Thread: When does a gathering become a 'church'? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029559
Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on
:
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!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
You do?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@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."
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on
:
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.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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"
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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!
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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."
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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".
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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'.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
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.
I think the converse - the Fresh Expressions which survive for more than 5 minutes are those which most resemble forms of existing church (and receive some ownership by a wider denomination). Two I know which have now existed for more than a decade are interchangeable with many other forms of school-hall church. An unusual structure for the Anglican church from whence they came, perhaps, but hard to put a paper between them and all the other churches in school halls across the town.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Talking about Fresh Expressions, which wag was it who said that it sounded like the name of a new brand of cat-litter?
Now that IS Messy!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Another point I wanted to make: how easy it is for an informal gathering which meets in a well-known coffee shop or someone's front room or village hall to start thinking, "We need a bigger place/place of our own" and get into property ownership and institutionalism.
This was certainly known in the "house church" movement as far back as the late 50s/early 60s. I remember reading a book by a guy called Maurice Smith who was one of their "apostles" and how they got into this was of thinking almost without intending to.
I'm not saying whether it's wrong or right, just that it happens. In fact it's probably part of the institutionalisation or tacit communal orthodoxy which seeps into all social groups over time.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
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.
I think the converse - the Fresh Expressions which survive for more than 5 minutes are those which most resemble forms of existing church (and receive some ownership by a wider denomination). Two I know which have now existed for more than a decade are interchangeable with many other forms of school-hall church. An unusual structure for the Anglican church from whence they came, perhaps, but hard to put a paper between them and all the other churches in school halls across the town.
Actually I think we're saying the same thing ... I wasn't thinking of the sort of groups you mention, but the much more informal one. As you almost hint, some FE types might not really accept that the school-hall groups are "proper" FE at all!
[ 02. November 2015, 07:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Actually I think we're saying the same thing ... I wasn't thinking of the sort of groups you mention, but the much more informal one. As you almost hint, some FE types might not really accept that the school-hall groups are "proper" FE at all!
Ah-ha, I see what you mean. Yes, the problem with a men-drinking-whisky-and-talking-about-God model is that it doesn't tend to go anywhere without support from a wider denominational structure.
The sadness of this, from my point of view, is that there is an inevitably drift into exactly the same forms as everyone else. True "freshness" is not sustainable.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.
I know similar stories about large city-centre Baptist churches (costing £millions to repair the roof), and I'm guessing there must also be similar stories in the hundreds of now-empty chapels in the Welsh valleys.
But for me this just shows something about poor choices in property purchasing and sociological change. There is nothing bad per say about a church wanting to own property.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Actually I think we're saying the same thing ... I wasn't thinking of the sort of groups you mention, but the much more informal one. As you almost hint, some FE types might not really accept that the school-hall groups are "proper" FE at all!
Ah-ha, I see what you mean. Yes, the problem with a men-drinking-whisky-and-talking-about-God model is that it doesn't tend to go anywhere without support from a wider denominational structure.
The sadness of this, from my point of view, is that there is an inevitably drift into exactly the same forms as everyone else. True "freshness" is not sustainable.
The first thing to say is, what do you mean by 'it doesn't tend to go anywhere?' Where does it need to go? What do you want these men to do?
Secondly, one big problem for such church groups seems to be that they often have no particular theology of church other than 'let's meet in a pub or school hall because it's cheaper/less scary than a church building'. This isn't sustainable, I agree.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The sadness of this, from my point of view, is that there is an inevitably drift into exactly the same forms as everyone else. True "freshness" is not sustainable.
True of any group or society, I would have thought - whether churches, choirs or embroidery guilds! A "shared culture" and "routinisation" inevitably develop, pretty rapidly. The trick is to retain freshness and openness within that.
[ 02. November 2015, 10:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
The problem is that we think 'church' is a magic word. To the people that coined it, is wasn't. It was an everyday word. Ekklesia pretty much means 'gathering*', so asking when a gathering becomes a gathering is asking a tautology.
This whole question of "what is a church?" that we get bogged down in is a total red herring. You ask if Mormons can be described as a church, Gamaliel. Of course they can! They're a gathering, a congregation, an assembly, and so therefore a church of Mormons. That's what church means - that's what church is. How can anyone say that they're not?
There are of course legitimate questions that we can ask. When Christians gather together, what structures should they form? How hierarchical/democratic/anarchic/ordered/spontaneous should they be? What should the hallmarks of a gathering of Christians look like? What is a Christian? What roles and authorities should ministers have? How should sacraments be practised? These questions are important. And if we think that another group of people are getting important things wrong, of course we can say so. But they're still an assembly of people, whether they're an assembly of Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Anglicans, Mormons, Satanists or whoever else. Anyone has the right to form a group of people an call it a church, because that's what a church is**.
