|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can we have a non-institutional approach to church?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This comes out of the Kerygmaniac thread on 'What is church?'
It's becoming Purgatorial so I'm moving an aspect of the conversation here before I try the patience of the Kerygmania Saints.
Q: Is it possible to have a 'non-institutional' approach to church. If so what would it look like?
FWIW - my answer would be 'no, it isn't.' Although it would be possible to have a bureaucratically light institutional approach until things got beyond a certain size and level of engagement.
I'd also suggest that rather than being as informal as some suppose, the churches in the NT must have had pretty well organised in order for their to be the distribution of supplies/aid for orphans and widows and the collection for churches in other locations and so on that we read about in Acts and the epistles.
Even sending letters to churches would have been a fairly labour intensive effort in those days.
By 'institutional' I don't necessarily mean pointy hats and complicated infrastructure.
But as someone involved in organising things and voluntary arty stuff I know that none of this stuff happens without structures to support it.
Discuss.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'd say my church group (that's the one in the Netherlands) is as non-institutional as they get. However, it doesn't try to 'help the widows and orphans' on its own, but rather adheres to oecumenical initiatives together with other churches.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I was just having a quick ponder and LeRoc posts this:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'd say my church group (that's the one in the Netherlands) is as non-institutional as they get. However, it doesn't try to 'help the widows and orphans' on its own, but rather adheres to oecumenical initiatives together with other churches.
Great point! A lot of the missional / simple / organic church people would say, I think, that we can keep church very simple and non-institutional but still get involved in more organised activities. That might be through cross-church initiatives, government-instigated activities (e.g. fostering / adopting children) or through secular charities and similar organisations.
For Christians to get involved in worthwhile activities, it doesn't require a church to take on the responsibility; that's the basic point, I guess. Which means, yes, a church can be thoroughly non-institutional - a small group of people meeting regularly in someone's home to encourage each other in submission to Christ and one another, and in sharing the good news of Christ within their circles of influence would be a church, in my view.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I think church needs to have structure, but how much that becomes an 'institution' is an open question, to which the answer varies from church to church, from country to country, from culture to culture.
My reading of the New Testament is that the early church loosely adopted the structures observed in various other bodies in the areas they were based at the times, adapted for their needs at the time. So the advice in, say, the Pauline letters was not necessarily prescriptive recipe for creating a church order ex nihilo but rather guidelines on being a body of Christ given the structures that arose as an emergent feature.
In other words, not having a rigid structure doesn't mean the church will descend into ecclesistical anarchy, it's just more flexible to suit the needs of the people both within the church and those outside it, in the society and community in which the church finds itself.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
The creeds describe the Church as Apostolic for good reason. The Church of the Gentiles began as a top down hierarchical organization. The Apostles or their designated representatives founded Christian communities, they approved by the laying on of hands their local leaderships, the established the doctrines and could rule upon which doctrinal variations were catholic and could be shared by all the Church and which were not. In Council they could make definitive rulings about which practices were acceptable, which were mandatory and which unacceptable and upon which texts contained part of the authentic revelation and which were merely edifying or positively inaccurate.
It was the institutional Church alone, moreover, which could safeguard the sacraments and ensure that they were effectualy celebrated and offered to the Christian people. Without an institutional structure it would not have been possible to pass from one generation to the next doctrine, sacrament or scripture. Surely it would be somewhat arbitrary to randomly select a point in history to say "we have all the doctrine, sacrament and scripture we will ever need. Thanks for passing it along and suffering martyrdom and stuff but we don't need you anymore so we're off to do our own thing now."
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Look up what an institution is. It is an agreed way of doing something by a group of people. Does it even make sense to talk about a non-institutional church?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Absolutely, Jengie Jon.
Even the way South Coast Kevin has described things sounds institutional to me.
Sure, you can have a fairly simple structure and a flat heirarchy but it's still got an institutional structure of some kind.
The same applies to any gathering or common-interest group - be it the Brownies or Cubs or the local cricket club.
Even a group of friends meeting in someone's front room is going to develop institutional qualities and an agreed framework of some kind.
Even if such a group remained relatively 'flat' in terms of structure and got involved with ecumenical initiatives or other 'institutional' things that were happening across town it's going to be relying on someone else's structure or institution to some extent.
The whole idea of a non-institutional church is bonkers.
It's also unscriptural. Show me where and how the NT church wasn't institutional to some extent?
How the heck could they organise distributions for orphans and widows and relay messages or even recognise who was meant to be part of the same movement (as it were) unless they had some kind of agreed and developing framework?
