quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
We need to get much more mission-minded. Maybe I overdo the fuzziness, but I mean it as shorthand for not claiming to have all the answers. And it bothers me very much that this sort of Christianity is declining while the Christianities that are resisting or reversing decline seem all to often to be full of cheapjack simplistic assurance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
We need to get much more mission-minded. Maybe I overdo the fuzziness, but I mean it as shorthand for not claiming to have all the answers. And it bothers me very much that this sort of Christianity is declining while the Christianities that are resisting or reversing decline seem all to often to be full of cheapjack simplistic assurance.

---

The big switch off is not a position where we don't claim to have al the answers - its where we don't seem to have any (possible for fear of offence).

---

 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
We need to get much more mission-minded. Maybe I overdo the fuzziness, but I mean it as shorthand for not claiming to have all the answers. And it bothers me very much that this sort of Christianity is declining while the Christianities that are resisting or reversing decline seem all to often to be full of cheapjack simplistic assurance.

---

The big switch off is not a position where we don't claim to have al the answers - its where we don't seem to have any (possible for fear of offence).

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I had a conversation yesterday with an Episcopal priest in which she was talking about the precipitous decline in the number of children and teens in TEC during the past decade. She felt strongly that this needs to be addressed in two ways: (1) Evangelism --- actually introducing (or re-introducing!) people to Christ, to what the Church believes about him, and to how believing and following him is the way to true life. She maintains that mainline churches are so afraid of stepping on people's toes that the churches have lost sight of what they should be about. (2) Education, education, education. Confirmation classes aren't enough to adequately orient kids toward a trajectory of real faith and discipleship, and many adults who have been confirmed and are (to varying degrees) active in church life really don't have a clue about what they believe. Clergy may be good at addressing everyday issues in their sermons, but we're falling flat when it comes to reinforcing in congregants' minds what it is that constitutes Christianity's central claims.

It was really quite an enlightening set of observations, given that it came from someone who would probably regard herself as a mainline, fairly liberal Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The big switch off is not a position where we don't claim to have al the answers - its where we don't seem to have any (possible for fear of offence).

---

Indeed. And half the problem is that the church has a reputation of not believing what its own holy book tells them.

Why should anyone buy into a product that its salesmen don't think is any good?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

AV

---

Audio-Visual or Authorized Version?
 

---

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
The Revised Standard Version will do nicely
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
People have blamed all sorts of things for the decline in church attendance in Wales - and it's probably worse among the non-conformist churches in many places than the Church in Wales.

Calvinism has been blamed.

And Welsh antagonism towards organised religion is also said to have a strongly and residually Calvinist flavour ... and I can see that.

Revivalism has been blamed.

Lack of revivalism has been blamed.

Socialism has been blamed.

Even the Eisteddfodau and Welsh Nationalism has been blamed ...

I can see what Hatless is getting at but I'm not sure that a Pol Pot Year Zero approach is entirely helpful ... but then, it does seem to be the one we are heading towards ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We all knew that numbers are down, but the latest figures for the Anglican Church in Wales show a dispiriting picture.

See: http://stevenbunting.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/church-in-wales-membership-and-young-people/

I'm not sure I'd see Soul Survivor type stuff as potentially saving the day ... however ...

Thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John D. Ward:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

AV

---

Audio-Visual or Authorized Version?

---

Audio-visual. Although I dig the KJV, I can't see it being much of a draw outside the lit set.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Guitar-led worship makes sense in an evangelical context ... and yes, I know, there are also Catholic examples ... but I can't quite see it working in liberal settings somehow ...

It evokes shades of 'Kum-by-ah' (spelling?) and 'Michael Row The Boat Ashore' ...

Meanwhile, 'commitments' ... man, I can't stand that jargon word. I know what you mean by it, Lord Pontivillian but I wish someone would come up with a better phrase than 'making a commitment' ... it sounds like a down-payment on a mortgage or something ...

The ultimate commodification of Christianity ...


 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
The trouble is that I think that we have got a lot to offer in terms of an inclusive, questioning faith that starts with people from where they are. We need to get much more mission-minded. Maybe I overdo the fuzziness, but I mean it as shorthand for not claiming to have all the answers. And it bothers me very much that this sort of Christianity is declining while the Christianities that are resisting or reversing decline seem all to often to be full of cheapjack simplistic assurance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I think that we do have some solid things to say about taking a good hard look at the priorities of our culture and society. But how, as you say, to make this kind of Christianity attractive to people outside it? Perhaps it is something which some people come to after they have been within the faith for a while. I don't know. But I do believe that we have something good to offer.

---

Look, this isn't rocket science. I'm standing in front of you. I have about 400 hours of spare time and £500 pounds to give, per annum, and I may bring along a nuclear family. Why should that go to you, rather than some other Christian group or the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or whatever? You have roughly 30 seconds before my mind's well-honed anti-spam filters will fade you out. So, what is in it for me? What do I get?

It is entirely possible to make a sales pitch on "reforming culture and society", of course. But actually, that will probably fly better with young people. Young people need their revolutions. I'm middle-aged, well-educated and doing well for myself. Chances are that I'm cynical and don't want society to change all that much. Unless perhaps if you get me on my concerns for my child's future or have sussed out that I follow some strong political ideology, that probably will be the wrong sales pitch. Look at what you have, and think what of it might interest me. Then sell that hard.

Saying "but I do believe that we have something good to offer" is just neither here nor there. "Some people may think our restaurant cooks some nice food. Our repair shop probably does a reasonable job for OK prices. Our cable TV also has some nice channels for you to watch. Our hotel doesn't disappoint much." I know you are English, but if you are going for understatement as sales pitch then you have to do that hard! So if you welcome me to Westminster Cathedral as your little parish church, or if I witness you feeding hundreds of homeless as just one of the many small ways in which you provide charity, then I will be impressed. Otherwise I will just note that you are not noteworthy and look elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Look, Ingo, I do realise all this, but I have neither the time or the space to go into all this here, and we need to think this out. You are quite right that we need a pitch. I will leave it there because I am in grave danger of getting all Hellish with you.
Happy sailing in the Bark of Peter. As ever, you demonstrate why that is such an attractive vessel to some- and such an unattractive one to others.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Weird, I was sincerely trying to help. This had nothing at all to do with attacking whatever sort of Christian you might be. It applies to RCs just as well, from the most cafeteria to the ultra-trads. Indeed, it applies to any religion that tries to convert the non-religious in the West, though Christianity admittedly has a unique re-branding problem here. But anyway, suit yourself...
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is a rather amusing paragraph. It looks the problem right in the eye and then says "I see nothing." As a convert from the ever-growing cradle non-religious crowd, let me put this plainly: nobody from the outside needs any fuzziness from you, whatsoever. We can do fuzzy perfectly fine without any church, it's a fuzzy world through and through. Fuzziness is an internal accommodation, it's how you keep people that are in your church already from leaving. If you want to attract new people, they need to have a reason to start dedicating their time and money to you. And unless you have something clear to offer - even if it is a bit of an advertisement lie - why would anybody feel like shopping for their spiritual needs with you? In particular if they are not even aware of having any spiritual needs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I agree, but from a liberal perspective. Liberals are compromised horribly by refusing to be clear about what they believe. Few have confidence in a person who shows no confidence in themselves.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by IngoB:
Fuzziness is an internal accommodation, it's how you keep people that are in your church already from leaving. If you want to attract new people, they need to have a reason to start dedicating their time and money to you. And unless you have something clear to offer - even if it is a bit of an advertisement lie - why would anybody feel like shopping for their spiritual needs with you? In particular if they are not even aware of having any spiritual needs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
...the CofE and CinW as they stand don't stand for anything in particular that I can make out. Its biggest current public battles are whether it should compromise with its own reactionaries. Not even whether it should be reactionary - but whether it should let the reactionaries carry off the candlesticks, a £1 million fund from the Cofraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, several entire parishes, equality for female priests for another ten years or more, and preventing decent priests from even blessing gay marriages. Oh, and on the financial side whether it should itself invest in a Payday Loans company.

"We're the people who compromise with reactionaries and have reactionaries leading us* but are quite nice really" is even less of an attraction than "We are unashamed reactionaries".

* Barry Morgan, admittedly, does not appear to be one and neither was his predecessor as Archbishop of Wales (Rowan Williams, of course).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
What liberals believe is usually at a greater or lesser remove from orthodox Christianity, and therein lies the problem. Christianity has spent the best part of two millenia believing that Jesus was literally God, and that he literally saved the world by dying on the cross. I can't see it having much credibility left, if it upped and changed it's mind. The best that 'liberals' can hope for is a bit of fuzziness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
With you completely, Darlennwr. Jesus made serious demands on all those who would follow him, and I don't think we should water that down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
I'm thinking (from the perspective of a lay minister in the CinW) that part of our problem is that we have spent too much effort on watering down the Christian Faith to make it acceptable to the outside world and, thereby, have removed nearly all of the challenge that it poses?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It evokes shades of 'Kum-by-ah' (spelling?) and 'Michael Row The Boat Ashore' ...

---

Thanks for the earworm.

