|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When does a gathering become a 'church'?
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
I've been popping in here to these boards on and off for more than 10 years, one year I did secret santa, and another time I met people 'in the real' at a shipmeet - and though I've been busy for a couple of years, I've popped back today and it is full of names I know, which makes me feel like this is probably a church innit?
Anyway - I'm fairly well hooked up with technology one way and another but what I want to know is - how do people actually GATHER these days...? Do they still do it in a way that isn't (to someone) about making or spending money - because I think that's where the church should be looking to do mission and I can't work out where that is now. Or how to help a church become that place and still be appealing... because we are training generations to be consumers and that is mostly what they seem to recognise!
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Sure-- lots of people do that. Have a "home church" of 12-20 that meets in someone's living room, shares leadership and responsibility for teaching/preaching, passes the hat to collect money that goes to the homeless or other ministry everyone cares about. It's a lovely model, a biblical model, and is of course, very much "church."
The only problem is, if you do it well, other people will want to join you. So, at a certain point, you outgrow the living room so you gotta rent a room somewhere. No problem, you pass the hat and a little bit of the money goes to rent, and the rest to the homeless. Then you figure out that everyone seems to really get the most out of it when Bob teaches, but Bob has a business & family, so he can't preach every Sunday and work full time. So you decide to offer Bob a modest salary to preach, you pass the hat and it's just a bit more. Then your guitar player moves out of town and you can't find anyone to lead worship, but someone has a friend who will lead worship for just a few $$... And then you've got a lot of kids running around and need someone to organize activities... You outgrow the room you're renting and have trouble finding a place that will let you use it as much as you'd like, but discover a suitable facility for sale...
Next thing you know, you've got a full-blown institutional church with all sorts of things like electric bills and cleaning supplies and custodial needs you've got to support.
Of course, you could avoid all that by simply deciding back when you're a small house church to keep it that way-- that you'll stay small by not allowing anyone to join beyond the initial 20 who started the fellowship. Problem is, the minute you do that, you cease to be a "church".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
You do?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Of course, you could avoid all that by simply deciding back when you're a small house church to keep it that way-- that you'll stay small by not allowing anyone to join beyond the initial 20 who started the fellowship. Problem is, the minute you do that, you cease to be a "church".
I don't think that you do cease to be a church. You might once you reach more than 12 people divide into two house groups, and so on, which is called cell church so I understand.
A church is any two or more people who meet in the name of Jesus, surely. When we're doing God's will, what we're called to do, we might find ourselves serving in an organised church, with its building maintenance costs, etc, or in a monastery, or in a cave, or in a pub or a cafe or a hospital or a war or earthquake zone etc etc.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Of course, you could avoid all that by simply deciding back when you're a small house church to keep it that way-- that you'll stay small by not allowing anyone to join beyond the initial 20 who started the fellowship. Problem is, the minute you do that, you cease to be a "church".
I don't think that you do cease to be a church. You might once you reach more than 12 people divide into two house groups, and so on, which is called cell church so I understand.
A church is any two or more people who meet in the name of Jesus, surely. When we're doing God's will, what we're called to do, we might find ourselves serving in an organised church, with its building maintenance costs, etc, or in a monastery, or in a cave, or in a pub or a cafe or a hospital or a war or earthquake zone etc etc.
If you read the whole context, you'll see I very much agree that a church is a church no matter how large or small, no matter where or when it meets. But what causes it to cease to be a church is when you close the doors, say this is for "us" and no one else. When you do that-- whether you are large or small, regardless of where or when you meet-- you are no longer a church (Eph. 2).
[ 31. October 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I don't think it is as simple as that Cliffdweller. There are, for example, criteria set for those called into a monastic lifestyle, for example. One of the functions of the church is to help discern calling, and in some cases that means turning someone away.
I take your point that if the 'house full' sign is erected and nobody is made welcome, the people are no longer following Christ and the gathering can no longer genuinely be called a church.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Cell church works on the basis that about 12 people is the right size for a church and that you need to split off when you get bigger, just as a biological cell would do. The challenge is that you always need to be focused on growth and that you always need to have facilitators in training. Demands on group members must be very high.
A related model is cell churches that exist as the dominant model of worship and fellowship within a more traditional denominational church setting. I once went to a Methodist cell church conference that promoted this kind of arrangement, and Google suggests there are Anglicans pursuing this model as well. But I've never seen it in action. Too much work for the clergy? Too much commitment needed from church members and lay workers? My guess is that only congregations that are already blessed with good resources and manpower are likely to go down this route.
[ 31. October 2015, 15:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Our church was growing so much that at some point we said to newcomers "start your own church". No focus on growth, no need for facilitators ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
I've been popping in here to these boards on and off for more than 10 years, one year I did secret santa, and another time I met people 'in the real' at a shipmeet - and though I've been busy for a couple of years, I've popped back today and it is full of names I know, which makes me feel like this is probably a church innit?
Discussion of this very point was one of the things that led to Church of Fools (as it then was) and at least one Masters dissertation on virtual church.
There is definitely such a thing as online community, but I have come back round to thinking that physical gathering together is in a class of its own. Incarnation is central to Christianity, and that requires warm bodies.
quote:
how do people actually GATHER these days...? Do they still do it in a way that isn't (to someone) about making or spending money
One of the things I love about prison chaplaincy is that the congregation fulfil these criteria perfectly ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
More generally, I think it is our mandate as followers of Jesus (not as "the Church") to "gossip the Gospel" and seek the Kingdom. I think the Church is something Jesus promised to build, as a by-product of us seeking the Kingdom.