The institutional and the charismatic can be in conflict - and that can cause a creative tension too. But however we cut it, there's some kind of institutional structure.
I really don't get how it can be otherwise.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I don't even know all the ins and outs of my group but let's say that it has a Structure Ultra-Light™. Officially, we're organized as a Voluntary Association. This is necessary because money is involved sometimes. We recieve gifts, we rent a church building, we give to charity ... It's handy to be able to open a bank account in name of the church for that. This also means that we have a board, but this is as flat as possible. Anyone can go there and participate. And it doesn't really decide on anything that happens during the service.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting, Le Roc. So what does happen in the services? What do they involve? What form/format do they take?
Meanwhile, over on the Kerygmaniac thread, Ad Orientem has posted with some Bible verses for those who wish to engage with the more Kerygmanic aspects.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: Interesting, Le Roc. So what does happen in the services? What do they involve? What form/format do they take?
Any format we want. There's a notebook in the back of the church and if you put your name there, you're in charge of the next service. And you're pretty much free to do what you want. The only required element is Holy Supper, but even there you have some freedom in how you want to do it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
With my politics academic hat on, I'd say that institutions aren't just formal hierarchies and constitutions; they can be standard operating procedures and customs and generally agreed ways of doing things that have some persistence over time and which affect the actions of those who participate in them. With that understanding of institutions, I can't see how a church can avoid being at least minimally institutional- or why it should want to.
[ 25. July 2014, 19:53: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Albertus: With that understanding of institutions, I can't see how a church can avoid being at least minimally institutional- or why it should want to.
I agree. I'm not claiming that our group is entirely non-institutional, nor that we want it to be. But I'd say we are pretty close to this minimum.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Look up what an institution is. It is an agreed way of doing something by a group of people. Does it even make sense to talk about a non-institutional church?
Jengie
It's a matter of degree, isn't it? Every church (if by that we mean a conscious community of Christian believers) needs to 'institute' a time and place for meeting at the very least, but it's pretty obvious that some churches are more institutionalised that others.
The interesting question to me is how the 'natural' inclination for Christian communities to become more and more complex can coexist with the current tendency for humans (especially in the West) to become less and less interested in religious 'institutions' altogether. Maybe the problem is that even the 'non-institutional' churches we've heard of are too institutional for most ordinary people.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
With my politics academic hat on, I'd say that institutions aren't just formal hierarchies and constitutions; they can be standard operating procedures and customs and generally agreed ways of doing things that have some persistence over time and which affect the actions of those who participate in them. With that understanding of institutions, I can't see how a church can avoid being at least minimally institutional- or why it should want to.
If I can add my process manager's hat. The procedures, standards and policies are there to help the organisation being effective in its aims and objectives. Some process managers lose sight of this and conforming to them is seen to be the measure of being a good member. This happens in churches too, where the institutional rules end up making the approach of "man being made for the sabbath" rather than "sabbath being made for man". This is probably one of the causes of the increase of the SBNR.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Number of years ago I invited a few people to join me in doing a weekly prayer group. We made some adjustments from my original idea but it was good -- the usual: maybe 20-25 minutes of chit chat catching up, a relaxed time of going around the circle with thanks and requests to God, then roughly half an hour (rarely as much as 45 minutes) of spontaneous prayer which came to it's own natural end, a relaxed gathering up and departure, total time probably an hour and a half on a long evening.
Then someone invited a friend, who had no transportation but lived near me so it was my job to pick her up and take her home. In the car she was cheerful company, in the prayer group she was total "wet blanket." Endless droning in deeply depressed tone of voice about this person is dying of cancer and that person has a son on drugs and that other person - no thankfulness for anything, no hope, no resolution, no "bring something good out of this," no "be with the family in this difficult time," just depression after depression. You could feel the mood in the room slide downwards as she droned on.
Then at the time of prayer - before she came that period would come to a natural end on it's own, a little earlier some nights a little later other nights. After she joined, she always unintentionally interrupted the prayer time at exactly the same time (I took to checking my watch to see - on the dot!), sudden fit of coughing, or quietly pick up her coffee cup and the wet saucer would stick to the bottom then noisily clatter to the table, or etc. Always interrupting the prayer time late enough it abruptly ended instead of resuming to it's natural ending.
People were uncomfortable with her depressing influence and her disrupting the natural ending, but she "looked forward to this as the highlight of her week." Brief discussion revealed no one felt anyone had a right to tell her to leave since we intentionally had no leader. And besides she was a "friend," you can't tell a friend to leave your group.
So when the group took a break for Christmas season the rest quietly agreed we would not resume after Christmas. Not meeting at all was the only way to not have her in the group.