GG
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Can't see why guitar-led worship wouldn't necessarily work with liberal Anglicanism, though I'd hate it. (Always had the impression that RCs have it because they don't always have organists but they do have nuns!)
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
Just a random thought, in the context of Cwmbran, shouldn't that have been "cwm-by-yere"?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ha ha ha ...

Is that a companion song to 'Over By There'?

Or 'Where By Is That To?'

Or even, 'Where to do yew live?'

'Come by yere, my Lord, come by yere ...'

Love it ...
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Can't see why guitar-led worship wouldn't necessarily work with liberal Anglicanism,...

---

Did Fred Kaan write anything that can be sung to the guitar? If so, surely that + a bit of of Sydney Carter would be OK - as long as nothing by G**h*m K**d***k, St Uart T**n**d or the G**tt*s slipped in by a mistake?
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

I think- I hope- I trust- that all that 100 Hymns for Today / Sound of Living Waters stuff is NOT what Byron had in mind! (Our otherwise excellent vicar has said she's going to slip one or two from that latter stable in every now and then 'now that the students are coming back'. Given that it wasn't especially new when I was a yoof 30+ years ago, I think one of us might have to have a word with her...)
I've no idea what is going round now, and don't particularly want to have one. I like Proper School Hymns (TM), me. But if the price of getting people in is having a bit of other stuff too, it's a price worth paying.

[ 09. September 2014, 20:11: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 
I was at a Cafe Church service in Horsham at which the organist made a comment about the fact that children don't know the hymns that we are used to singing in church. A clergy friend of mine admitted that he didn't know most of the hymns either!

My point is that I worry that we cling to our old hymns that comfort us but have no relevance to people outside our circle. A lot of hymns are in a language we do not speak today - thee's and thou's, a point made by my spell-checker! This isn't a problem confined to the old hymns, as attested by some of the jargon used in some of Robin Mark's songs.

The challenge is to get people to hear the gospel in a way that doesn't put them off. We have to teach people the language and jargon before we can expect them to feel comfortable in using it.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 

quote:

---

This is a rather amusing paragraph. It looks the problem right in the eye and then says "I see nothing." As a convert from the ever-growing cradle non-religious crowd, let me put this plainly: nobody from the outside needs any fuzziness from you, whatsoever. We can do fuzzy perfectly fine without any church, it's a fuzzy world through and through. Fuzziness is an internal accommodation, it's how you keep people that are in your church already from leaving. If you want to attract new people, they need to have a reason to start dedicating their time and money to you. And unless you have something clear to offer - even if it is a bit of an advertisement lie - why would anybody feel like shopping for their spiritual needs with you? In particular if they are not even aware of having any spiritual needs.

---

quote:

---

a bit of vague inoffensive spirituality plus a side order of social justice

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
We need to get much more mission-minded. Maybe I overdo the fuzziness, but I mean it as shorthand for not claiming to have all the answers. And it bothers me very much that this sort of Christianity is declining while the Christianities that are resisting or reversing decline seem all to often to be full of cheapjack simplistic assurance.

---

The big switch off is not a position where we don't claim to have al the answers - its where we don't seem to have any (possible for fear of offence).

---

---

Indeed. And half the problem is that the church has a reputation of not believing what its own holy book tells them.

Why should anyone buy into a product that its salesmen don't think is any good?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I'm not going to reply to this, not because I ddon't have a reply to it, but because I know you will always insist on having the last word.

---

So very radically inclusive and what not.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However we 'do church' and whatever style or language we use, I think Lord Pontivillian is on the money ... we are operating in a largely post-Christian environment and people don't have the foggiest idea what we're on about.

Catechesis and explanation is required.

As for the best ways to go about that ...

Answers on a postcard pleased ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I'm not going to reply to this, not because I ddon't have a reply to it, but because I know you will always insist on having the last word.

---

So very radically inclusive and what not.

---

QED
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No, I don't let posts containing an ad hominem be the last word.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - so how would you go about explaining to those who complain that if they really thought the Eucharist was important they wouldn't complain about the timings and how long it lasts etc?

Could you do that without pissing them off in some way?

I'd imagine you could but given the 'choice' and 'self-reliance' elements within our western culture, would also imagine that you'd meet a pretty frosty reception.

I don't know what the answer is. We aren't living in medieval Europe or 19th century Russia.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I just come out and say it. I've said it several times in various settings from sermons to informal conversations. Parishioners can at least admit that what I'm saying is true even if they still gripe about such stuff under their breath. Any congregation filled with people obsessed with service times and exact length of the service is already dead. I'm not talking about expecting an hour long service and getting a 2 1/2 hour service. I'm talking about people griping about a service that last an hour and ten minutes when they wanted to get to the coffee and donuts before the top of the hour.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Perhaps I'm naive, but I must admit I'm surprised to hear that this is the case in your parish, Beeswax Altar.

Perhaps the Southern Baptist caricatures of country-club 'cultural Christian' US 'Piskies are true after all ...



(Ducks to avoid incoming Cruise missile)
 

---

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :
 
To drag this back to the OP...

I play the organ at a large-ish vaguely AFFcath anglican church in Cardiff (100+ on an ordinary Sunday morning) and numbers have risen slowly in recent years. The next Parish gets more I think, but they're ultra-high with good choral music and attract people from all over SE Wales who like that kind of thing. There are 2 (that I can think of) properly big evangelical Anglican churches in the city, and numerous others of all flavours that are doing OK.

My point? I'm not being complacent, but the Church in Wales around here is not (yet) in terminal decline. However, Wales is a (mainly) sparsely populated country. Most of us live in the southern coastal strip. The greater part of Wales is very empty, with poor communication links. The church (and public services generally) are stretched very thin. Rural clergy with multiple parishes have little time for anything except presiding at services and attending church meetings. I know people in isolated areas have as much right to be ministered to as the rest of us, but how long can the church continue to maintain its parish system for the sake of tiny, dwindling and ageing congregations?

The Harris report proposed some radical changes, some of which at least are being adopted. The C in W has moved a long way in the last 20 years. At last, it is recognising the vital importance of lay ministry. Admittedly it's doing it largely because it can't afford to pay enough full time clergy, but people elsewhere should not get the impression that the Anglican church in Wales is just sitting around in despair waiting for death.
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 
The numbers are dropping rapidly in the Valleys, if what I am seeing is average. However I am just a pew warmer!

I wonder if Cardiff is blessed by what I would describe as the "London Effect?" That is to say that everyone flocks to the City, often to the detriment of their nearest church. This is more easily done when Cardiff is only an hour away by Car, has universities and jobs.
 

---

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Part of the problem with some suggestions is that it involves More of the Same......which will merely result in...More of the Same.

Discussing how one can preach to people rather ignores that fact that folk ain't in the pews.

[ 11. September 2014, 17:34: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 
The question that nobody likes to ask is what do we have to change to get people into our pews. Maybe getting rid of pews would be a start! I wonder if we have got too used to the way that we do things to wonder why we do things. Do we go to Church to seek God or to have a piece of brad and wine with our friends?

I fear that for many people in the church there are going to be uncomfortable times ahead, either that or the Church will die. We seem to be acting as if nothing has happened and we are still in the past.

I believe that this Christianity lark is supposed to bring us more to the likeness of Christ. How many Churches actually display that likeness to the outside world? The social stuff is great, but where are the calls to repent as a society? The heart of the gospel isn't about being nice, it is about getting closer to God.

Of course all this is my own opinion and I could be talking garbage!
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:
The question that nobody likes to ask is what do we have to change to get people into our pews. Maybe getting rid of pews would be a start! I wonder if we have got too used to the way that we do things to wonder why we do things. Do we go to Church to seek God or to have a piece of brad and wine with our friends?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

I like this but would go plenty further myself! For me, the question is what do we have to do to bring the good news of Jesus and his kingdom to people?

That might involve getting people 'into church' but I think for many people these days (when fewer and fewer people have any heritage / connection with Christianity) it actually involves getting 'church into them'. By which I mean showing people what difference Christ makes to us individually and as a community; trying to form community between our Christian friends and our non-Christian friends etc.

IMO getting rid of pews is a start, but just the start...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:
To reach people means stepping out of our buildings, going to the people. This is of course difficult. What if the people laugh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:
I am as guilty and hypocritical of not going out as anyone. Please pray for me!

---

You and me both!
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
You're right. We have to find out, and do, what the contemporary equivalent is of sending out wandering friars to preach in marketplaces.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Open Air Campaigners!!

(Yes I did lots of this at one time, and so did at least one other Shipmate. And yes it was fun. There's something about walking past a street corner in Paris and thinking "hmm, I remember preaching there").
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 
Thank you for the link. I always commend Jehovah's Witnesses for their willingness to walk the streets and I think what OAC is doing is a good guide for the future. Bringing people into faith requires good communication without compromising on what we believe.

[ 11. September 2014, 21:37: Message edited by: Lord Pontivillian ]
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 
Darllenwr came into my room and handed me his thoughts on this topic.

quote:

---

The mistake we make lies in thing that "getting people into church" means getting them inside a building, rather than drawing them amongst a people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:
Darllenwr came into my room and handed me his thoughts on this topic.

quote:

---

The mistake we make lies in thing that "getting people into church" means getting them inside a building, rather than drawing them amongst a people

---

I hope that I have read his writing correctly. I believe the thought, behind the words, is do people see the Church as a building or the body of Christ?