When the Church institutionalises (and I think this is what cliffdweller is getting at) it runs the danger of becoming an end in itself. The local church is supposed to be a service area, not the destination.
Oh, and thanks for dropping by
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't think it is as simple as that Cliffdweller. There are, for example, criteria set for those called into a monastic lifestyle, for example. One of the functions of the church is to help discern calling, and in some cases that means turning someone away.
I take your point that if the 'house full' sign is erected and nobody is made welcome, the people are no longer following Christ and the gathering can no longer genuinely be called a church.
Actually, it is as simple as that, and the monastic example doesn't suggest otherwise. Discerning when it is necessary to turn an individual away is not the same as deciding to turn all people away, which is the scenario Cliffdweller posited.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Cell church works on the basis that about 12 people is the right size for a church and that you need to split off when you get bigger, just as a biological cell would do. The challenge is that you always need to be focused on growth and that you always need to have facilitators in training. Demands on group members must be very high.
Yes, I'm familiar with the cell group model, and think it's a good alternative to the progression I outlined above if you want to keep the "smallness" which has some advantages and some disadvantages. The key, though, is that you don't close your doors-- you're not telling people "you can't come", you're just dealing with growth differently than in the traditional "buy a bigger facility" model.
I'm also not suggesting that numerical growth needs to be the focus of every church-- in fact, there's a whole lot of bad fruit that came out of the "church growth movement" in the US in the 80s. Wagner & Kraft aside, I don't believe a church that isn't growing numerically is necessarily an unhealthy one. But I do believe a church that is closed to outsiders-- to those "not one of us" is, to the point that it has ceased to be a church.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't think it is as simple as that Cliffdweller. There are, for example, criteria set for those called into a monastic lifestyle, for example. One of the functions of the church is to help discern calling, and in some cases that means turning someone away.
I take your point that if the 'house full' sign is erected and nobody is made welcome, the people are no longer following Christ and the gathering can no longer genuinely be called a church.
Actually, it is as simple as that, and the monastic example doesn't suggest otherwise. Discerning when it is necessary to turn an individual away is not the same as deciding to turn all people away, which is the scenario Cliffdweller posited.
Exactly.
I'm not from a monastic tradition, but from what I've given to understand, each has a "rule of life"-- certain communal expectations-- and that they are then open to any/all who are willing to commit to that rule of life. Again, they may outgrow a particular monastery and so be called to start a new gathering in another place-- the specifics of which would be spelled out in the rule of life. But they are not closed to anyone who wishes to be a part of a community formed by these particular values.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Not to say there aren't some tensions there as well, especially when you're setting out to serve an underserved population-- one that traditionally feels "unwelcome" in more mainstream churches. How do you keep the "mix" right so that everyone feels welcome w/o excluding some, even if it's excluding the people who normally are included?
I got to hear Nadia Boltz-Weber at a book signing recently, and she had some interesting things to say on this. She talked about how she started her church (House for all Sinners & Saints) exactly to appeal to those sorts of people-- alcoholics and drug addicts and tattooed bikers and others who might be too "edgy" for conventional churches. And it worked. But then it turned out that a lot of more "mainstream" suburban soccer moms and grandmas and so forth liked what she was doing and started attending. She was worried that the "edgy" folks would start to feel edged out and no longer welcome. But when she asked, they liked that the grandmas and corporate suits and PTA moms were coming-- it felt like family, when many of them didn't have family any more. So I think it can work.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Birdseye. One answer to the o/p is "When the gatherers say it is." I was hearing recently about a community that started off as a few believers meeting with a group of unbelievers on a Saturday night. The believers avoided calling this a church (went for gathering) so as no to upset other local churches. After a year or so the unbelievers started to become believers (there have been nearly a hundred baptisms in around four years of this lot meeting).
There was a point when the converts were taking calls on their mobiles on their Sat evening meet saying "Can't talk now - I'm at church."
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm confused, Eutychus. You seem to be drawing a distinction between 'us' and 'the Church' - surely, whatever our ecclesiology, 'we' are the Church?
Equally, is Cliffdweller saying that those Churches which are more prescriptive as to what constitutes the Church - the RCs or Orthodox for instance, are NOT Church by virtue of their more prescriptive ecclesiology?
Meanwhile, I agree with SvitlanaV2 that the kind of model here requires well resourced people and - I'd suggest - a more generally religious society like the US.
I'd also say it requires societies where natural family networks are looser and less strong - these kind of fellowships tend to offer a surrogate family. That's what I found as a student many miles from home.
That's not to knock it, but it is to recognise some of the pit-falls. 25 years ago, I'd have relished the prospect of the kind of church Cliffdweller describes but now it sounds too intense and claustrophobic.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm confused, Eutychus. You seem to be drawing a distinction between 'us' and 'the Church' - surely, whatever our ecclesiology, 'we' are the Church?
I think Christians should think of themselves as followers of Jesus first and foremost, and see the Church incarnate as a byproduct of that.
I think that people (from my church background at least) have blown a few instructions in the epistles way out of proportion.
And that not a few others have confused the Church Invisible with their local brand of local church, with troubling results.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think there are two question in this Birdseye (and welcome back, BTW). Firstly, what constitutes a church?