That's when I learned a group needs a leader - not a person the group revolves around who does all the work or hogs the spotlight or declares the official theology no one is allowed to disagree with or however one views the clergy-centric model, but someone with group-acknowledged authority to step up and tell someone else on behalf of the group's well-being "don't come back, this is not the group for you."
Sheep can often graze just fine on their own but every so often they need a sheep dog who can recognize a wolf and demand it leave. Wolves are fine animals, but they don't belong with sheep, and someone needs to be able to say "go" without other sheep inviting the wolf back because "we feel sorry for the lonely wolf."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The interesting question to me is how the 'natural' inclination for Christian communities to become more and more complex can coexist with the current tendency for humans (especially in the West) to become less and less interested in religious 'institutions' altogether. Maybe the problem is that even the 'non-institutional' churches we've heard of are too institutional for most ordinary people.
I'm coming to the idea that what you call the 'natural inclination for Christian communities to become more and more complex' is an inclination we should resist. I think it's better for Christian communities to remain informal and agile enough to discern and then respond to what God is doing in their local community.
Latchkey Kid has hit on the real issue, for me - everything about how we are church together should be done in order to serve the mission of the church (there's another topic!), rather than our mission being to sustain how we are church together. Our buildings, our institutional structures, all our churchy activities - IMO they have no worth in themselves but are only useful to the extent that they help us achieve what God wants us to achieve.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That's when I learned a group needs a leader - not a person the group revolves around who does all the work or hogs the spotlight or declares the official theology no one is allowed to disagree with or however one views the clergy-centric model, but someone with group-acknowledged authority to step up and tell someone else on behalf of the group's well-being "don't come back, this is not the group for you."
Yes, definitely. It's such a shame that this group didn't survive the introduction of your awkward friend. But I agree with you - no formal structure shouldn't mean no acknowledged leadership.
I think you should post more, by the way. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Well SCK, I just can't see such an effort having any continuity.
When used of an organization, the word 'inertia' has a derogatory feel to it. But frankly, inertia is profoundly helpful for ensuring that important stuff gets done.
Otherwise, how are we going to publish our bibles and writings of the church fathers? How are we going to conduct theological education, producing learned Christians? How are we going to produce our Christian art without an institution to teach us?
For crying out loud, how are we going to manage the calendar to establish when our feasts occur without astronomers?
Government requires an institution. Agriculture and mining require institutions. Air, land, and sea transportation require institutions.
Why should the Church be any different?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
how are we going to publish our bibles and writings of the church fathers? How are we going to conduct theological education, producing learned Christians? How are we going to produce our Christian art without an institution to teach us.
I understand where you're coming from, I think, but the missional / simple church argument is that churches are fundamentally different from the institutions that we need to do all those other things you mentioned.
So you can have publishing houses that publish Bibles and other Christian-based materials; you can have theology colleges that train people for Christian ministry / leadership; you can have charities with a Christian ethos to support troubled families, run food banks, help people fleeing domestic violence etc. etc.
But alongside all that, so the idea runs, you have small, simple churches that meet in community venues or people's homes with very little formal organisation or institutional structure.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that Le Roc's minimally institutional congregation is interesting.
However, until 'institutional Christianity' collapses under the rising tide of indifference and secularism ... I find it hard to see how such informal structures can function without relying on more formal structures elsewhere.
For instance, SCK overlooks the fact that the publishing houses and theology colleges only came about through the existence of historic, institutional churches.
That holds true even for those with a background in non-conformist movements.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... the missional / simple church argument is that churches are fundamentally different from the institutions that we need to do all those other things you mentioned.
So you can have publishing houses that publish Bibles and other Christian-based materials; you can have theology colleges that train people for Christian ministry / leadership; you can have charities with a Christian ethos to support troubled families, run food banks, help people fleeing domestic violence etc. etc.
But alongside all that, so the idea runs, you have small, simple churches that meet in community venues or people's homes with very little formal organisation or institutional structure. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but this can only work if there are 'institutional' people elsewhere doing the background work - publishing the Bibles, organising the theology colleges etc.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If these things were wiped out overnight or didn't exist then the less institutional 'simple church' structures would have to develop them themselves - and in so doing would be become less simple and necessarily more complicated.
I don't see any way around this.
As for discerning what 'God is doing' in any particular community ... what does that actually mean in practical terms?
It all sounds terribly pious but what does it actually mean on the ground?
Our parish church has set up an allotment to help people from the Job Club to grow vegetables and develop new skills. For some of the longer term unemployed it helps build a structure and focus into their day.
Terrific. I applaud this initiative whole-heartedly.