---

Host puts on puzzled Hat

As a general rule we can only quote what a Shipmate has posted here and none of us is free to change the words of a quote. Basic reason is to avoid misrepresentation and ensure also that each of us takes personal responsibility under the guidelines for what we post.

But this looks pretty innocent and well intentioned. Is there a reason why Darllenwyr didn't simply post himself?

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 
Sorry. He was going to bed and switched his computer off before having the idea for the post.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
OK, it gets a pass this time. Next time inspiration strikes late on, please power up or wait until morning!

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As you all know, it'd take more than pulling out the pews to reverse the tide of secularism in Wales and elsewhere.

I know a church which pulled its pews out and replaced them with more flexible - and comfortable - seating and that's gone down very well in the town ... it's used for concerts and all sorts of other events.

In and of itself, it hasn't resulted in any more people attending the services - although it is still packed at Christmas and Easter - if not at other times of year.

Of course, with the residual awareness of Christianity decreasing, we're all going to have to do something better than we are doing ...

I've often asked South Coast Kevin how we can go about making the Gospel more attractive to people by the way we live and conduct ourselves ... so far - and this isn't intended as a criticism - I've not seen him come up with anything concrete other than by showing that we don't get angry or depressed at work etc ... (as if we would! )

Sure, the Gospel should make a difference to how we conduct ourselves - but it should make us more fully human not less ... but that's a different issue ...

I'm still struggling to envisage what South Coast Kevin's super-duper 'better than what we've got now' Christianity should look like. It's easy to point at the Book of Acts and say, 'Let's have some of that ...' but the fact is, I don't see a great deal of evidence that any of us have that at all ... at least, not consistently.

If Acts was supposed to be the 'norm' then how do we get to that 'level' as it were? Chucking out the pews and going 'GNNNNNnnnn ...' until we work ourselves up into some heightened state of holiness doesn't appear to work.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm still struggling to envisage what South Coast Kevin's super-duper 'better than what we've got now' Christianity should look like. It's easy to point at the Book of Acts and say, 'Let's have some of that ...' but the fact is, I don't see a great deal of evidence that any of us have that at all ... at least, not consistently.

---

Two quick ideas:

Serious commitment to Christ in terms of sustained, deliberate intention to order our lives as he did - prayer, fasting, celebration, service to others, study and meditation of the Bible etc. (yes, I've drunk the spiritual disciplines kool-aid!);

Massive flexibility about how we actually 'do' church, with pretty much anything up for questioning and change, in service to the mission of sharing the gospel with people in a way that is accessible and relevant to them.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
As far as 'getting people in' goes, we need to make sure that anyone who wanders into church by chance finds a warm welcome - but not something so OTT that they feel engulfed.

We also need to recognise that some people find the idea of a 'service' off-putting unless it has some (for them) specific purpose. That is why there are larger congregations at Christmas, Easter and Harvest, because people can see the point of being in the building, even if it is just so they can see little Jason dressed as a shepherd.

The next step has to be making services that are relevant (horrible word) or likely to be wanted - but this in itself is a huge bear-trap. What most congregations take this to mean is to spice-up their usual services: IME this is completely wrong. We have discovered that what some non-attenders are looking for is something that makes sense to them so think 'special' services: celebrations for marriage and family life; memorial services for those in the village who've died during the year; turn your patronal festival into a celebration of the place of the building in the life of the community, etc, etc, etc.

In our small village we get a full (standing-room only) church for our All Souls requiem, which is always the Faure: this is not because the choir is outstanding (although they are pretty good) but because everyone in the villages knows they can come to give thanks for and remember their relatives.

Similarly, our marriage and family life celebration is attended not just by those married in the church but by couples from the village who've married elsewhere but want to mark it as part of the village community.

Religion-lite? Maybe, but these are things that those who don't normally attend want and they come - and some then dip their toe into the more run-of-the-mill services and stay.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I've read on another website that the CinW is mostly quite high, and there's less of the diversity that's apparent in the CofE. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage? It should at least help the CinW to present a less confusing image to the world.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There are evangelical, MoR and Anglo-Catholic and liberal catholic parishes in the CinW as there are in the CofE.

If I were to make a generalisation - and there are always exceptions to every rule - I would say that if there was a default position within the CinW it would be towards the higher end of the MoR spectrum ... but certainly not 'nose-bleed high'.

This was partly a conscious stance to differentiate themselves from the surrounding largely non-conformist chapel culture ...

That's less of an issue these days as the chapels are struggling just as much - if not more so - than the Church in Wales is.

As Lord Pontivillian says, it's a different issue with Cardiff as a kind of 'London effect' applies there so you'll get thriving churches of all kinds there in a way that you might not in a town like Tregaron or even Aberystwyth ...

To quote George Borrow in Wild Wales when he encounters a cattle drover in mid-Wales ...

"And what kind of place is Tregaron?"
"Oh, a very good place. Not quite as big as London ..."
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Ah well, I suppose the CinW is doing its best, considering the circumstances. It can't change too much without damaging its sense of identity, can it?

As it happens, one of my relatives is married to a Pentecostal pastor in Cardiff. I met her recently at a family funeral abroad and asked her about the Welsh Revival, but the next time we meet I'll have to bring up the CinW. Perhaps the way forward involves greater ecumenical engagement.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In what way should it change, SvitlanaV2?

Take out the pews? Try to be more Pentecostal?

Should your Pentecostal relatives try to be more Anglican?


 

---

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I'm always concerned that if churches refashion themselves to attract the unchurched, the unchurched still won't come and the regular attenders won't like the changes and will stop coming. I've seen this happen in a church that I used to attend. I now attend a different church and we see growing attendance of people who have also left the now 'trendy' church.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In what way should it change, SvitlanaV2?

Take out the pews? Try to be more Pentecostal?

Should your Pentecostal relatives try to be more Anglican?

---

That's the opposite of what I said! I said that the CinW was doing its best, and it probably couldn't change too much without losing its identity. IOW, I agree with you that trying to do things differently would be very difficult!

As for the Pentecostals, however, I implied that they might consider engaging in more ecumenical ventures with the CinW. (Perhaps they already do. I don't know.) Ecumenicalism rarely brings in more people, but it creates good feeling and it enables resources to be used more efficiently.

[ 12. September 2014, 14:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - I misunderstood your point, SvitlanaV2.

I'd be interested to hear if there are ecumenical initiatives between the Pentecostals and the CinW. There was precious little of that when I was growing up in the Principality ...

I suspect there'll be some initiatives but on the whole - and this probably still holds true - religion is fairly segmented demographically in Wales ... at least it was when I was growing up.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
Barnabas62, please accept my apologies for causing confusion - what I actually said to Lord P, as I was going to bed, was; "The mistake we make lies in thinking that, 'getting people into church', means getting them inside a building, rather than drawing them amongst a people". He said, "Can you write that down for me?" I obliged and he asked whether he could post it on the thread. I said, "By all means" - it made no odds to me whether he claimed it as his own or attributed it to Santa Claus.

Responding to Svitlana, the Church in Wales comes at all heights on the candle. Llandaff diocese (this one) tends to be on the high side, but my own parish is snake-belly low. Admittedly, we've dropped a bit in the last 18 months, but we always bucked the trend here. The next parish north is bells and smells, whilst the next-but-one parish to the south can out-Roman the Romans. I should add that the parish to the north is very much on the charismatic end of high. We are increasingly charismatic-evangelical.

As has been said, it takes all sorts to make liquorice but I don't think I could safely say that there is a "magic approach" that packs the people in.

The point has been well made that there is a profound ignorance of what Christianity is about outside the walls of the church. I find that a lot of people know what they think Christianity should be about (in their opinion) and it usually bears very little resemblance to what our Church believes! Having said which, I am only too aware that many of our congregation are not too sure what they believe themselves. If we don't know what we believe, what chance does the world outside have?

There is a need for sound teaching (refer to Hebrews 6: 1,2 for the course synopsis!) within the Church, so that the Church actually knows what it is talking about for a change . I often wonder how many of our congregation would fare in a stand-up debate with Jehovah's Witnesses - not too well, I suspect. Should this be a sort-of bench mark - can you defend your own faith to somebody who questions it?
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:


There is a need for sound teaching (refer to Hebrews 6: 1,2 for the course synopsis!) within the Church, so that the Church actually knows what it is talking about for a change . I often wonder how many of our congregation would fare in a stand-up debate with Jehovah's Witnesses - not too well, I suspect. Should this be a sort-of bench mark - can you defend your own faith to somebody who questions it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Should this be a sort-of bench mark - can you defend your own faith to somebody who questions it?

---

Now, there's an idea. I wish I had had it when I stumbled on SoF a decade ago.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm still struggling to envisage what South Coast Kevin's super-duper 'better than what we've got now' Christianity should look like. It's easy to point at the Book of Acts and say, 'Let's have some of that ...' but the fact is, I don't see a great deal of evidence that any of us have that at all ... at least, not consistently.

