorrhaging congregation because the bishop of the diocese keeps sending evangelical curates and preachers to the church. And each time a few more people fail to return. It is known as the only high church in the area and the people who attend that church have chosen to attend for the worship style. Personally I would say it's MOTR not high but it's in a very low church area.
Another misconception about age groups: the local church has a gap from late teens to late 20s / early 30s, but attracts families with young children. Being middle class those children move away to university when they reach their late teens and don't return as the area is too expensive for starter homes. Other people arrive as they set up home as newly married couples or with young children instead. There is absolutely no point in chasing the teenage demographic and making big changes for a group that has moved out.
Personal experience of Back to Church Sunday is that it doesn't work. The training was useful on some things, but it is assuming far more people have been to church in the past than is reasonable. The 1970s and 1980s saw a secularisation of schools and other institutions, so while schools used to take classes to church services throughout the 50s and 60s, that all stopped. The vast majority of people born since the 1960s and their children have never been to church. The only groups still taking children to church regularly were the Girl Guide and Scouting movements and they are becoming more secular now.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Is music really the issue though ?
Ours tends to be a little on the stodgy side. I don't think a lot of people go to an Orthodox church and say, "Well I'd be more likely to worship here if you had electric guitars."
ISTM that if a church is failing, the two most likely reasons are:
1. It's not offering what people want; or
2. People don't realize it's there and offering what they want.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
rather than something more inspiring like 'look at Jesus and how he calls us to live; isn't it a wonderful adventure'.
This is the other problem. The gospel is no longer a surprise, and its key tropes have been repeated countless times from mummers plays to Harry Potter. People of faith often present themselves as awestruck, gobsmacked and enthralled by material which is essentially mundane and unremarkable to most of the population.
I think the gospel is a surprise to many people - messages like 'forgive those who do you wrong' and 'share what you have in a generous, sacrificial way' are very counter-cultural and thus intriguing, ISTM.
Furthermore, living in real, deep community with people - sharing our joys and struggles with one another - is also something that I think many non-Christians don't have (though some do have it, and that's great). So when Christians live that way, again it's counter-cultural and thus intriguing!
I've had plenty of conversations with friends and workmates about my church where they've been impressed by the depth of community I'm fortunate enough to share in. The community itself and our efforts to bring other people into that community are what I had in mind with my 'wonderful adventure' comment; I wasn't really thinking of our church services and how they should be exciting or attention-grabbing.
--------------------
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
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
We had a special service this morning at which a service group attended for their annual thanksgiving. It was a wonderful and uplifting service and I was interested to hear a young chap of about 30 say after the service that he had never been in a church before and that today quite good in his opinion. So what we did was obviously ok, but how do you get people to come and experience that?
For myself, I go to church to worship and feed myself spiritually for the week ahead. I take my Christianity into my daily life, but just as we all need food for nourishment, I need church attendance for my spiritual nourishment. I don't see anything wrong in attending a church that fulfills my needs. I could not survive on a meal of junk food and treasure the AC service. To force feed me a different diet could, I feel, lead to my spiritual starvation. We are all different. Vive la difference!
[ 13. July 2014, 07:19: Message edited by: bib ]
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[Crosspost replying to South Coast Kevin.]
And I think you are seriously mistaken.
Are you aware of how many thousand million times people receive these messages as children, along with learning to say please and thank you ?
In everyday life, stories and TV. Along with the stuff about not judging by appearances, and how bullying is wrong.
[ 13. July 2014, 07:20: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Back to Church Sunday? My first thought was the signs that used to appear when I were a lad a week before you'd actually broken up the previous term saying "back to school" and advertising school uniform discounts.
And the idea of BtCS sounded about as appealing as lumpy mash, compulsory communal showers and rote learning of the imperfect imperative of Ire. You're trying to pitch "come back to somewhere you left with no doubt good reason" without actually giving the leaver any reason why they should go back on their decision. I smell "out of ideas".
On the OP, I like to think I've been as cynical, unfair and mean to quiet respectable churches as I have to the various One True Churches and the up in the air junior birdman shacks.
No, DT, I don't think it's about the music. I think it's about tedium and boredom. Always has been.
[ 13. July 2014, 07:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'The Magazine of Christian Unrest' often focuses on the failings of various types of evangelicalism, probably because this is the dominant background of many of the community members.
I think that’s a good point.
Practically no-one gets converted to Christianity by liberal, mainstream Protestantism.
Liberal mainstream Protestants have almost invariably either grown up in their denomination and stuck with it, or have “moved on” from the evangelicalism through which they were converted.
I am deeply skeptical of DIY psychology and psychobabble, but I am going to stick my neck out anyway, and suggest that much of the incessant evangelicalism-bashing on the Ship is a manifestation of ex-evangelicals trying to come to terms with their rejection of their former evangelicalism, and driven by embarrassment over their adolescent, down-market devotional extravagances, the memory of which makes them blush.
I am old enough to remember the old mainstream Protestant ascendancy which used to patronize evangelicals and penties/charos, who used to respond by claiming that they were small and marginalized because they faithfully preached unpalatable gospel truths (sin, judgement, “the blood”).
Today, the moribund, ageing and shrinking mainstream Protestants claim that they are not attracting the crowds that flock to the conservative Protestant churches because they are faithfully preaching unpalatable gospel truths (racism, sexism.”homophobia”).
My evangelical church features modern worship songs, open worship, a strong family atmosphere, a collegiate leadership, and a commitment to orthodox theology and morality.
Personally, I would prefer Wesley and Watts and 1662 BCP liturgy, but it is a combination which seems to “work”, because it has over 300 members, and over 400 attendees (including hordes of children and teenagers) which is quite a healthy size by Australian standards.
But in the end, of course, numerical success does not prove a single thing.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If the Ship's so full of ex-Evangelicals (and I think you're right about that) then I wonder if Evangelicalism needs to ask itself why that's such a big category. Ex-evangelicals who are now liberals are only one group of ex-evangelicals. Don't forget the ones who no longer identify as Christian at all.
Even if liberalism only exists as a place where evangelicals go when they aren't evangelicals any more, does that mean it's of no value? Would you rather folk left the church altogether when they can no longer stomach evangelicalism?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Kaplan - I can name converts to a MOR church: through pastoral work around funerals and weddings, through outreach work with a midweek toddler service; through having open doors for events and being available for the town as a space; through being an open door for prayer and to light candles; through quiet support and invitations; through working with schools; as pastoral visitors in the homes for the elderly and hospitals providing prayer and services. None of that is aggressive evangelism.
The aggressively evangelical Elim Pentecostal church is the one that is dying on its feet, for all the handing out of tracts and aggressive in-your-face evangelism.
And, for your information, I have never been evangelical so any evangelical bashing I do has been caused by the people who have been aggressively in-my-face critical declaring me not to be Christian as I am not born again or have marched in with insensitive inaccurate hobnail boots declaring creationism when I was about to say something different and maybe change a mind. The people who say to impressionable teenagers "some Christians even believe in evolution"! (That one was the Elim pastor.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