But it takes a fair bit of organisation. It's got the support of professional careers advisors, the local council and so on ... but it still needs the church hall and office and other infrastructure and volunteers from church to make it work.
None of these initiatives 'just happen'. They take a lot of hard work.
I'd also suggest that the 'simpler' the church the harder the work in some ways.
Le Roc may be able to tell us whether that's the case or not, though.
My own impression of DIY and so-called simple churches is that they take so much of their members' nervous energy and commitment to maintain that they don't actually have a great deal of time or energy left to 'discern what God is doing' in their community and so end up not running initiatives like the allotment scheme I'm talking about.
All their effort goes into examining their spiritual navels and sounding pious whilst the nasty institutional church down the road is running a soup run or a credit union or something ...
Of course, a lot of 'new churches' do these things - and do them well - but only when they've reached a size and level of infrastructure to do so.
And, as SvitlanaV2 has reminded us, when churches are in decline they find it hard to do anything that isn't based purely on keeping the show on the road.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Urm No!
Theological Colleges such as Mansfield Oxford (no longer training ministers), New College London (now closed) and Northern College, Manchester* do not have their origins within denominational institutions. Indeed none are actually owned by any denomination. I think this is also true of most Baptist colleges. These are to this day separate institutions from the denominations.
I am pretty sure New College London started off as the boys Philip Dodderidge took on to supplement his ministerial salary in Northamptonshire. This was standard practice amongst Non-Conformist ministers at the time. Then some started specialising in this training, they then formed alliance to establish places where this training could happen and where people could teach at their own expertise.
This is also the origin of most of the red-brick universities. The vast majority of course have vanished without a trace. The important thing to realise that survival of a low institutional body often relies on its ability to create institutional forms that work within the current society.
Jengie
*Northern College Manchester full title is "Northern College Manchester URC and Congregations" and this non-denomination freedom means it also trains Moravians.
[ 26. July 2014, 10:08: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The point I'm making, Jengie, is that there needed to be institutional churches and mission-agencies etc etc for there to be these colleges in the first place.
Sure, a lot of them didn't have specific denominational foundations - but they would have drawn from a range of non-conformist denominations.
I wasn't up for a debate as to whether this, that or the other College was founded by Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists or whatever else.
In the same way, various evangelical (or formerly evangelical) publishing houses - were set up by Brethren and so on ... but later broadened out to publish works from a wider spectrum.
The point I'm making is that if 'simple' and minimally institutional churches such as SCK describes are going to function in the way he's outlined - drawing on the work of Christian charities, colleges and other institutions where necessary - then this presupposes that these institutions should exist in the first place.
None of these insititutions arose in a vacuum. They were all started by somebody or other. And those somebody or others would generally be operating out of some institutional context - be in pan-denominational (as with some of the missionary societies) or to represent particular groups and denominations.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: I'd also suggest that the 'simpler' the church the harder the work in some ways.
Le Roc may be able to tell us whether that's the case or not, though.
I'm not sure if I am. There are obviously people in our group who do a lot of work. But the same is true in a mainline church. Whether the work in our group is more or less, I cannot tell.
It's hard to answer your post without sounding defensive. I'm neither in a position, nor do I see the point of defending our church. But if you want to, I can try to address your concerns.
Whether we have a great deal of time or energy left to 'discern what God is doing', do you mean this in a spiritual sense or in a socially active sense? I'd say we spend a lot of energy on both.
I think if there is anything various Alt.worship or Emerging Church or whatever they are called have in common (we call ourselves 'Oecumenical Groups'), is that we see are spirituality as a journey, one that we walk with other people and one that is characterized by both contemplation and action. We spend a lot of time on that.
Whether we examine our spiritual navels and sound pious, who is to say?
We don't spend our time moaning about institutional churches. We don't consider ourselves better than them, we just do things differently. We have good contacts with most of these churches. A number of our members go to our services sometimes and sometimes to those of a more institutional church. We have no problem with that.
We don't run a soup kitchen, but we're very actively involved in oecumenical projects together with other churches in our city, among others to run a homeless shelter. Obviously, these projects are more institutionalized than we are.
We are not in decline. We're not overly obsessed with numbers, but we are growing.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Forgive me, Le Roc, I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. I'm genuinely interested.
I'm not out to attack or criticise your group, simply curious as to how it functions.
My rather cutting comments weren't aimed at you but, I'm afraid, more at South Coast Kevin. Not that I have any issue with him personally, it's more that I've never been convinced by the kind of rhetoric deployed by his particular grouping - The Vineyard - nor by some of the more charismatic evangelical attempts to set up 'simpler' and less institutional churches.