---

Two quick ideas:

Serious commitment to Christ in terms of sustained, deliberate intention to order our lives as he did - prayer, fasting, celebration, service to others, study and meditation of the Bible etc. (yes, I've drunk the spiritual disciplines kool-aid!);

Massive flexibility about how we actually 'do' church, with pretty much anything up for questioning and change, in service to the mission of sharing the gospel with people in a way that is accessible and relevant to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
How would what you say be put into practice - the unchurched are not very likely to go into a meeting where the only advice is a sandwich board on the footpath outside a school or some such. And your second paragraph really avoids the question by not giving any clues about what is "accessible and relevant" to the vast majority.

I don't understand what "do church" means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
How are the unchurched to know of our spiritual disciplines

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
...what do you mean by accessible and relevant.

---

A few examples - the language used in our church services / gatherings to be contemporary language; questions and contributions from all people to be allowed (rather than it essentially being a performance led by a small number of people from the pulpit / stage / altar); contemporary cultural media to be used (e.g. songs that sound contemporary); real questions of life to be addressed, instead of abstract, theoretical sermons that don't explain what faith in Christ actually means in the context of modern-day living.

Some of that is probably drifting into caricature, but I hope the contrasts I've drawn show what I had in mind with 'accessible and relevant'.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Gamaliel

quote:

---

So, how do we actually make disciples? That's the $64,000 question ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:


You deride the outreach of some churches: 'mums & toddlers groups and everything else' which is odd: think of Matthew 5:16 [Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven]. Being in the church building doesn't have to be limiting, nor does using it: bringing people into the building for events other than 'worship' is not wrong or selling-out, it is inviting people into our home. So don't knock the mum and toddler groups, or the lunch clubs - they are showing your light.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, my point behind the spiritual disciplines thing is really that we Christians are all adverts for Jesus, through the way we live our lives - how we interact with those around us, how we spend our time and money etc. IMO church happens following on from Christians making disciples - i.e. teaching people to follow Christ's ways and patterns of life. We should, I think, focus on the making disciples bit far more than the building church bit (i.e. inviting people to our church services and other activities).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
A few examples - the language used in our church services / gatherings to be contemporary language; questions and contributions from all people to be allowed (rather than it essentially being a performance led by a small number of people from the pulpit / stage / altar); contemporary cultural media to be used (e.g. songs that sound contemporary); real questions of life to be addressed, instead of abstract, theoretical sermons that don't explain what faith in Christ actually means in the context of modern-day living.

---

Yeah, nobody ever thought of that before...

So what does the one trick pony do when its one trick doesn't attract an audience any longer?

Has your church made any converts in the last decade or two? No, I'm neither talking about cultural Christians who think they need marriage and/or baptism from you, nor about the sheep you regularly steal from other churches. Real converts. If you have any, then just maybe it would be a good idea to ask them why they converted and what attracted them to your church specifically.

I know, it is a radical idea that stands against millennia of tradition, but it's worth a shot...
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
What SCK suggests may work well in some places with some demographics- probably with people who, er, look rather like SCK. But it would be interesting to know something about the people who are makig up the growing congregations in cathedrals, where worship is (with the likely exception of the sermons) pretty much the opposite of everything that SCK advocates. Are they people who have moved from other places of worship because they prefer the cathedral way of doing things, or is there a noticeable proportion of previously unchurched people attracted by something that is not to be found verty much elsewhere in modern life? I don't know.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


I wasn't deriding 'mums and toddler groups and all the rest of it' ... whatever gave you that idea?



I may have typed it rather flippantly, but what I meant was that the apparently radical, 'let's be all relevant' church plant was arguably no better at making disciples than the more broadly based parent church with its traditional outreach and community activities such as mums and tots etc ...

Meanwhile, I think I will start a new thread on this one ...

SCK's post begs all sorts of questions - 'contemporary music' - contemporary to whom?

'Relevant' - again, to whom?

And on it goes ...
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'm not sure this gets the relationship between church and disciple-making the right way round: correct me if I'm wrong, but it sees disciple-making as the thing and church as a place, or a resource (albeit an important one) that helps that process to happen. Would that be fair - apologies if not!!

---

Yes, you've been fair to my view here, Stejjie. It derives from Jesus' command for us to make disciples, and his statement that he will build his church. The idea being that church will more or less naturally (or supernaturally...) arise once you have a group of disciples. Followers of Jesus will inevitably want to gather with other Jesus-followers in order to encourage and equip one another, to challenge one another to greater Christlikeness, to share God's presence with one another.

As an aside, I'd absolutely reject any suggestion that we gather to 'worship God'. IMO that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to worship God - I'd say we worship God by living as he would intend, i.e. our entire lives can and should be acts of worship. It's not something we gather together in order to do. Potential thread divert ahoy...

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Has your church made any converts in the last decade or two? No, I'm neither talking about cultural Christians who think they need marriage and/or baptism from you, nor about the sheep you regularly steal from other churches. Real converts. If you have any, then just maybe it would be a good idea to ask them why they converted and what attracted them to your church specifically.

---

Plenty of genuine converts, thank you. And my recollection of their stated reasons for converting and becoming part of our church is that they saw genuine love in our community and became convinced that God was among us. Praise the Lord
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In a nutshell, and with the greatest respect to South Coast Kevin, I tend to think that:

'Contemporary music' is shorthand for, 'the kind of music I like'.

'Relevant' means 'stuff I like and which appeals to me. I have no idea what appeals to anyone else.'

Everything SCK has ever posted on this subject makes me think that he envisages church as something that should appeal to his own particular demographic - ie. 20 or 30-something studenty types (which I assume SCK to be).

The SCK church is a 'people like us' church.

It's filled with people like SCK and his chums.

That might be unfair, but that's how it comes across to me and I can't see how SCK and his pals come create anything that didn't look otherwise ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Which isn't to say that genuine conversions don't take place - I'm sure they do - because there will be a great sense of love and community in SCK's church - I have no doubt of that.

But not everyone wants that level of intensity and closeness of community.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Posted by SCK:

quote:

---

Plenty of genuine converts, thank you. And my recollection of their stated reasons for converting and becoming part of our church is that they saw genuine love in our community and became convinced that God was among us. Praise the Lord [Smile]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
And what got them in touch with your community?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE]
My take on it is that the 'culture' of a church (in terms of the things like music and language) should reflect, in combination, the people already in the church and the people that church is hoping to have an impact on. If there's a significant mismatch between those two groups, then there'll need to be a cultural adjustment as and when more of the latter group get involved in the church.

---

I can see what you're getting at that but would suggest that this is only practically possible under certain circumstances.

Unless you've got some kind of mono-cultural community then no one musical style is going to suit everyone, for instance ... hence the 'music wars' that go on in so many churches ...



We've all heard the horror stories about those ... choirs and organists edged out by trendy vicars with guitars or even Hillsongs CDs sung along to karaoke style ...

Of course, these things cut both ways, but if I look at our local parish church I can't think of a single 'style' of music that is going to suit absolutely everybody there ... such a thing is impossible. So there are effectively two congregations in one church ... a 9am one which goes in for traditional hymns accompanied by the organ and an 11am one which has so-called 'contemporary' music ... all the worship songs and choruses and so on.

This isn't a problem, I don't suppose, if the 9am and 11am crowds reach out to their peer groups ...

As for what people outside the church will listen to ... well, that's going to range pretty widely isn't it? Not everyone likes pop music, not everyone likes classical music, not everyone likes Radio 2 or Radio 3 or ...

In the case of South Coast Kevin's church I suspect that the growth from among those involved with the debt counselling service doesn't ultimately have a great deal to do with the style of music or service ... but more to do with the fact that people have shown a genuine interest in them and they've found a sense of community ... which is increasingly important in our increasingly atomised society.

We've got a number of people on the periphery of church or becoming actively involved with church who have come in from a very good Job Club that someone has organised over the last few years - with professional input from careers advisors etc.

Whilst I applaud this initiative and the vegetable allotment that has sprung out of it - offering the long term unemployed an opportunity to do something constructive and learn new skills - part of me wonders and worries about how evangelical churches often end up targeting very vulnerable people.

I'm not saying that's happening in SCK's church, but people who are availing themselves of debt counselling services clearly recognise that they've got a problem - 'I'm in debt, get me outta here ...'

So, in a sense, these people are going to be more susceptible to a bunch of nice friendly 20-30 something studenty types showing them love and concern and introducing them to church life ...

It'd be a lot harder, I submit, to engage the professional couple round the corner who are doing very well thank you very much ... or the keen cyclist who is pedalling around or fiddling with his bike every waking moment he's not in work ... or the ...

You get my drift. The model SCK describes is going to work in some places and not others - as Albertus suggests.

Now, I recognise that SCK recognises the same ... but I do wonder what strategies are available to us if we don't find ourselves in a university town or somewhere with a lot of 20 somethings. Hereabouts, most 20 somethings disappear after they've been to university or college. There are a lot of retired people and people with young kids - but the 30 - 50 bracket is probably under-represented.