I struggle with why people are so insistent on defining a "church" - and including people into it. I think it is irrelevant whether this - or any other gathering - is a church. It is people who are interested in exploring matters of spiritual truth. It is an online place where people gather, which is all that matters. I think.
The second question is where do people gather today - physically, as opposed to online. I think that actually a lot of people gather online far more than in a place. I think the real challenge for Christians (and people of other faiths too) is engaging with people online in a way that is honest and genuine.
If you want to engage people physically, set up a coffee shop, maybe selling a few second hand books. It is the coffee and lunch places that are the main gathering place for a lot of people. Even those who don't work, will often meet for coffee.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Equally, is Cliffdweller saying that those Churches which are more prescriptive as to what constitutes the Church - the RCs or Orthodox for instance, are NOT Church by virtue of their more prescriptive ecclesiology?
I'm not sure at all how that would follow from what I have said, especially in light of my answer re monasteries, which would have an even more prescriptive rule.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... Of course, you could avoid all that by simply deciding back when you're a small house church to keep it that way-- that you'll stay small by not allowing anyone to join beyond the initial 20 who started the fellowship. Problem is, the minute you do that, you cease to be a "church".
Cliffdweller, I can see where you coming from, but I don't think that's actually correct. It's not how one should be a church. It's defaulting on something very fundamental. But there are plenty of other ways in which Christians and churches default on things that are fundamental. They, and we, may be bad Christians and bad churches, but that doesn't mean we cease to be Christians or churches.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm afraid I don't get the distinction you appear to be making, Eutychus.
If we are baptised into Christ we have put on Christ and therefore - one would assume - part of his Body. Another of these both/and things.
The Church is both mystical and has a physical expression - the incarnational aspect you've mentioned.
Am I misunderstanding your point?
I agree that we are to be intentional about it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
A Christian is first and foremost a believer. Believers tend to conglomerate. Those conglomerations get called "assemblies", or "churches". Acts talks in terms of people being "added" to them through baptism; Acts 2:42 gives what many see as a sort of baseline for what a local assembly of believers might do. (This is quite separate from the Church invisible as a theological construct).
But what we as believers are called to do, I think, is not "build the church". I think we're called to "seek the Kingdom". Organised local churches are undoubtedly an outworking of that, but they're not the only outworking or an end in themselves. If they get seen as ends in themselves they end up being power structures, which I think is at best a paradox when seen against the kind of stuff Jesus said about the Kingdom.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I agree that any time a church-- whether a formal, organized structure or a loose, home-church type-- becomes an end to itself, we're into unhealthy territory.
But that should not be confused with thinking that the church is an option extra, or that it is somehow separate from "kingdom building." Throughout the NT, the church is *the* means for building the Kingdom. It is, as E has said, "what we (Christians) do". We rarely hear the NT talking about individual Christians, it's almost always instructions to us as a body, a group. The question, "does a Christian have to go to/belong to a church?" is a product of our extremely individualistic culture. I doubt such a question even occurred to the early Christians.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
cliffdweller: Throughout the NT, the church is *the* means for building the Kingdom. It is, as E has said, "what we (Christians) do". We rarely hear the NT talking about individual Christians, it's almost always instructions to us as a body, a group. The question, "does a Christian have to go to/belong to a church?" is a product of our extremely individualistic culture. I doubt such a question even occurred to the early Christians.
Hm, you need to go through a couple of layers of interpretation to come to that conclusion.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
that should not be confused with thinking that the church is an option extra, or that it is somehow separate from "kingdom building."
I don't think it's an optional extra, and I'm sad when I see free-range christians. But I think that by and large, we've got the emphasis wrong. Too much energy spent propping up and perpetuating churches and not enough seeking the Kingdom.
Too often we think of churches as Disneyland - the destination - instead of a service area along the way. Church is a byproduct of the Kingdom, not its culmination.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
Interesting stuff everyone!
BTW I wouldn't call churches a 'byproduct', I see the ekklesia (the calling out) as the equipping time before you all head off on your God given routes.
I guess I'm focussed on the nomenclature because I am involved in the institutional 'church' - but at the same time as the bit on Sunday in a big building, we have other bits every other day of the week - sometimes in small groups and sometimes big, generally outward looking and sometimes in, and there's no harda and fast rule with the church I work in, as to whether somebody is 'in' or 'out'... but in some places it can be hard getting people to gather generally... For anything.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm not a church goer or a Christian. I am curious as to how these cell churches weather time.
Many years ago, a friend who was an organist took me with him to practice at the church he played for. It was a grand stone pile, with a healthy endowment; and only a handful of parishioners in their 70's and 80's at Sunday Service. They were unhappy with how much it cost to heat the place for forty people. He said they were working on a plan to sell the church to new younger church run by immigrants to the area with a different denomination.
So what happens to the cell churches as the congregation ages? Is it easier because you don't have the over large infrastructure to scale back? Or is it vulnerable in that a few key people dying can end the process? I'm reminded of the sect in Babette's Feast. Is there a renewal process with new members or is it an organic institution that ends when the founders are gone?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Perhaps these days the defining criterion for knowing whether or not you have become a church, rather than just a group of Christians getting together on a regular basis, is whether you incorporate to protect yourself in case of litigation should something happen in your midst or on your premises.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Congregations do have life cycles, and I'm told that the average is right around 80 to 100 years. Probably a bit less for home meeting groups.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Admittedly, you don't want to lose believers; but if they disperse to other congregations, or (gasp, shock) start new churches themselves, that's not a bad outcome, is it?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not a church goer or a Christian. I am curious as to how these cell churches weather time.