I'm not accusing your group of the same thing. For a kick-off, I don't know much about it and also the way you talk about it seems different to the kind of rhetoric I've heard from charismatic evangelicals and some emerging church people here in the UK.
I'm not against simple or informal structures per se. I'm sure there can be great value in that. Which is why I'm interested in your experience as someone who has first hand knowledge of an initiative of this kind.
Meanwhile, if I have caused any offence to South Coast Kevin, I apologise.
I would like him to expand on what he means by 'discerning what God is doing' and how that process works. I'm not dismissing that as a concept necessarily - it's simply that my experience of charismatic evangelical groups who go in for that sort of language is that they are often too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use.
I've given the instance before of a Pentecostal friend who is involved in a charity working across a major city. She is constantly amazed by how much commitment and support individual RCs give to this work - without any great big fuss or making a song-and-dance about it.
It's a Christian-based charity initiated by evangelicals but there are actually very few evangelicals actively involved. I can only conclude that this is largely because they're all tied up in house-groups and prayer meetings ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point I'm making, Jengie, is that there needed to be institutional churches and mission-agencies etc etc for there to be these colleges in the first place.
In English NonConformity the colleges pre-dated the institutional church except at the local level.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that Le Roc's minimally institutional congregation is interesting.
However, until 'institutional Christianity' collapses under the rising tide of indifference and secularism ... I find it hard to see how such informal structures can function without relying on more formal structures elsewhere.
For instance, SCK overlooks the fact that the publishing houses and theology colleges only came about through the existence of historic, institutional churches.
Even if this is true (and Jengie Jon disputes it vigourously!), it doesn't mean that such institutions wouldn't have come about if there were no such thing as institutional / hierarchical churches. We can speculate, of course, but we'll never know how things would have panned out if that counter-factual were actually our reality and history.
And it's fine with me if the informal, looser churches do indeed rely on the institutional bodies for things like theological education, social action and so on. As I said upthread, I see that as two different kinds of organisation doing two different kinds of things.
LeRoc - your church sounds awesome. God bless you and your brethren - I'll drop you a note if I'm ever in visiting distance!
Gamaliel - you asked about my phrase 'discerning what God is doing'. I guess I was referring to the idea of missio Dei - the 'mission of God'. God is at work in the world, the idea goes, and the task of each local church community is to see what he's doing in our patch and get involved. It does sound overly pious, I realise...
I think it's really just an attempt to get away from the idea that we (both Christians individually and also churches) bring God into the world by our missionary and social service actions. God's already in the world drawing people to himself; our role is to get on board with that work. That's what I meant.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
FFS Jengie Jon, I knew that if I even mentioned non-conformity I'd get some kind of Spanish Inquistion ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Ok. Forget the colleges - no, don't - take the Countess of Huntingdon setting up her College at Trevecca. To do so required means - she was an aristocrat and wealthy - and it also required a Connexion - 'Lady Huntingdon's Connexion'. Yes, it was open to those who weren't immediately part of that. But it still required a degree of institutional cohesion.
The missionary societies might be a better example.
The Baptists set their Mission Society up in 1792. That was a long time after the Baptists had been going as a movement. And there are plenty of reasons for that which we won't go into here.
The London Missionary Society (mostly Independent) was established in 1795. The Church Missionary Society was established in 1799. The Wesleyans were active in mission in the West Indies and elsewhere but didn't formally establish their missionary society until 1818.
The point is - whether it's a college, mission society, charity or whatever else it doesn't happen in a vacuum - there has to be some kind of institutional input.
Of course such institutions wouldn't have come about if there were no such thing as institutional Christianity.
The very fact that thee and me and anyone else is a Christian today is due to the existence of institutional Christianity of some form or other.
If I set up the Gamaliel Academy of Both/And and Non-Binary Approaches tomorrow it would be due to the existence of insitutional Christianity ...
Anyhow ...
Yes, that's better ... having said that, then I do think you've got a point that informal and simpler structures can exist alongside more institutional ones and do a different job.
But it's still both/and ... not either/or ...
LeRoc's church does sound interesting. I'm not sure I'd find it 'awesome' but then 'awesome' isn't a term I'd use lightly in the first place ...
On the Missio Dei thing. Yes, I'm with you on that one SCK.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Well SCK, I just can't see such an effort having any continuity.
When used of an organization, the word 'inertia' has a derogatory feel to it. But frankly, inertia is profoundly helpful for ensuring that important stuff gets done.
Otherwise, how are we going to publish our bibles and writings of the church fathers? How are we going to conduct theological education, producing learned Christians? How are we going to produce our Christian art without an institution to teach us?