There's some good stuff going on with da yout' through the local parish church and some quite creative stuff going on at the opposite end of the spectrum with the elderly ... but for those who commute to Manchester every day or who leave the town around 8am and don't reappear until 7-ish ... what is there for them and how can the churches engage there?
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...part of me wonders and worries about how evangelical churches often end up targeting very vulnerable people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It'd be a lot harder, I submit, to engage the professional couple round the corner who are doing very well thank you very much ... but for those who commute to Manchester every day or who leave the town around 8am and don't reappear until 7-ish ... what is there for them and how can the churches engage there?

---

quote:

---

I may have typed it rather flippantly, but what I meant was that the apparently radical, 'let's be all relevant' church plant was arguably no better at making disciples than the more broadly based parent church with its traditional outreach and community activities such as mums and tots etc ...

---

• feed the hungry - I mean the with food, not sermons
• defend the fatherless and widows - practical help with DIY, free babysitting service, etc
• give alms to the poor - and practical help like credit unions, help with clothing, furniture for those who have been homeless

Part of the problem is that many church people have few, if any, friends among the vast majority of people who comes from generations of the, effectively 'unchurched' and so we have little if any idea of how we are perceived. Many of our clergy, particularly at senior level, have had little exposure to people for who the church isn't right or wrong but simply irrelevant.

The church - denominations, hierarchies and people - is remarkably lacking in self-awareness: worse, we mistake our self-obsession and self-absorbtion with self-knowledge.

We fail utterly to comprehend the damage that the interminable spats over doctrine - especially to do with those areas where the un-churched may come into direct contact with our organisations - has done and we persist in demanding that the society of which we are a part makes allowances for us.

Even worse, we have leaders who demand the right to lash out at our society for what they perceive to be its faults while failing utterly to listen to the people who aren't in our pews.

I had a partner who was, effectively, un-churched and my step-children have never attended church: their views on what they see as 'church' are fascinating and the list of things that they don't like about us or our services are interesting.

Since joining the ship I've been listening to these unchurched adults - ages 39, 40 and 43 - and it has been illuminating.

SCK - you talk about archaic language and non-contemporary music: On their rare forays into a church (weddings, funerals, the odd baptism) this doesn't bother them at all. In fact, when at a wedding that one went to recently the cleric told his congregation proudly that the service had been made more 'understandable' they were outraged; as he said, the impression came over loud and clear that people who don't go to church are thick so need a dumbed-down service.

Similarly the traditional music doesn't bother them - but they are puzzled that we have so few songs because at most of the services they attend they get the same things over and over again: The Lord of the Dance, Sing Hosanna, Bind us together, The servant song, Majesty. Their relief when none of these figured at my other half's funeral was palpable.

They talk about how every time they go to church there is talk about money - how much it costs to keep the building they are in running, or direct requests for this or that special collection. As they said, we don't mind giving, but don't lecture us.

As for doctrinal arguments - women, gayness, SSM - they view this as being about as relevant as the Thirty Years War or the dispute between India and Pakistan about Kashmir. The only people under 30 that I've met who are remotely interested are from Northern Ireland - and they said one reason for staying here after graduation was to get away from the incessant religion-dominated culture at home which, they said, made NI feel like a place living in a time-warp.

What they like about our services, when they come, are that regular churchgoers are there to make them welcome, hand out service books, chat to afterwards (if its a regular liturgy). What they don't like is being made to look or feel a fool: specifically in this regard was quoted 'the bit where people come up and touch you' and 'going to the front and then not knowing what to do' - so that's the Peace and Communion.

Services where they feel most welcome are things like Harvest, Christmas services with an emphasis on children, traditional carol services, Remembrance Sunday.

They are suspicious if people from a church they have just walked into start 'talking to me on my own about God' and view this as a reason not to go again. But the young mother among the three did value the mother & toddler service at her local church: the children played, there was a short service (not specified but I've sussed out it was a basic few prayers, reading and one hymn around thanksgiving for family life) and that was it; no collection but you could donate towards the cost of tea, squash and biscuits if you felt like it.

Two have been taken along to Alpha suppers and in both cases it has destroyed the friendship with the person who did the inviting: they felt pressurised and also that they had been judged as being not the sort of person the original friend wanted to know without some sort of adjustment that Alpha would perform.

So there you have it: a small snapshot but illuminating in its little way.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I find that very illuminating, L'Organist, thanks.

I've not done any similar straw-polls but it accords with what I would imagine to be the case.

Something I've often wondered about is this idea that church meetings/services are somehow evangelistic ... or that entering a church building some how has some kind of 'threshold' effect.

The more liberal parish here often uses its building for concerts and other events. After one of these, I asked someone from the evangelical parish what they'd thought of it. I was expecting him to comment on the music and the performance bu t instead he said, 'It was good to see so many people inside a church building ...'

As if this had some kind of significance in and of itself ...

Even the Orthodox seem to go in for this kind of approach. If you ask them about Orthodoxy they'll say, 'Come and see' and expect you to 'get it' or pick things up by osmosis by attending the Liturgy ...

I can see where all of this is coming from but tend to think that the real action in evangelistic terms - in the broadest sense - comes from the kind of activities you've outlined ... and that we should be engaged in these irrespective of whether they lead to people coming to our church.

If they 'see our good deeds and glorify our father in heaven' then gradual involvement in the life of the church - belonging then believing perhaps? - might follow ... but this shouldn't be the prime intention in a cheesy kind of way.

Your comments on Alpha resonate with me ... these things can spoil otherwise fruitful friendships ... friendships for the sake of friendships not those with ulterior motives.

There are, of course, no easy answers to any of this ...
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Also churches that use 'contemporary' language can use just as much jargon as those using 'archaic' language. 'Hedge of protection' and 'fleece prayer' and 'God gave him a heart for ___' are just as jargony and incomprehensible to outsiders as talking about dalmatics and thuribles and maniples. I'd bet anything that your average MOTR Anglican church is much easier for the average outsider to understand than a Vineyard place. Evangelicals definitely have their own language - just look at things like 'Stuff Christian Culture Likes' for examples.

Edited to add that L'Organist is totally right and the churches I've seen that have got evangelism right (and not used it to manipulate) have gone down that road. Just be Christ to people, don't fart about with 'seeker friendly' crap like coffee bars and nice lighting.

[ 13. September 2014, 18:11: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Yes, I find that amusing as well.
 

---

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
We are using our church hall as a bridge into the community. We have mother and toddler groups, excercise and diet classes, we have started CAP (Christians against Poverty, a debt handling charity), a pensioner's luncheon club, we are looking to start a craft club, we hold concerts...We have posters about what is happening in church in the foyer and on the doors, as a result of which, a young lad asked his mother if he could come to church to learn about the Bible. Our vicar's view is that the people we can ask in to special events are the people on the periphery of the church - and if there is no periphery....?
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Wise words from Jade, Gamaliel and l'organist here. And good luck to St Gwladys too.

BTW, Jade, WTF is 'fleece prayer'? When I occasionally used to attend evening service at Hinde St Methodist 15 years ago the University of London MethSoc (who were even then about 10 years younger than I was) used to turn out in force and they were all wearing fleeces. Is it anything to do with that? Or is it 'close your eyes and pray while we fleece you?'

[ 13. September 2014, 20:28: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 

---

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 



The Ch-in-W's varieties do not slot into the easy C/E descriptions ; truly the Ch-in-W is like no other.

That said, once any specific church has decided that Something Has To Change...ISTM that individual churches take it upon themselves to decide what might (for want of a better word) 'work' in their specific parish.

Certainly some churches in Wales have taken steps to halt the apparent decline in their parish. But tackling this does require a clear head combined lots of good old fashioned pastoral care: talk of change brings lots of people out in a rash of bad temper.

[ 13. September 2014, 20:29: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Wise words from Jade, Gamaliel and l'organist here. And good luck to St Gwladys too.

BTW, Jade, WTF is 'fleece prayer'? When I occasionally used to attend evening service at Hinde St Methodist 15 years ago the University of London MethSoc (who were even then about 10 years younger than I was) used to turn out in force and they were all wearing fleeces. Is it anything to do with that? Or is it 'close your eyes and pray while we fleece you?'

---

A 'fleece prayer' is a prayer asking for a sign from God as to whether you should proceed from something, it's from the story of Gideon where God makes a fleece appear as a sign. I'd never heard of it before my best friend (raised in a charismatic evo church) mentioned it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Conservative evangelicals use the term 'fleece prayer' too - but generally to warn against the practice ...

Meanwhile, St Gwladys's church appear to be doing the right kind of things ...

I don't think we can entirely stem the tide of secularism and indifference, but working to develop a periphery and working with that seems to be the most sensible strategy ...

I do think there are lots of things that churches can do collectively that 'add value' to their communities and supplement the work of other agencies. I know of a town not too far from here where the annual arts festival was struggling until the churches got behind them - offering venues, lending man and woman power and using their communications networks to promote events.

The town centre manager there says that this was the catalyst that galvinised the whole thing ... not only did it raise awareness of the festival but it also meant that the churches had to engage with some quite challenging artistic material - which they did, as it happened.