Many years ago, a friend who was an organist took me with him to practice at the church he played for. It was a grand stone pile, with a healthy endowment; and only a handful of parishioners in their 70's and 80's at Sunday Service. They were unhappy with how much it cost to heat the place for forty people. He said they were working on a plan to sell the church to new younger church run by immigrants to the area with a different denomination.
So what happens to the cell churches as the congregation ages? Is it easier because you don't have the over large infrastructure to scale back? Or is it vulnerable in that a few key people dying can end the process? I'm reminded of the sect in Babette's Feast. Is there a renewal process with new members or is it an organic institution that ends when the founders are gone?
From what I've read about their history, cell and house churches need to have certain characteristics to function successfully. Many of these characteristics are very similar to what other successful churches need: vision, identity, good leadership and ongoing training, a connection with other groups, a focus on growth and multiplication, a strong sense of God's renewing presence.
However, I imagine that churches organised in a more traditional and formal way can eventually get by without prioritising all of these things, because the system is organised to keep things running in any case. Cell and house churches don't have the same structures so they're more vulnerable if and when the energy begins to wane.
From what you say, the only reason the congregation you visited want to change their modus operandi is because of their financial situation. This won't be sufficient for them to operate as an authentic and successful group of cell or house churches. It needs to be intentional. There needs to be a philosophy behind it.
Interestingly, some atheists and Christians agree that many beautiful old church buildings ought to be liberated from religion, and handed over to the state, to local communities or to private owners to be put to secular use. From this perspective, an increase in cell and house churches might lead to good outcomes from two very different perspectives.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Interesting. I'd look at this on a purely practical basis - I think a group of Christians* only becomes a church when they seek outside recognition. That point depends on the context and the origins of the group. And I'm not quite sure where to put groups of Christians meeting in secret in countries where Christianity is illegal.
But leaving those extreme situations aside, I think church is precisely not about the needs/wishes of the congregation and almost everything about forms of structure needed to operate within society.
So a prayer meeting is just a prayer meeting as long as people just meet informally for prayer. Similarly ecumenical (interfaith?) groups, social action groups, campaign groups etc. These might be part or not of existing church groups, but if they just stay as these things, they're not "a church", they're an informal group meeting for the activity.
When they get to the point where they need to be identified specifically (ie to get a bank account, to hire a hall as a group, to become a charity etc) I'd say in most contexts they've become a church.
The complicating factor is that there are at least two ideas about the word church, as others have said: universal and local. So in my view this idea that one should decry quote unquote "free-range" Christians as being outside of the church is in one sense a total nonsense - if you believe in a universal church.
Also I'm thinking that should a church be planted by the RCC or Anglican (or presumably a wide range of other churches), they're automatically a church by the fact of being a part of those groups. The kinds of groups LeRoc describes above with no actual input from anyone else are really rare, in my opinion. Even avowedly non-denomination church plants I know have taken on specific theologies and advice from trusted groups as to "how to create a church". Churches created by non-believers almost never happen.
And just to tie up other points that have been made - when the congregation becomes too small to sustain all the structures that have been built for them in the past, the church (congregation) dies. This happens at different points for different types of church, but for the most "free and easy", the death rate is quite rapid.
But again, if the congregation is part of a wider thing, then the church may not have died, but mutated into other forms.
* or actually anyone wanting to call themselves "church"
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think both what SvitlanaV2 and mr cheesy have said makes sense to all practical intents and purposes.
I would argue, though, that most forms of 'institutional' church are pretty intentional too these days - eben if there's a certain fuzziness there compared to more full-on types of church.
I like Truman White's optimism but most informal groups I've heard of have ended up hitting the buffers or becoming overly fixated with one star personality or guru - as it were. I had some friends who were part of such a fellowship and they had to receive counselling when the whole thing went belly-up and people got hurt.
I suspect, though, that looser networks and less formal structures are where we're all headed - but we are going to have to be very, very careful if we're going to avoid the cultic, the bizarre or the self-indulgent spiritual hot-house.
On one level I agree with Eutychus that 'church' will develop as a corollary of seeking the Kingdom but I've yet to hear of models where that works out neatly in practice. All groups institutionalise or fizzle out over time.
I've observed a few times on these boards how a Pentecostal friend, active in an inter-church homeless charity has noticed how RC supporters are far more active - some phenomenally so - than the evangelical ones are - because, with the best will in the world the evangelicals and charismatics spend so much of their time in meetings and house-groups and in keeping their congregational shows on the road. Whereas for the RCs there's less for them to 'do' in their own services so some of them express their Christianity through involvement in charitable and voluntary work.
I'm not making onerous comparisons but I notice where I am now that it's the more MoTR or liberal Christians who tend to be more involved with social or cultural issues, with fundraising and community groups etc - and who spend less time in their churches. That isn't to deny the very good work that some of the evangelicals and Pentecostals are doing - but life for some of them seems an endless round of church-based activity.
I know that's a generalisation and there are plenty of evos and charismatics out there doing stuff - but I've found that the more lively and vibrant such churches are the greater the amount of energy they absorb. Mind you, the same is probably true in a different way with those churches which are managing decline.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I don't think this is necessarily about evangelical versus MOTR or RC theology. In theory, a house or cell church could be any of those things.