For crying out loud, how are we going to manage the calendar to establish when our feasts occur without astronomers?
The funny thing is, we've now reached the stage where the structures have developed a life of their own. The art, the theology colleges and the publication of Bibles need involve only a handful of specialists and professionals; ordinary Christians on the ground are pretty irrelevant, and also, one feels, a bit of a nuisance to the 'system'!
The appeal of very simple, democratic church structures is that they give more of a place to these ordinary Christians. In order to remain this way, of course, they have to guard against the tendency towards ever-increasing institutionalisation, gentrification, bureaucratisation, etc.
As for the lack of continuity - that's potentially a good thing. It might prevent us from becoming too settled and self-satisfied, obsessed with church tradition. Death could be envisioned as a chance for rebirth and reinvention rather than something that's regrettable. I don't know what this would look like, but it's an idea.
The most powerful and global institutional structures are unlikely to vote themselves out of existence, unless it's forced on them. De-institutionalisation isn't really an issue for them; they can, if they want to, invest resources into developing new forms of church at a local level while maintaining their hierarchies and structures further up the ladder. But for the smaller groups (especially in countries like the UK) 'de-institutionalisation' should be put on the agenda, I think.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've heard Dr Andrew Walker, a sociologist and 'canon theologian' in the CofE as well as a Russian Orthodox lay-reader, say that theology shouldn't really be done in the university theological departments but should be done 'out in the churches'.
I agree with him, but this could only happen if:
- There's a will there for it to do so.
- There are resources available to help.
My impression of some DIY attempts at de-instituationalism is that there isn't particularly an appetite there for meaningful theological engagement - beyond finding theological justification for the way they do things.
Other than the insights Le Roc has given us, I'm still struggling to envisage what a less institutional approach would look like ... without it ossifying into an institutional one very quickly.
I'd say it took no more than around 5 years for the 'restorationist' churches to become institutionalised.
Whether that's good, bad or indifferent depends on where one stands.
I can see where South Coast Kevin is coming from but if I lived where he does and he invited me to join him and a few friends in some kind of informal gathering then I'd politely decline.
There are some interesting parallels from early Methodism in all this. The early societies were quite informal by 18th century standards - and in some places spanned a wide range of class and social backgrounds. But the whole thing was rather rigidly controlled by contemporary standards.
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I fear that I am always the damp squib in such discussions. I like some degree of institutionalization as I think it helps provide limitations and sanctions on abusive behaviour by those in leadership positions. While this horrible situation happens everywhere and institutional churches have got their well-known problems, at least they provide some ways of dealing with this other than by lawsuits and walking out. Sometimes the Spirit lives in the process.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I tend that way too, these days.
Le Roc's experience doesn't sound likely to lead to abuse though. It does sound interesting.
Part of me quite likes the idea of a pot-luck system for deciding what's going on week by week but I'm sure that would soon pale with me.
I'm a lot happier going 'by the book' these days too. There's only so many 'Lord we really justs ...' and so-what? testimonies that a man can take in a single life-time ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I should clarify that I was not speaking in any way to the situations outlined upthreadward! This was a more general comment.
Different situations address what we require at different times in our lives. I had several friends who in their teens and 20s were the engines of some really quite dramatically useful initiatives in parishes and religious groups. Now their considerable energies are largely consumed by families and by their daily work, often in the same areas (social work, refugee and immigrant adaptations, women's issues etc). What they need in a church setting is not so much working through issues and devising responses as it is to be a consumer of ecclesiastical services-- Xn education for children, worship, music, etc- which strengthen and support them in their lives.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gamaliel: Interesting, Le Roc. So what does happen in the services? What do they involve? What form/format do they take?
Any format we want. There's a notebook in the back of the church and if you put your name there, you're in charge of the next service. And you're pretty much free to do what you want. The only required element is Holy Supper, but even there you have some freedom in how you want to do it.
Notebook = institutionalism, just again, low-level voluntary institutionalism. But there's a structure there. If someone waltzes in next week and announces "I know X signed up to do today's service but God/ Holy Spirit/ Spaghetti Monster revealed to me that I should do it in this other Holy Divinely Proscribed Way" someone is surely gonna cry "No way! You're not in the book!"
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Speaking only for myself, I'm weary of churches begging for money for building maintenance/renovations, and for able-bodied people to sit on this or that committee. (In fact, I got weary of hearing myself having to do the begging!) And I haven't even mentioned the tedium of church closures and rumours of church closures.
That's not to say I don't like a show. If I'm available I hope to attend the installation of a new CofE canon later on in the year. But my preferred worship experiences these days are informal and they involve none of this institutional churchy hassle.