The knock-on effect was greater support and success for the arts festival and increasing collaboration between the churches in terms of debt-counselling and other initiatives.

I agree with South Coast Kevin that there is room and scope for creative and entrepreneurial initiatives - work-place chaplaincies and fellowship groups etc, social outreach projects ...

I don't see any of these things as necessarily the province of any one type of 'churchmanship' or style.

Meanwhile, on the language/jargon thing ... I hear from someone who sings in the choir at the more liberal parish here - which tends to be used for weddings more than the evangelical one does as it's a nicer building with a more central location - that fewer and fewer people know the words of the hymns these days.

I don't know what the answer to that is ... certainly not gooey Jesus is my boyfriend choruses ... those presuppose that Jesus is your boyfriend in the first place ...

I'd agree that charismatic evangelical churches are far more jargon-prone than MoR ones. We used to have an assistant pastor we called 'The Jargon King'. He was a lovely bloke but his entire public pronouncements consisted of a succession of charismatic evangelical cliches and in-house jargon ... and as a restorationist church with a particular 'take' on things there was a heck of a lot of that ...



The thing is, though, any specialist interest group has its own jargon - that applies to the local cricket club and the brownies as much as to churches. You wouldn't get very far in a model railway club without knowing some of the terminology.

A certain amount of jargon is inevitable. The problems start when it it replaces thinking and robust engagement with whatever the issues happen to be ...

Jargon so easily spills over into pious platitudes.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Plenty of genuine converts, thank you. And my recollection of their stated reasons for converting and becoming part of our church is that they saw genuine love in our community and became convinced that God was among us. Praise the Lord

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, though, any specialist interest group has its own jargon ... You wouldn't get very far in a model railway club without knowing some of the terminology.

---

Are you deliberately throwing temptation in my path ? On trains, I can bore for Britain!
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't be quite so spikey, IngoB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
What SCK suggests may work well in some places with some demographics- probably with people who, er, look rather like SCK. But it would be interesting to know something about the people who are makig up the growing congregations in cathedrals, where worship is (with the likely exception of the sermons) pretty much the opposite of everything that SCK advocates. Are they people who have moved from other places of worship because they prefer the cathedral way of doing things, or is there a noticeable proportion of previously unchurched people attracted by something that is not to be found verty much elsewhere in modern life? I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, on the language/jargon thing ... I hear from someone who sings in the choir at the more liberal parish here - which tends to be used for weddings more than the evangelical one does as it's a nicer building with a more central location - that fewer and fewer people know the words of the hymns these days.

I don't know what the answer to that is ... certainly not gooey Jesus is my boyfriend choruses ... those presuppose that Jesus is your boyfriend in the first place ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK, I would be interested to know what you make of cathedral worship growing given that it flies in the face of most of your ideas. It's not a criticism of your ideas (most of them, I think, are at least coming from the right place and are well-intentioned) but it does rather show that they can't be universally applied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also churches that use 'contemporary' language can use just as much jargon as those using 'archaic' language. 'Hedge of protection' and 'fleece prayer' and 'God gave him a heart for ___' are just as jargony and incomprehensible to outsiders as talking about dalmatics and thuribles and maniples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Plenty of genuine converts, thank you. And my recollection of their stated reasons for converting and becoming part of our church is that they saw genuine love in our community and became convinced that God was among us. Praise the Lord

---

That's sounds nice but lacks all specific and concrete content and hence is close to meaningless for guiding churches - yours or others - to attract more converts. What were the actual expressions of love in your community that they found impressive and apparently not bogus? What things that you were doing convinced them that God was among you? How did they ever get around to taking a closer look at all this in the first place? Etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:


BTW Svitlana my point was not that 'the cathedral way of doing things' is the way we should all go, but that the things which SCK identified about his church's worship are not the only way to appeal to people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - I would say that cathedrals are communities gathered around Jesus! It's just that Jesus in this case is understood in a more sacramental way. For me personally, my attraction to cathedral worship is a deeper thing connected to the holiness of the place where so many prayers have been said, and just something I can't explain. However, a big attraction is that clergy talk to me without having a mental list of committees they can rope me into joining! Your church sounds like a lovely friendly place to be, but I know I for one would find it a bit claustrophobic. I think cathedral worship gives people space to breathe.

---

quote:

---

The most obvious problem with 'the cathedral way of doing things' is that only cathedrals can supply that method. Most churches don't have the high quality musical production, the awe-inspiring setting or the manpower and the finances to stay open every day of the week. I'm sure there are some well-endowed Anglican parish churches elsewhere that offer something similar, but I presume it's rare. (And rarer in Wales than in England?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I agree, not everyone can turn themselves into a soaring gothic pile with professional standard choir of men and boys and FRCO organist.

But I am puzzled by your second point about the finances to stay open every day of the week.

Unless you have priceless treasures or are in an incredibly high crime area it should be possible for most churches to be open daily. In fact I'd say that should be the aim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - I would say that cathedrals are communities gathered around Jesus! It's just that Jesus in this case is understood in a more sacramental way. For me personally, my attraction to cathedral worship is a deeper thing connected to the holiness of the place where so many prayers have been said, and just something I can't explain. However, a big attraction is that clergy talk to me without having a mental list of committees they can rope me into joining! Your church sounds like a lovely friendly place to be, but I know I for one would find it a bit claustrophobic. I think cathedral worship gives people space to breathe.

---

Sorry, I was trying to stop my post becoming a sprawling essay and ended up being unfair to cathedral-based churches. My problem is with people who treat cathedral services as a product, not with those who are seeking and developing Christian community which happens to have a cathedral as its home.

And you're right, I'm sure that for plenty of people that experience of being (or even just feeling) roped in to join various rotas and committees is unwelcome and claustrophobic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I find it hard to imagine where the deep passion for Christ and the commitment to service and incarnational living is going to come from in the British Church in order to fulfill the vision that SCK has. Where is it in the CinW, or indeed anywhere else? ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Albertus

There are (or were) a few religious orders not far from where I live. But I hear next to nothing about what they're doing nowadays.

Aren't most monks and nuns in the UK fairly elderly? I really can't see how this work can be left to them now. Of course, the denominations that are currently growing are not those that provide for religious orders. Could they be encouraged to do so?? Some (mainly evangelical) Protestants will say that this work needs to be the duty of every Christian, but as I say, I can't see how this could be achieved under present circumstances.

Perhaps we need to invite more immigrant monks and nuns to come over! Some African pastors in the UK have already referred to theirs as a sort of reverse missionary venture, but so far success with the indigenous population has mostly eluded them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I do realise, Svitlana, that this is a long way from where we are now. But if I were planning an ideal strategy for the re-evangelisation of England and Wales, an expansion of the religious orders, some to preach and some to pray, would be an important part of what I would want to see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Svitlana2

Yes we are rural but the sense of community which we are constantly having to work on because of the number of holiday/ weekend homes.

Running costs - well, wear-and-tear is relative when the building is more than 800 years old.

As for heating, it is only heated at the weekends - and then not generously.

In fact there is a burning issue here for anyone who chooses to take up the baton: that of the cost for churches of heating ancient buildings when the heritage lobby won't allow us to insulate. One arm of government is urging us to conserve fuel - and as Christians we should in any case try to use resources wisely - while another is actively preventing us from stopping heat loss or getting the most from the significant sums we are having to spend just to keep the congregation from freezing up completely on a winter Sunday.

Where the piano is kept there is a small electric heater which can be used if people are playing. For choir rehearsals people wear coats and we stand so people can generate some heat by moving, rather than just sitting.

The organ loft is entirely unheated and I can tell you that while physics may say that heat rises, this musician can tell you that in a large building it isn't borne out IME! For me to practise I have to wear thermals, several layers and fingerless mittens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Hmm, I'd say this would be sending precisely the wrong message - that spreading the gospel is something for the specialists to do, rather than a task that all Christians are supposed to get involved in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Our Vicarage is not currently used by our Priest-in-charge (he is a Self-Supporting Minister, and has his own house). I would really love to see the Vicarage inhabited by two or three Benedictine Nuns With Sensible Shoes - the benefit to our little backstreet parish would be immense!

Ian J.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
From conversations I've had with RCs and Orthodox, they both see the revival or monasticism as a key component to evangelism ... but not the only one, of course. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes - although judging by the consensus on the thread about the kids being monastics for a year in Lambeth Palace, Welby's initiative hasn't gone down too well with Shippies ...

I can understand their concerns. If we're going to do it, let's do it properly.

---

Oi, enough with the 'kids' talk Those 35 and under can apply, which is hardly teenagers. Yours truly will be applying, unsurprisingly perhaps - if nothing else keeping a tradition of family presence at Lambeth (my aunt is the CHN sister who was there during ++Rowan's tenure).
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Jade Constable

quote:

---

my aunt is the CHN sister who was there during ++Rowan's tenure

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
From conversations I've had with RCs and Orthodox, they both see the revival or monasticism as a key component to evangelism ... but not the only one, of course.

I think there would definitely be scope for Fresh Expressions/religious community collaboration.

It wouldn't be easy to achieve, though, but it'd be interesting to see someone try.

...