This is especially true, I imagine, for those house or cell churches which exist under the umbrella of a denominational structure. For example, John Wesley was apparently deeply influenced by 17th c. RC small groups. Today, Fresh Expressions of church (which exist in the CofE and in Methodism, etc.) are not inevitably evangelical; some are sacramental. Some will be post-evangelical. Some (messy church?), I imagine, are very basic in their presentation of Christianity, focusing on play and togetherness rather than on evangelical doctrines or standards of moral purity.
The independent house churches of yesteryear seem to have been of solid evangelical provenance, but it would be interesting to know whether the same is true of the ones being founded in the UK and the USA today. The emergent/emerging church thing with its cafe and pub churches supposedly goes beyond evangelicalism, doesn't it? I understand that in the USA some of them are not seen as very 'sound' by the traditional evangelical churches.
BTW, when I used the word 'intentional' I meant that a declining congregation which sells off its building and decides to meet in homes or rented rooms purposefully needs to generate a relevant theology to go with its new way of being church. Attending a traditional church because you have a committed faith rather than out of habit or social custom is obviously 'intentional' too, but in a somewhat different way. I wasn't knocking that, but was simply referring to something else.
[ 01. November 2015, 18:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mr cheesy: When they get to the point where they need to be identified specifically (ie to get a bank account, to hire a hall as a group, to become a charity etc) I'd say in most contexts they've become a church.
A group of people becomes a church when they open a bank account?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'Where two or three open a bank-account in my name ...'
To be fair, I can see what mr cheesy was getting at. I chair a local arts group. We've got a constitution, we take minutes, we are non-profit but submit our accounts to an auditor for scrutiny ...
I suppose that makes us an official group rather than a bunch of pals who get together to organise concerts and arty events for local people to take part in or ignore as they see fit ...
If you're a bunch of people meeting in someone's front room to share and deepen your faith and you then decide to open a bank account to fund your activities then yes, you're on the way to becoming some kind of institution ...
Even Christ and his disciples seemed to have some kind of collective kitty -- Judas had his fingers in it if the Gospel accounts are to be trusted ...
On SvitlanaV2's point about it not being an issue of evangelical versus other theologies ... yes, I take your point on that one ... that's not the issue I was raising necessarily. I s'pose what I was getting at was that some forms of spirituality require a lot more investment of time and energy to maintain ...
I think this applies to certain forms of spirituality right across the board. If you're Orthodox then you're going to have to get used to lengthy services and wall-to-wall ones during Holy Week.
If you're evangelical then you're going to have to get used to Bible studies and prayer meetings and house-groups and ...
I was simply wondering aloud whether certain forms of dip in/dip out spirituality - to put it crudely - provide more space and room for us to do other things? In the RC instance, you bob into Mass then you clear off out again and do whatever else it is you do the rest of the week ... you may even get involved with voluntary work or charitable work or do things in the community instead of going to Bible studies and prayer meetings every 5 minutes like the charismatic evangelicals down the road ...
You may do some lectio-divina during Lent or go on the occasional retreat ... but the rest of the time ... the choice is yours ...
On the 'Messy Church' thing - are any of those stand-alone churches as such? I've only ever come across them as adjuncts to existing churches - ie. a monthly 'Messy' service - not as bona-fide churches in their own right.
I'm aware of the emergent/emerging thing and will repeat what I've said about that here before, 'What happens when they've emerged?'
From what my brother-in-law was telling me earlier today, some of the newer informal groups have all but booted out anything that would pass muster as traditional theology in any of the existing settings - whether evangelical, sacramental or MoTR ...
He has pals from his former 'new church'-y affiliation who seem to be emotionally and radically on the left in a kind of confusedly sentimental way ... and for some reason they're all into smoking cigars (or weed) and doing everything humanly possible to distance themselves from their former allegiance and yet maintain they're doing it all in the name of Christ ...
Fr Gregory, an Orthodox priest who used to haunt these boards, once observed to me that he felt the current crop of post-modern charismatic evangelicals would eventually go the way the Quakers did - and adopt a more quietist, principled and pacifist type approach - championing lefty and environmental causes, urban eco-warrior movements and the like.
Bring it on, I say - provided you recognise the trajectory.
On your main point about being 'intentional' in the instance of a declining congregation selling off its building and continuing to meet in homes etc - yes, I agree and it's a point well made.
They do need to develop a theology to underpin their 'new way of being church'.
I don't think we're disagreeing.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But what we as believers are called to do, I think, is not "build the church". I think we're called to "seek the Kingdom".
I agree with this. I hope I'm not being overly simplistic in noting that Jesus explicitly said he will build the church (in Matthew 16:18)
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Congregations do have life cycles, and I'm told that the average is right around 80 to 100 years. Probably a bit less for home meeting groups.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Admittedly, you don't want to lose believers; but if they disperse to other congregations, or (gasp, shock) start new churches themselves, that's not a bad outcome, is it?
I agree with this as well. As Eutychus said, the energy and focus of Christians should be on building God's kingdom* rather than perpetuating the church, or any specific strand of it.
*By 'building God's kingdom' I basically mean working to increase the extent to which God's will is done on earth. I know others will have different definitions and I know it's a huge subject. Sorry if it creates a thread tangent...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Interesting. I'd look at this on a purely practical basis - I think a group of Christians* only becomes a church when they seek outside recognition.