[ 26. July 2014, 16:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
cliffdweller: Notebook = institutionalism
Once again, I never claimed our church to be 100% non-institutional, nor that we want it to be.
[ 26. July 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's an irregular verb:
We have a loose idea of how we do things.
You have imposed structure.
They are thoroughly institutionalized.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: Notebook = institutionalism
Once again, I never claimed our church to be 100% non-institutional, nor that we want it to be.
Yeah, that's why I described it as "low level and voluntary" institutionalism. Mine was a clarifying statement, not an argumentative one.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Seems to me the basic point here is that IF you are living in a settled political situation that allows it, you're very much going to have a significant degree of 'institution' for simple practical convenience. The issue is to make sure the institution serves the church's purposes rather than becomes the purpose (or too much so, anyway)
On the other hand, if you are in a situation of persecution....
The issue then would be whether you have enough of the non-institutional reality the church is really for so that you can carry on and be what God wants in the adverse circumstances. That in turn means that you need while not being persecuted to make sure you are building the church up in the real essentials; i.e., that you have the institutions which help you do that and don't obstruct it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
cliffdweller: Yeah, that's why I described it as "low level and voluntary" institutionalism. Mine was a clarifying statement, not an argumentative one.
Okay, sorry. Yeah, low level and voluntary institutionalism is a good term.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Having been in a church structure which turned out to be the worst kind of authoritarianism, let me attempt to depict the current motley crew of which Mrs Eutychus and I have been recognised as "pastoral couple".
On a typical Sunday morning there are roughly 60-65 warm bodies. Our current premises could, at a squeeze, accommodate 100. If we threaten to grow any bigger I would favour another church plant. Anything larger would threaten to become an institution.
We rent these premises. In my experience acquisition of real estate attracts the worst kind of institutionalism and the real kind of Jezabel spirit (which is to be found in Kings and not in charismatic Hogwarts manuals) real fast.
French charity law pretty much requires us to be a registered association with the equivalent of an executive committee. We have a spiritual leadership team which overlaps with the executive committee. The administrative aspect of church life functions in theory as a democracy, but we aim for consensus and have achieved unanimity on several key decisions (eg moving into these premises with the corresponding hike in rent).
We are members of no denomination and don't even have a confession of faith. We do however have fellowship with a range of churches around town; I am a driving force in our local protestant pastors' fraternal and sit on the local ecumenical leaders' council.
Morning worship is led by an opt-in rota of any regular attender. Just about the only constant is that we celebrate communion every Sunday. This is organised in a range of idiosyncratic ways by whoever is leading and the elements are passed round by whoever the leader co-opts.
We are hoping to expand our leadership team in the autumn and get some people under 50 on it. To do this we will more or less repeat the process we used first time round, in which everyone puts a number of names into a hat and we hope and pray that some names that the current leadership feel they can live with stand out.
After about ten years of this, I can honestly say it works as well as any other type of church organisation I've tried.
How do we score?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Just what is this 'non-institutional reality' that God is looking for?
It's an oxymoron. We live in society. Societies are full of institutions.
Even if we met in a cardboard box on a Sunday we would still have some kind of 'institutional reality'.
I really don't understand this dualistic - and to my mind anti-Incarnational way of thinking. We live in families, some of us. A family is an institution in sociological terms. That doesn't make families 'wrong' or imply that they are somehow 'unreal' and phoney.
I get annoyed at times on some Orthodox discussion boards I visit when they accuse Protestants of being almost Gnostic. But I'm beginning to see why they think that. It's as if people think that something can only be 'real' and 'authentic' the less structure it has and the more amorphous it is and that this somehow shows God's approval.
Of course, any institutional structure brings its dangers - there have to be checks and balances.
But we can't function without institutional structures of some kind - however minimal we might want them to be.
This isn't anything to do with 'putting on a show' it's simply an acknowledgement of fact.
If people want minimum structure and institutionalism - fine, let them go ahead and function that way. Only don't pretend that there isn't any institutional structure there in the first place.
Le Roc's church sounds about as institutionally minimal as can be - but he's not denying that there are structures in place.
@Eutychus - the way you described how your church functions is pretty much as I'd envisaged it from your posts here over the years - only with flesh on the bones as it were.
I wouldn't be out to give you a 'score' of any kind. It's not for me to evaluate. The 'proof' of the pudding would be in the eating (and notice I didn't prefix pudding with 'over-egged' ...)
It depends on how you quantify 'success'.
I've met liberal clergy who turn the decline of their congregation into a positive virtue - 'Jesus didn't succeed in the world's eyes ...'