*Or, a gathering for a purpose, so there would have been some kind of semi-officialness to it, like a meeting rather than a social gathering.
** King James forbade the translators of the AV from translating 'ekklesia' as 'congregation', because he wanted to protect the institutional integrity of the established church. (see rule #3)
[ 02. November 2015, 10:26: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This article by Alister McGrath gives something of the background to that Rule of translation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.
At no time in my adult life have I been part of a church that owned property or sought to do so (while I've been in them, at least), so I'm not sure where the alleged sour grapes are supposed to be coming from.
As someone who has tangled with the nebulous concept of a "Jezabellic spirit" before, though, I have looked in the Bible to see what such a thing might be, and noted Jezabel's most noteworthy dastardly deed to have been a very nasty grab for property, i.e. Naboth's vineyard.
And indeed, I have seen numerous opportunistic grabs for church property, and ownership structures that remove the actual control of church property from the congregation using the building, in favour of the denomination to which it belongs.
One of the bitterest splits in post-war evangelical christianity in France (between two large and broad alliances) was over the issue of a dodgy property deal near Paris.
To me, ownership of church premises is a recipe for the property not being used to fulfil its original purpose, or continue in line with the original vision. It diverts huge amounts of resources into a fixed asset and adds layers of bureaucracy and politics.
I'm not going to spurn churches that own their buildings, and indeed upthread didn't rule that option out for the church I'm currently leading, but I think the "Kingdom of God" arguments for owning one are pretty slim, and offer no guarantee of what goes on inside being any better.
I'm also not sure about your "tiny tiny minority" if you step outside your small island where the C of E is, last I heard, the second largest landowner after the Crown.
[ 02. November 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I see I'm out of date, and it has now (2013) merely slipped out of the top ten.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm also not sure about your "tiny tiny minority" if you step outside your small island where the C of E is, last I heard, the second largest landowner after the Crown.
Zero to do with anything. Show me some figures of church building ownership around the world. I still believe that the vast majority of church congregations around the world own property - unless you can come up with a startling statistic showing the contrary.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I don't think it has nothing to do with it.
In my experience UK protestant attitudes to places
of worship are pretty much unique and shaped by the issue of so much church property being owned, and the ease of hiring, say, a school hall or other public facility for worship.
Also in my experience, any decent owned church building in a non first-world country is likely to have been bought with foreign money.
Lastly, I don't think statistics are going to be a very good way of deciding whether church building ownership is a good outworking of the principles of the Kingdom of God.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Oh, and I'm sure you're wrong about the numbers of congregations, if you'll admit that a group of believers meeting in a home and occasionally breaking bread constitute a congregation. They just publish fewer glossy newsletters.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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".
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
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."
fyi: we discussed that upthread (I know what it's like to come in late and be catching up): Again, if you read the context you'll see I'm very much NOT arguing that size makes a church-- see the recent slap down for my suggestion that 2 gathered can be a church. I'm arguing that inclusivity is an essential element of a church.
[ 02. November 2015, 13:18: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not going to spurn churches that own their buildings, and indeed upthread didn't rule that option out for the church I'm currently leading, but I think the "Kingdom of God" arguments for owning one are pretty slim, and offer no guarantee of what goes on inside being any better.
But if you believe in 'consecrated ground' as a concept, is it possible to maintain it as consecrated without owning it? (Or as with older French Catholic churches, coming to an accommodation with the State.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think that question rasies more questions about the validity of the concept of "consecrated ground" than it does about whether churches should own property or rent it*.
Indeed, I'd be interested to know what sort of grounds (ha ha) are put forward for the idea of consecrated ground at all.
==
*Facetiously, one of my favourite definitions of the French word tréfonds offered on a translators' website is "the entire pseudo-conical volume of earth and magma between the surface foot print of the project and the centre of the Earth". How far down does consecrated ground go??
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Can I shift the discussion in another direction?
Some traditions would say that (to put it carefully) one requires a "properly ordained clergy-person" who can offer the sacraments in order to be a Church. I think I'm right in saying that this is true in the Orthodox tradition: i.e. the church gathers around its priest or bishop.
Now my tradition doesn't come from there at all ... but what do others think?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Can I shift the discussion in another direction?
Some traditions would say that (to put it carefully) one requires a "properly ordained clergy-person" who can offer the sacraments in order to be a Church. I think I'm right in saying that this is true in the Orthodox tradition: i.e. the church gathers around its priest or bishop.
Now my tradition doesn't come from there at all ... but what do others think?