That seems like a legal definition-- articles of incorporation and all that-- which is perfectly fine, but not really what we're talking about here. To some degree it could be argued (as has been alluded to upthread) that "wherever two or more are gathered" we've got a church. I think you've got rather quite a lot of biblical support for that definition. Or you could be a bit more persnickety as I was doing and say "you're a church when you start acting like a church". I agree with the definition that's been offered-- that "acting like a church" means working to build the kingdom, rather than self-perpetuating. Which kinda goes against the whole "articles of incorporation" definition.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But what we as believers are called to do, I think, is not "build the church". I think we're called to "seek the Kingdom".
I agree with this. I hope I'm not being overly simplistic in noting that Jesus explicitly said he will build the church (in Matthew 16:18)
Indeed. I have taken this principle from Roger Forster, who had that passage in mind when he expounded it.
I have tried both ways, and found that church gets built just as well if not better when our focus is on seeking the Kingdom.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - but how do we evaluate that Eutychus?
I'd be interested in hearing some 'takes' here from those with a more prescriptive view of what constitutes Church ie. a eucharistic community, or one which duly administers word and sacrament (Reformed) or one which can apparently trace its provenance back to the beginning (the Catholic traditions) ...
It's all very well and good to say 'where two or three are gathered' but we first have to determine who or what those 'two or three' are.
Could Mormons be considered among the 'two or three'? Jehovah's Witnesses?
What criteria do we use to identify believers or disciples in the first place?
I know that might be pernickety of me, but I'd suggest it was a serious question.
Same as trying to define the Kingdom or defining what 'thy will be done' means in practice.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To some degree it could be argued (as has been alluded to upthread) that "wherever two or more are gathered" we've got a church.
Although it has been alluded to several times, Matthew 18:20 is nothing about church and everything about restoring relationships.
I for one am tired of this trope: clearly if God lives within us, he is with us when we are alone, hence continually making this statement over and over again (as if it is meant to show that a church can be a church with as few as 2 people is meant to mean anything) is a pretty disrespectful way to use this text. In my opinion.
[ 01. November 2015, 21:31: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mr cheesy: (as if it is meant to show that a church can be a church with as few as 2 people is meant to mean anything)
I'm not going to try to parse all instances of the word "meant" in that sentence, but I believe that a church can be a church with two people.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To some degree it could be argued (as has been alluded to upthread) that "wherever two or more are gathered" we've got a church.
Although it has been alluded to several times, Matthew 18:20 is nothing about church and everything about restoring relationships.
I for one am tired of this trope: clearly if God lives within us, he is with us when we are alone, hence continually making this statement over and over again (as if it is meant to show that a church can be a church with as few as 2 people is meant to mean anything) is a pretty disrespectful way to use this text. In my opinion.
Yes, Matt. 18:20 is clearly about relationships. As such, I don't see how one can suggest it is "nothing at all about the church". Especially given the context of, say, vs. 17-19.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Which of course raises the Kerygmaniac issue of whether or not there was some redaction going on there - Jesus talking about something that didn't actually exist (in Christian terms) at that time ...
What did he have in mind? A synagogue?
I'm sure there are explanations and NT Greek scholars could explain ... but what did 'the assembly' or 'the ekklesia' mean pre-Pentecost?
Or am I making a false dichotomy?
I would agree that these verses are about the Church in some way ... but in what way precisely?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose what I was getting at was that some forms of spirituality require a lot more investment of time and energy to maintain ...
I think this applies to certain forms of spirituality right across the board. If you're Orthodox then you're going to have to get used to lengthy services and wall-to-wall ones during Holy Week.
If you're evangelical then you're going to have to get used to Bible studies and prayer meetings and house-groups and ...
I was simply wondering aloud whether certain forms of dip in/dip out spirituality - to put it crudely - provide more space and room for us to do other things?
I think that a few remaining cathedrals and suchlike could cater for people who just want to dip in and out. The problem is that cathedrals even more than other traditional churches need an army of faithful people to keep them going. Where are these people going to come from in the future? I suppose there will be some.
However, I have vague memories of something callled the Bread Church, and of nuns running a kind of drop in sanctuary and worship centre from a council flat in some city somewhere.... IOW, there are some low-key formats which require a certain number of highly committed core members, but then invite newcomers to participate on their own terms. Again, like Messy Church these tend to be connected to a traditional denomination in some way. And why not? It's a way forward for the traditional denominations.
Going back to Messy Church...
quote:
On the 'Messy Church' thing - are any of those stand-alone churches as such? I've only ever come across them as adjuncts to existing churches - ie. a monthly 'Messy' service - not as bona-fide churches in their own right.
What makes you think they're not 'bona-fide churches'? Is it because they only take place once a month? Maybe we need to challenge the idea that a real church has to have a meeting every Sunday.
Surely it's not the idea that they're attached to traditional churches? By that token a Fresh Expression of church can never be a 'real church' because it's always attached to a more established congregation. I think that's unnecessarily limiting of what a 'church' is.
quote:
From what my brother-in-law was telling me earlier today, some of the newer informal groups have all but booted out anything that would pass muster as traditional theology in any of the existing settings - whether evangelical, sacramental or MoTR ...
He has pals from his former 'new church'-y affiliation who seem to be emotionally and radically on the left in a kind of confusedly sentimental way ... and for some reason they're all into smoking cigars (or weed) and doing everything humanly possible to distance themselves from their former allegiance and yet maintain they're doing it all in the name of Christ ...