So they wouldn't see things shutting down as that much of a set-back. In fact, some of them might welcome it in some kind of inverted way.
That's no consolation for the likes of SvitlanaV2, though, who wants to make a go of things ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Actually I wouldn't mind closing eventually. One of the big lessons I took from my previous experience is that local churches are not indefinite - at least if the book of Revelation is anything to go by.
Besides, Roger Forster ("let's have as many denominations as possible!") has frequently suggested the contemporary church should apply the principle of jubilee and blow all the institutions up once every 50 years.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Roger Forster ("let's have as many denominations as possible!") has frequently suggested the contemporary church should apply the principle of jubilee and blow all the institutions up once every 50 years.
Wow! Cool! Do you have a reference for that?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I know Roger personally. He has said it many many times, and I have it on tapes from the days when there was such a thing as ministry tapes, but I don't have a source in writing. The "as many denominations as possible" was his ongoing dig at the hardline restorationist approach.
[ 26. July 2014, 20:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I note the Wikipedia page on Ichthus currently says, quoting a third-party book:
quote:
Forster differed with [the Restorationist stream] on their anti-denominational stance, stating that the current multiplicity of church identities was not in itself, a key problem
which I suppose is a politer way of saying the same thing.
[ 26. July 2014, 20:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, some might argue that Roger blew up his own institution ...
Given SvitlanaV2's experience of declining churches and the effort taken to prolong the inevitable ... I do have some sympathy with what she's saying.
In the same way that, knowing the background to Eutychus's journey, I have a lot of sympathy with his.
But would I really be a grumpy old cynic if I were to say, 'Yes, sure, let's blow up all the institutions then SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin could start all over again from scratch. For sake of argument, I'll come down off the fence and join them.
Le Roc could provide some interesting insights from an institutionally-lite perspective.
Eutychus could provide additional insights from his.
But then, it'd be down to us.
So, South Coast Kevin could provide the venue. He knows a nice Fairtrade Coffee house we can use.
SvitlanaV2 can bring some study materials.
I'll order the coffee. Then I'llapply the Kool-Aid ...'
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I really don't understand this dualistic - and to my mind anti-Incarnational way of thinking. We live in families, some of us. A family is an institution in sociological terms. That doesn't make families 'wrong' or imply that they are somehow 'unreal' and phoney.
Your OP posed the question of whether we can have a non-institutional approach. I did not take that to mean that we have an institutionless church.
A marriage is an institution. A kiss goodbye each day could be an expression of love or an institutional habit in a 'phoney' marriage. We could argue whether a legally instituted marriage could be phoney, or we could take the POV that what is more important is whether the kiss is a sincere expression of love. It used to be generally held that divorce should not be allowed because that was against the institution of marriage. Now the focus is more on the needs of the family members than on the needs of the institution of marriage.
I don't understand your anti-incarnational comment. The incarnation is in the marriage, not in the institution of marriage IMHO.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's fair enough, Latchkey Kid. I don't disagree with your point.
My comments were in response to Steve Langton's.
He said that God was looking for a 'non-institutional reality.'
That was what I felt was un-Incarnational.
What we want is 'life' within the institutional aspect (because an institutionless aspect is an impossiblity).
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That was what I felt was un-Incarnational.
What we want is 'life' within the institutional aspect (because an institutionless aspect is an impossiblity).
One could also respond to the question, "Can we have a non-institutional approach to church?" with "Why would we want to?"
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: But would I really be a grumpy old cynic if I were to say, 'Yes, sure, let's blow up all the institutions then SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin could start all over again from scratch. For sake of argument, I'll come down off the fence and join them.
Le Roc could provide some interesting insights from an institutionally-lite perspective.
I hate to disappoint you, but I don't intend to blow up anything. My oecumenical ideal would be that different approaches could exist side by side.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What we want is 'life' within the institutional aspect (because an institutionless aspect is an impossiblity).
It's not a binary thing though, is it. You of all people should acknowledge that!
There are many ways of doing / being church, some more institutional than others. I guess I'm using 'non-institutional' as shorthand for several connected concepts; like informal and unplanned meetings, no formal job titles or salaried positions, opportunity for everyone present to bring songs, prayers, Bible passages, art etc. etc. etc. that they feel God has given them to encourage and spiritually 'feed' one another...
All of that is in contrast to what I'd call the traditional institutional style of church; with a small groups of people leading songs, maybe a liturgical section where the congregation joins in with what a small group of people are leading, and then one person giving a talk of some description. And with paid staff, employment contracts, ownership of buildings, five year plans, and so on.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