In some ways, the work of the Message Tribe or Eden Project or whatever they call themselves these days could be seen as an evangelical example ... but it's not a project I know a great deal about.

---

Anyone know anything about
The Order of Mission? Do they deliver the goods?
 

---

Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on :
 
I've resisted posting on this thread so far, but I think I'll finally give in.

As an Interested Non Christian I have opinions on churches, but I fear they're liable to be very personal, and are impressions and not necessarily reality.

I think as others have said most non-Christians don't see any relevance to churches- there's just no connection to their lives.

More personally, there seems to be a suspicious attachment to architecture, and people who say they want to help the poor seem to find maintaining old buildings a much higher priority.

I was interested recently on twitter to realise how ignorant I am of what goes on in churches - I have vague images of a lot of singing and speeches but the details are very fuzzy.

A lot of church PR (even some people in this very thread) seem to suggest it's a club for being nice to people. Which I have no objection to! It's a good thing! But seems to be missing the alleged point of your existence.

I think I've talked about this in other threads, but Christianity feels like it lacks a "sign-up" experience somehow - I have visions of going to a church and being expected to commit to everything on the first day, when I really want to be told what I'm getting into (the Alpha course is sort of going in the right direction here, although I hate the *actual* Alpha course)...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Good to hear your views, mstevens - please don't feel the need to apologise for them.

I was brought up to go to Sunday school and so on and so was quite familiar with a lot of the language, concepts and what went on ... although I dropped out when they started encouraging us to join 'confirmation classes' when I was about 11 or 12.

I returned briefly - to another and 'higher' parish to have a second look when I was about 16 but didn't engage with church again until after my evangelical conversion at university at the age of 19.

It works differently in all cases but for me it was a case of being converted first and then going and looking for a church second.

For other people 'belonging' precedes believing.

There's no real formula, each case is different and there are as many stories as there are people.

So, for me there was a starting gun and a sense of conviction and so on that led me to seek out a church as a place of fellowship where these things could be expressed and explored.

Of course, not all aspects of my conversion experience fit a standard template and I'm sure how I interpreted that experience at the time and subsequently derived to a great extent from the circles I later moved in and the particular paradigms within which they operated. So, for instance, had I ended up in an RC setting, say, I may have viewed the experience rather differently than I did as I went in an increasingly evangelical direction - but essentially I think I'd have still seen it as the same thing - a conviction that if Jesus was God as people told me he was then I could no longer sit on the fence but had to do something about it.

All the various styles and traditions of Christian church have their own particular strengths and weaknesses - none of them are perfect - but whilst I can be curmugeonly about aspects of each or all them here on SoF I've never regretted my engagement with the Christian faith - and the God at the heart of it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In short - there are a variety of 'sign-up' experiences within Christianity depending on which tradition within the faith you encounter.

The evangelical end of the spectrum strongly emphases a 'sign-up' conversion experience so I'm rather surprised to hear you say that Christianity seems to lack one ... to some Christians the 'sign-up' part is almost the whole point of it - 'unless a man (someone) be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.'

'Sign-up' experiences certainly take place and there are plenty of people on these boards - from a range of different backgrounds and traditions - who can attest to that.
 

---

Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on :
 
Well as I say, one thing I've realised lately is my ignorance on the topic.

I think you were taking "signup" as meaning a bit where someone goes "yes, I totally am a Christian".

I was thinking more, I'm not sure exactly, but a process of telling you what you're getting into?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmm ... ok, yes, I can see what you are getting at.

I s'pose most churches - other than some very pushy evangelical ones - would expect people to hang around for a while to see if it was for them. Also, it's not as if it's difficult to find out what Christians believe - or are supposed to believe.

As for how churches are run and what happens within them - well ... generally speaking I would say that most mainstream and responsible churches - if that's the right term - and even most of the more 'full-on' charismatic evangelical churches are pretty open and transparent about what they get up to.

It's not as if anyone is going to be surprised after Week 17 of attending a particular church by being confronted with, 'Aha! It's too late now! We didn't tell you that we worship the Great White Flying Bunny from the Planet Zarg!'

Those churches that go in for practices that some would find off-putting and a deal breaker - such as tithing or speaking in tongues - are also pretty upfront about these things in my view. You don't get involved with a church like that only to find out after 6 months that they're expecting you to tithe or that 'speaking in tongues' is seen as normative or desirable.

The mileage does vary, of course, but in most churches I'm aware of I'm pretty sure you could find someone who could tell you what to expect - be it the clergy persons or members of the congregation.

If it's a fairly moderate, MoR type of church then there are going to be no real surprises. If it's a more 'full-on' type of church then the nature of being 'full-on' means that they're largely likely to be upfront about what to expect ... if only because they want you to have the same experiences as them ...
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Most churches don't have a specific process of telling you what you're getting into until you decide that you want to be baptised, at which point the mainstream denominations will allocate you to a series of confirmation classes before the baptism take place. But some (non-mainstream) denominations don't even do that, because as soon as you appear to have found faith, you're urged to get baptised. The doctrinal issues are deemed to be secondary to the decision to become a Christian. You have the rest of your life to study doctrines, etc.

Non-evangelical mainstream churches tend to assume that most people who turn up fairly regularly will be socialised into faith rather than needing special classes. This is probably because the culture has developed whereby most attenders are 'born into' the church and if they stick around they're Christians by default, if you like. Having an intentional process for advising and nurturing people who are completely new to the faith is still something of a novelty for the majority of such churches.

The (evangelical) Alpha course has become so popular because it helps churches to fill this gap, but it's burdened with the job of being all things to all people, so criticism is inevitable. There are alternative courses but they have less brand recognition, so even non-evangelical churches mostly stick with Alpha. This is a PR problem that needs to be rectified.

[cross-posted with Gamaliel]

[ 15. September 2014, 20:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on :
 
Actually I heard (a little) about the pilgrim course, and it sounded at least potentially better than the alpha course, although I don't regard this as a very high bar...
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
mstevens, you might want to look up the Emmaus Course. I cannot speak from personal experience, but I understand that it covers much the same ground as Alpha but uses a different approach that some folk find less disturbing / offensive / [add your own pejorative adjective here!]

Within the Anglican setting, the serious course work, if you like, generally comes at Confirmation. Because Anglicans are apt to baptise people as small babies, it is understood that they don't understand what they are being signed up to at the time. In due course, the individuals in question are urged to confirm their baptism by undertaking a course of study in what it means to be a Christian, culminating in the ceremony of Confirmation, undertaken by a Bishop, which is essentially a passing-out parade for new Christians.

In spite of the fact that I am an Anglican lay-preacher, my background is non-conformist, which means I tend to look somewhat askance at infant baptism ...

I have learned to cope with it - it goes with the brand, so to speak.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
'A passing-out parade ...' like it, Darllenwr.

Confirmation in the Anglican Church has been described as a 'ceremony in search of a theology ...'



Generally speaking, though, and without cutting across the tenor of what SvitlanaV2 has said, I would suggest that irrespective of church tradition, most people who find their way into the Christian faith - whether they were brought up in it or come to it later in life - are effectively socialised into it.

This applies as much to the very evangelical churches as it does to the more MoR ones ...

Whilst my own conversion happened in my bedroom in a rather delapidated student house, it followed a period of intense questioning and grappling with the issues as well as exposure to Christian communities and to Christian teaching.

It wasn't as 'socialised' perhaps as someone attending church from infancy and going through a confirmation process as Darllenwr has described, but it still involved 'socialisation'.

Alpha, for all its strengths and weaknesses, does take that into account ... as indeed do the other available courses such as Emmaus etc.

I'm not quite sure I agree with SvitlanaV2 that the process doesn't generally start until people decide they want to be baptised. It does intensify at that point, but depending on the tradition, most clergy and lay-people (if we want to make those distinctions) would generally point enquirers to something or other that explained the route-map well before that point.

I'd also point out that not all groups would see baptism as the starting point - the Salvation Army for instance.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:

In spite of the fact that I am an Anglican lay-preacher, my background is non-conformist, which means I tend to look somewhat askance at infant baptism ...

I have learned to cope with it - it goes with the brand, so to speak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suggest that irrespective of church tradition, most people who find their way into the Christian faith - whether they were brought up in it or come to it later in life - are effectively socialised into it.

[...]

I'm not quite sure I agree with SvitlanaV2 that the process doesn't generally start until people decide they want to be baptised. It does intensify at that point, but depending on the tradition, most clergy and lay-people (if we want to make those distinctions) would generally point enquirers to something or other that explained the route-map well before that point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mstevens:
Actually I heard (a little) about the pilgrim course, and it sounded at least potentially better than the alpha course, although I don't regard this as a very high bar...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
As a convert to Christianity from outside, myself, I found C.S. Lewis' stuff very helpful, particularly Mere Christianity for a lot of the basics, as well as Screwtape Letters, the Narnia books and more.

---

I have in fact, read a lot of this stuff. Lewis is an amazing writer. But it seems like there's a whole layer of church related activity it doesn't prepare one for.

And although I appreciate the enthusiasm, I'm not quite ready to rush into converting if people would just explain things I just wanted to put in my bit on what I think discourages non-churchy people.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair enough, and a very interesting contribution it was too, mstevens.
 