The Reformed tradition has a similar concept, since "the sacraments rightly administered" is one of John Knox's "marks of the true kirk". I'm not personally committed to that, but that's indicative of my more Zwinglian view of the sacraments. I would expect it to be far more important in CofE.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How literal do we want to be, Eutychus? I once teasingly asked an Orthodox friend at which point the waters become unblessed after the annual blessing of the waters at Epiphany in order for them to be blessed again the following year. He rolled his eyes and looked at me daft.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
cliffdweller
John Calvin in his Institutes says:
quote:
Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s body, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.
From McNeil translation page 1023
Jengie
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Can I shift the discussion in another direction?
Some traditions would say that (to put it carefully) one requires a "properly ordained clergy-person" who can offer the sacraments in order to be a Church. I think I'm right in saying that this is true in the Orthodox tradition: i.e. the church gathers around its priest or bishop.
Now my tradition doesn't come from there at all ... but what do others think?
I think you protest too much - the most rigid forms of liturgy I've ever experienced were in the baptist church of my youth (it wasn't written down, but the form was almost exactly the same, word-for-word every time) and whilst ordained clergy might not be a thing, very clearly the minister/pastor, elders and deacons were those who did everything bar nothing, except for changing the lightbulbs in the church. If there was a "priesthood of all believers", you could have fooled 98% of the church congregation.
In contrast, the low Anglican evangelicals I spent much of the last 20 years with were far less liturgical, far more willing to experiment with change, far more inclusive and willing to get people from all sections of the church involved with far more things.
This idea that the Baptists are free and that the Anglicans are liturgically staid is utter bunk, in the church life I've experienced.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
cliffdweller
John Calvin in his Institutes says:
quote:
Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s body, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.
From McNeil translation page 1023
Jengie
??? were you expecting Knox to contradict Calvin??? Or are you thinking Calvin would be sufficient to persuade me away from my memorialism???
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that question rasies more questions about the validity of the concept of "consecrated ground" than it does about whether churches should own property or rent it*.
Indeed, I'd be interested to know what sort of grounds (ha ha) are put forward for the idea of consecrated ground at all.
==
*Facetiously, one of my favourite definitions of the French word tréfonds offered on a translators' website is "the entire pseudo-conical volume of earth and magma between the surface foot print of the project and the centre of the Earth". How far down does consecrated ground go??
I guess the resurrection of the body is unimportant to you. Consecrated ground is related to the bodies of the saints, not to the depth-to-magma beneath.
You know, it is absolutely fine - I have a lot of sympathy with those who say too much time and effort is taken with buildings and that maybe it is about time we looked for different ways to do it. But I really kick back at the implied assertion in your words that your model is the official NT Kingdom one, whereas everyone else has inherited a substandard, worldly, anti-kingdom Christianity.
It's just so boring.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How literal do we want to be, Eutychus?
Me, not at all. It's not me that's arguing that consecrated ground is an important issue in deciding whether to buy or rent property.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
cliffdweller
John Calvin in his Institutes says:
quote:
Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s body, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.
From McNeil translation page 1023
Jengie
??? were you expecting Knox to contradict Calvin??? Or are you thinking Calvin would be sufficient to persuade me away from my memorialism???
No simply pointing out that it did not originate with Knox. Actually goes back further to Augsburg Confession, yes I know that is Lutheran but it also predates Calvin's Institutes and Calvin is almost certainly using it.
Jengie
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I guess the resurrection of the body is unimportant to you.
Quite how you get that from anything I've posted here, ever, escapes me. quote:
Consecrated ground is related to the bodies of the saints
I can understand the above notion being part of some church traditions, but I'm dubious as to whether the bloke who said something about letting the dead bury their dead would set much store by it, at least not in discussing the merits of whether churches should own property.
quote:
But I really kick back at the implied assertion in your words that your model is the official NT Kingdom one, whereas everyone else has inherited a substandard, worldly, anti-kingdom Christianity.
Now where are the sour grapes? I've argued my reasoning for seeking the Kingdom as I do, explicitly not ruled out the option of owning church premises, and accepted that others do things differently.
If you want to provide some support for your assertions that a) consecrated ground is important with respect to the resurrection of the body b) consecrated ground requires churches to own property c) this is consistent with seeking the Kingdom of God, go ahead.
quote:
It's just so boring.
Which begs the question of why you keep engaging, and in doing so give every appearance of spoiling for a fight. If that's what you're after, take it to Hell, but don't expect me to waste my time there at this juncture.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
No simply pointing out that it did not originate with Knox. Actually goes back further to Augsburg Confession, yes I know that is Lutheran but it also predates Calvin's Institutes and Calvin is almost certainly using it.
Yes. It is understood in Reformed churches that Calvin provides the theology that Knox then parses into polity. Knox's "marks of the true kirk" is standard Presby-speak but always understood that Knox is only parsing out the work Calvin had already done in the Institutes (which practically has deutero-canonical status within Reformed churches).