Fr Gregory, an Orthodox priest who used to haunt these boards, once observed to me that he felt the current crop of post-modern charismatic evangelicals would eventually go the way the Quakers did - and adopt a more quietist, principled and pacifist type approach - championing lefty and environmental causes, urban eco-warrior movements and the like.
Bring it on, I say - provided you recognise the trajectory.
This website is fairly laid-back in theological terms, and no one has yet said that Quakerish, lefty vague theology is an absolute no no! The whole point of cell and house churches is surely that they can become whatever their members want them to become, because the members - rather than a hierarchy of priests - are in control of what's happening.
Let's be honest - there are plenty of individual Christians who believe all sorts of things. Quite a lot of the Quakerish types you mention are probably to be found in the CofE. No one seems to mind very much, except some of the evangelicals in the same denomination. So why is it okay for them to be in the CofE but not in some lefty, weird, emergent, fellowship of their own devising?
I get the impression from the Ship that belonging to an 'official' church like the CofE, the Methodists, or the RCC, etc., is somehow supposed to offer 'protection' to Christians who nevertheless believe a raft of unorthodox things. I'm not sure I agree with that. It's important to be connected to the wider church, but I can't really accept the idea that denominational doctrines or liturgies can do very much for us if we don't actually believe in them. ISTM that we're saved or not saved (if salvation exists) as individuals, hoping for God's mercy, not relying on whatever theology some other clever so-and-so has devised that we might not even understand, let alone accept.
But maybe it's just me who thinks this way!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
meets in someone's living room, shares leadership and responsibility for teaching/preaching, passes the hat to collect money that goes to the homeless or other ministry everyone cares about.
...if you do it well, other people will want to join you.
Sometimes true, sometimes not. Depends on things like location, and also on the tone of the group, and the expected level of commitment. Lots of groups stay small and even struggle to attract enough newcomers to keep it going.
quote:
Then you figure out that everyone seems to really get the most out of it when Bob teaches ...offer Bob a modest salary to preach
I'm not convinced the professionalism of the church is a good thing, and I'm really not comfortable with the idea that one person's thinking should dominate. quote:
Then your guitar player moves out of town and you can't find anyone to lead worship, but someone has a friend who will lead worship for just a few $$...
yes, I've seen plenty of examples of churches ignoring musicians in their own congregation because they play the "wrong" instruments, I also know musicians who went from church to church until they found one welcoming their flute or accordion. And what's wrong with voice only music? Or with a music-leader roster? Some churches have a narrow concept of what the music should sound like, which forces the turn to expensive professionalism, sometimes a non-believer professional, as if we can't worship God without the help of a non believer? quote:
deciding back when you're a small house church to keep it that way-- that you'll stay small by not allowing anyone to join beyond the initial 20 who started the fellowship. Problem is, the minute you do that, you cease to be a "church".
I'm not sure. A gathering of a few people who interact a lot may be far more church-like than a gathering of a couple hundred people who have nothing do with each other except show up Sunday mornings and go home without having spoken anything other than "Hello" and "peace be with you."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think Acts 2:42 is my working definition of church:
- some concept of membership relating (loosely) to baptism
- physical gathering on a regular basis
- reference to the 'apostles' teaching'
- breaking bread (probably meaning communion)
- prayer
plus the related attitudes, notably 'joy', 'perseverance' and 'simplicity of heart'.
I think seeking the Kingdom rather than building the Church is a state of mind, rather than easily measurable. Another way of looking at it is to consider whether the gathering is outward-going or inward-looking.
This again is hard to pin down, but I get nervous when (as Birdseye relates) the church has meetings every day of the week (even if these are allegedly outward-looking) such that a sizeable proportion of members spend all their non-working time with other members trying to get people to join them. I also get nervous when churches own property. I wouldn't rule out ever doing so, but the power plays that this engenders don't reassure me at all. In my more cynical moments I think denominations are often property management and development companies masquerading as churches.
Jesus taught lots more about the Kingdom, and its principles, than he did about the Church. Yes I think we can draw principles from the epistles about church, but these days I take them as referring largely to what happens when the assembly is gathered together, not as designed to govern the minutiae of believers' lives.
Perhaps one test of whether one is seeking the Kingdom or misguidedly attempting to build the church is to see which set of principles - Kindgom ones or church organisational ones - prevail in practice in one's "gathering".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
All those are fair points SvitlanaV2 and Eutychus.
But I dunno - rightly or wrongly, I still feel more comfortable with 'traditional' or more historic forms of church.
How tenable that is I dunno.
On Messy - the ones I know tend primarily to attract people/families who are already involved with church or on its periphery - in which case you may as well call one of the fortnightly house-groups a 'church'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think Eutychus is in a tiny tiny minority of all Christians to think that there is any issue with churches owning property and that this is anything other than a desirable thing.
And the stuff about denominations being "property management companies" sounds like sour grapes.
As to the "kingdom building" language - clearly this depends on exactly how you understand these terms, and to me sounds like a sideswipe at the RCC (but could easily also apply to very many forms of institutional church setup).
I don't accept that the other characteristics are very helpful in defining the church. Baptism is a poor measure - both because the NT teaches some were doing it wrong, and also because there are various fringe groups who practice forms of baptism which most mainstream churches would not accept. In some places people cannot gather (illness, war, etc) - are they somehow no longer church? Prayer can happen without being a church (ecumenical prayer meetings etc).