---

Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on :
 
Hitting the more personal stuff that probably doesn't generalise at all, churches give me a strong "they will never accept you, you will always be isolated and unpopular" vibe.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
mstevens

Ah. It sounds as though your experience is with rather cliquey churches. And probably churches that are already doing very well for themselves and not in any particular need.

However, some churches are desperate for fresh blood, and if you're pleasant, able-bodied and intelligent you'll probably be invited to contribute to church life at an earlier stage. Methodist churches are rather like that; it wouldn't be hard to join in and rise up the ranks, IMO, because willing participants are often so few. But you do need to be proactive about your own spiritual development, because not much is formally offered to new attenders prior to confirmation classes. Be aware too that any discussion groups and meetings for both new and maturing Christians are now often offered at local and regional level, rather than in individual churches. This makes better use of resources and manpower, especially if individual congregations are fairly small.

The problem with the Methodists and churches such as the URC is that they're now generally dominated by the elderly, whereas young educated enquirers (perhaps like yourself?) are usually looking to be with other people who are demographically a bit more like themselves. This often means attending an evangelical church of some kind, which may not be appropriate. Having grown up in the Methodist Church I have many criticisms of the institution, but I'm grateful that it's always been welcoming, and that it's enabled me to feel comfortable worshipping and mixing with people who are a lot older.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Don't know where you are in London, mstevens, but Hinde St Methodist Church (West London Mission), in Marylebone, might be worth a try. Years since I went there but it certainly was friendly, intelligent, reasonably varied in its worshippers (you might want to look at the different services), and also- if you like that kind of thing- very socially engaged. Unless it has changed a lot it would, I think, pretty much welcome you as you are and wwhere you are and not lean on you to do or sign up to anything you didn't want to.

[ 16. September 2014, 14:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I was thinking of Hinde St Methodist Church too, when I realised that mstevens was in London!

It's a long time since I've been there, but it's a place where I felt very welcome.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jade Constable

quote:

---

my aunt is the CHN sister who was there during ++Rowan's tenure

---

If its the same CHN sister I'm thinking of then one of the best advertisements for the religious life I've ever met.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
* can't speak for Wales but think some assertions on this thread need to be chall***ed.

In North America at least, many denominations that have a very strong sense of identity, beliefs and purpose are experiencing the same aging and decline that their w***y-washy liberal counterparts are.
[...]
So * don't see much correlation between a church having strong beliefs and purpose and growth. It isn't in any of the statistics.

---

quote:

---

The Southern Baptist Church, which by all accounts is very evangelistic, is declining by 100,000 members a year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

At the same time, a church that openly proclaims that they have no hard, fast beliefs - the Unitarian-Universalist Association - is growing. It grew by 16% between 2000 and 2010 alone.

So * don't see much correlation between a church having strong beliefs and purpose and growth. It isn't in any of the statistics.

...[millenials not into long-term commitments]

This is HUGE problem for employers as Millenials generally don't see themselves as being in it for the long haul with their employers either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:

The challenge is to get people to hear the gospel in a way that doesn't put them off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:

The challenge is to get people to hear the gospel in a way that doesn't put them off.

---

Might I say that maybe that's the problem? The public don't see the church's teaching as Good News; they see it as judgmental, critical of their lifestyles, nasty, superstitious nonsense.

Basically the message of the Good News is that there is a God, he loves the world, the people of this world are sinful to the extent of inability to redeem themselves but "hey guys! Jesus is God and died for you so your sins can be forgiven and you can go to Heaven!"

1. They don't believe in God.
2. They don't care if the non-existent God loves them or not.
3. They are not sinners -"How very dare you suggest it!"
4. Who cares about Jesus - a mythical figure in a made-up book?
5. Who cares about Heaven? We live on in our kids and anyway, if there is a Heaven, we all go there anyway and we're not fussed about God being there as long as my Mum, wife and and the kids are there as well.

If people are not sinners (it's all lifestyle choice now) then they don't need a saviour. If people don't want a Saviour, that's the cross out of the window and they don't need the Good News.

That's the issue we need to address. The problem is that many committed Christians don't have non-Christian friends and therefore don't actually know what atheists and agnostics actually think.
Simply assuming that we need to teach the sinners more clearly and attract them with amateur guitar-playing is going to do it entirely misses the mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The church repenting for its role in peddling nasty, judgmental, superstitious nonsense and not the Gospel would help in that respect, I think.

It's not really surprising that people don't believe in God when they've never been shown the actual loving reality of Him, but a bigoted busybody judging people from Heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:

The challenge is to get people to hear the gospel in a way that doesn't put them off.

---

Might I say that maybe that's the problem? The public don't see the church's teaching as Good News; they see it as judgmental, critical of their lifestyles, nasty, superstitious nonsense.

Basically the message of the Good News is that there is a God, he loves the world, the people of this world are sinful to the extent of inability to redeem themselves but "hey guys! Jesus is God and died for you so your sins can be forgiven and you can go to Heaven!"

---

quote:

---

That's the issue we need to address. The problem is that many committed Christians don't have non-Christian friends and therefore don't actually know what atheists and agnostics actually think.
Simply assuming that we need to teach the sinners more clearly and attract them with amateur guitar-playing is going to do it entirely misses the mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That might be the case, Albertus, but it's not always perceived that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Is part of the problem that there is no major Welsh-based newspaper or TV station? (Not living in Wales I'm ready to be corrected on the latter, though I imagine S4C has a lower profile than say BBC or ITV) If most of the news reports about 'Christian' attitudes come from the other side of Offa's Dyke it's likely that people will get a distorted picture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Accepting the evil of homophobia (and racism, sexism and other once tolerated isms and phobias), might I suggest that actually this is a red herring?

Homophobia has only become an issue in the last 20 years. Maybe even 10 years!
The churches have been failing to win converts for 50+ years, even when society as a whole agreed wholeheartedly with the church's teaching - I mean, it was all illegal until 1967 (?)

---

quote:

---

No one hated the church for homophobia then because everyone was institutionally homophobic. You can't blame the church for that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
That more or less leaves being a community centre as the only thing the Church has going for it. That and the same sort of traditional past time Morris Dancing is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
You might suggest that it's a red herring. You would, however, be wrong. If you were a group of Nazarenos trying to make converts in America you'd have very little chance without a major change even if you'd not done terribly well before. It might not be the only issue preventing evangelism - but it's certainly an issue. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
That more or less leaves being a community centre as the only thing the Church has going for it. That and the same sort of traditional past time Morris Dancing is.

---

It's funny how that whole Church thing to you becomes a kind of sales pitch for a kind of social club. I find all these thoughts to be entirely irrelevant. Christianity is either true, or false.

---

quote:

---

If it is true, then you can talk about "maltheism" and what have you until you are blue in your face, it doesn't change a thing.

---

quote:

---

In the end, what will attract people to religion no matter what detractors like you say or do is that intuitive knowledge that there is something beyond all that usual stuff. Shills of pragmatic normality like you will never "win", because people know better - even if they do not have the faintest clue what it is that they know. And what might make such seekers stick to Christianity does not follow the reasonable patterns of your calculations of social attractiveness. You are really completely missing the point there.

---

• Stop! We want to perpetuate Slavery! We're going to fission - and become the largest Baptist denomination in America!
• Stop! We want to punish women for bearing out of wedlock!
• Stop! We don't want you to prevent STDs!
• Stop! We don't like the results of science! I'm not a cousin to any monkey!
• Stop! You can't perform that life saving medical operation! We must let the uterus burst first!
• Stop! You can't prevent abortions! No contraception, no matter how many babies are killed!
• Stop! You can't report the priest for child abuse! We'll just move him!
• Stop! We don't care what the science says! Contraception is abortion! And we don't want to provide womens' health!
• Stop! You shouldn't treat women as equal to men!
• Stop! We want to discriminate against gay people!
• Stop! You can't carry out medical research using those cells! We don't care if it would save lives!
• Stop! You can't call us bad for our bigotry!

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
So, you don't want a social club, you want a social revolution. And Christianity doesn't deliver. It is an old complaint, of course. Look no further than Judas Iscariot, he was your kind of man. He didn't get why money was wasted on anything but helping the poor and oppressed, and couldn't deal with Christ's comment that the poor will always be with us. And in the end he sold Christ down the river to the socio-cultural leaders of his time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
So, you don't want a social club, you want a social revolution.

---

quote:

---

Look no further than Judas Iscariot, he was your kind of man. He didn't get why money was wasted on anything but helping the poor and oppressed, and couldn't deal with Christ's comment that the poor will always be with us.

---

quote:

---

On a less fundamental note, do you not feel slightly embarrassed that your complaints are pretty much entirely about sex and gender?

---

quote:

---

That this is not really a central issue as far as religion is concerned has been demonstrated experimentally, so to speak.

---

quote:

---

Plenty of Christian denominations have gone down the track of giving you all that you wish for concerning this. It hasn't done them much good, best I can see...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm with Justinian - IMO a key part of being a Jesus-follower is being favourable towards and loved by the powerless and marginalised more than those in authority.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0