In all, I think this is just ultra-evangelical (albeit in an unusual direction) exceptionism which follows the familiar pattern of pretending that only *it* has the true Christianity, and at best everyone else is mistaken, at worst they're businessmen mascaraing as religion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I must admit that I have a problem with some of the Fresh Expression groups. I know that they are saying they're not "traditional Church" but, IMO, some of them simply don't have enough "marks" of the Church to be given that title.
Yes, they may be groups of friends going on rambles/playing tennis/making bread with a lot of Christian conversation going on as they do so; they may well have the intentional aim of making disciples thereby. That's all well and good (and there may even be more Christian conversation and disciple-making intentionality than in a traditional church). But somehow there's something missing ... but I don't quite know what it is.
I most certainly don't go down the line of Davison and Millbank's critique of FE, that was far too "churchy". But I sometimes feel that some FE folk are slightly deluding themselves with regard to their being "church". I took up this point at a conference with Michael Moynagh (the guru of FE) and he tended to agree with me but by no means completely!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Going back to Messy Church...
quote:
On the 'Messy Church' thing - are any of those stand-alone churches as such? I've only ever come across them as adjuncts to existing churches - ie. a monthly 'Messy' service - not as bona-fide churches in their own right.
What makes you think they're not 'bona-fide churches'? Is it because they only take place once a month? Maybe we need to challenge the idea that a real church has to have a meeting every Sunday.
Surely it's not the idea that they're attached to traditional churches? By that token a Fresh Expression of church can never be a 'real church' because it's always attached to a more established congregation. I think that's unnecessarily limiting of what a 'church' is.
On this - I think it really comes down to intent. Whilst there are some congregations which appear to offer little more than regular Messy Church services - near to me there is on called the Carpenter's Arms in Sandwich, Kent - I don't think they (yet) can be described as being a church. For one thing fresh expression is a description of what it is - i.e. a service put on by and under the authority of another church (in the case of the Sandwich church, a larger strangely-organised parish church in nearby Deal IIRC). To be fair, most of the Messy Church services are monthly services in the pattern of existing churches.
Secondly, I think the purpose of a Messy Church makes it hard to progress beyond the notion of being a form which appeals to a certain demographic and hard to be something other than something which is consumed by that demographic rather than encouraging commitment and belonging.
So young families might enjoy going to a Messy Church and the churches might appreciate the opportunity to interact with them, and there may be side benefits in terms of pastoral opportunities etc. But I don't think that really adds up to being church.
In fact, I'd say that consciously creating a new church which is intended to go beyond the largely superficial level of a Messy Church is very hard to do - and usually those who want to go "deeper" than a Messy Church need to have something more substantial to move onto.
I was also thinking about the ecumenical Chapel of Unity in Coventry Cathedral - which has regular services and very regular and committed attendees. But it is clearly not a church in-and-of-itself because the intention is not to be one.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ... I can understand Eutychus's position given his history (which has been painful), his context and his background.
I don't think we have to gone through all that he has, though, to be a tad suspicious of property and denominational or ecclesial machinations.
My nearest Orthodox parish has two buildings - one a tiny former Methodist chapel they were cramming themselves into - t'other a recently acquired pepper-corn rent former Anglican building that costs them a fortune to heat and potentially will cost thousands and thousands to restore to full working order ... there are no loos, the altar-boys have to pee in the church yard or use the lavs in the scout-hut opposite ...
Potentially, it's a money-pit. I have no idea how they can sustain and maintain both properties - the smaller one is only used mid-week - unless they attract the attentions of a friendly oligarch - which is what some of the Orthodox have done in London.
Overall, I think these problems affect all of us - whether we're into evangelical exceptionalism, sacramental/Catholic exceptionalism or whether we believe ourselves to be completely free of exceptionalism and open to all.
I think SvitlanaV2 raises a crucial point about traditional liturgies and structures - in and of themselves - being no guarantee that people will be kept on the straight and narrow in dogmatically orthodox - small o or Big O - terms.
The argument, rather, would be that whilst these things don't in and of themselves guarantee that clergy/leaders or the 'ordinary bods' if we wish to make a distinction - won't apostasise or drift off into whacky territory - the fact that they are there in the first place provides a reference point and plum-line.
The concern traditionalists have, of course, is that if these things are removed there's nothing whatsoever to prevent informal groups meeting in homes and cafes from veering way out of line.
Certain evangelicals and charismatics tend to dismiss this - whilst overlooking the dangers of syncretism, unbalanced teachings and loopy-doopy authoritarian practices that lurk scarily close below the surface within their own set-ups.
I've been criticised here before for pointing out just how many of the much-vaunted Chinese 'house-churches' are way out of line in terms of evangelical standards of orthodoxy.
'Whoo-hoo, wha-hay,' the evangelical charismatics tend to chorus, 'The Church survived when western missionaries and denominations were withdrawn - this just goes to show how it's possible to remain on track without these traditional structures and external influences ...'
But take a closer look and what do we find? We find that until relatively recently many of these house-churches had wandered off into all kinds of fruit-cake teachings and some of this has only been rectified since China opened itself up to the West and they had contact with more traditional Western Christians again ...
There are pros and cons, swings and roundabouts ... no tradition or Tradition is exempt from problems.
But this idea that if only we could simplify everything and meet in Costa Coffee the world would be a better place is wishful thinking in my view.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