And of course the context of the comment was "which denominations require ordained clergy to administer the sacraments?" I was only presenting one example: the context made clear that there were plenty of other, older, examples.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Interesting question when reading the above wording, was John Calvin ordained?
Jengie
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The minister/pastor, elders and deacons were those who did everything bar nothing, except for changing the lightbulbs in the church.
.
They didn't? Is outrage! They were clearly neglecting their duties.
quote:
In contrast, the low Anglican evangelicals I spent much of the last 20 years with were far less liturgical, far more willing to experiment with change, far more inclusive and willing to get people from all sections of the church involved with far more things.
This idea that the Baptists are free and that the Anglicans are liturgically staid is utter bunk, in the church life I've experienced.
Fair enough, I certainly know the "tyranny of the unwritten liturgy". But I think there has been a huge change over the past 30 years - I would say that the key feature of much Baptist worship today is informality. Whether it's creative as well is definitely open to question!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And of course the context of the comment was "which denominations require ordained clergy to administer the sacraments?"
No, it wasn't quite that. It was, "To be church, do you require ordained clergy who administer the sacraments?"
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that question rasies more questions about the validity of the concept of "consecrated ground" than it does about whether churches should own property or rent it*.
I agree - my point was that the concept of consecrated ground is a justifiable reason why denominations are property owners despite the obvious politics and expense this brings.
quote:
Indeed, I'd be interested to know what sort of grounds (ha ha) are put forward for the idea of consecrated ground at all.
Well, pace mr cheesy, by consecrated ground I was referring to the church building itself, especially the altar and sanctuary, rather than the graveyard.*
I agree it is not a New Testament concept. My understanding is that Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem in apostolic times continued to worship in the Temple, and there is no suggestion that the Temple ceased to be hallowed grounds. Extrapolating from apostolic practice however seems to me impractical as we no longer (to understate matters) have that relationship with the Temple.
My impression is that Christians established consecrated ground as a concept quite early on, but I can't prove it.
My principal justification would simply be that consecrated ground seems to be something humans do. Even the completely unchurched honour cenotaphs and other memorials.
* Tangentially it would be interesting to know when graveyards first started to be associated with churches as my understanding was that Graeco-Roman cemeteries were located outside the city walls.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And of course the context of the comment was "which denominations require ordained clergy to administer the sacraments?"
No, it wasn't quite that. It was, "To be church, do you require ordained clergy who administer the sacraments?"
Well, it was your question, so far be it from me to argue the point, but your question:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[qb] My tradition doesn't come from there at all ... but what do others think?
sure sounded to me like a question about what other traditions require ordination to administer the sacraments, although I appreciate that your intent was to discuss the appropriateness of the "true kirk" rule, rather than simply do a head count of how many vote which way.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Ah, That's not quite what it was meant to say - but I can see that that it how it can be read! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But back to the question: does an "intentional" group of Christians need a "proper minister" if is to be Church? Or is that merely an optional requirement?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... '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 ...
Sounds like the pre-Constantinian church, particularly in the times of the persecutions.
Perhaps those of the Fathers who were rather emphatic about the authority of bishops may have had a point.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... * Tangentially it would be interesting to know when graveyards first started to be associated with churches as my understanding was that Graeco-Roman cemeteries were located outside the city walls.
This was as revolutionary a development in anthropology and religious history as the realisation that you do not make yourself better or worse by eating or not eating certain foods, Mk 7:18-19. Quite a lot of western people still haven't grasped that one. Indeed, the trend in public opinion at the moment is going in the backwards direction.
Everybody else has thought that in the interests of spiritual safety, the dead should be respected but kept as far as possible from the living. We don't realise how abnormal we are in accepting that the dead should be buried around us, and even underneath our feet in the places where we worship.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
But there is no guarantee that having the institutions would have stopped them going wacky. There are a fair few cases when that has happened as well.
Jengie
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My principal justification would simply be that consecrated ground seems to be something humans do. Even the completely unchurched honour cenotaphs and other memorials.
Yes, one can't really argue with that, and as someone who once snuck into Durham Cathedral as a place of prayer in a moment of crisis, I certainly can't. But I think that's a long way from a defining characteristic of what church is.
On the burial tangent, within living memory in Brittany there have been lively spats over burials, with hefty protestant widows sitting astride their late husbands' coffins in an attempt to prevent the Catholic priest from burying it on Catholic church grounds...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Interesting question when reading the above wording, was John Calvin ordained? Jengie
It all depends what you mean by "ordained." I understand all believers to be "ordained" in the sense of being given a mission by God alongside the means to deliver that mission.
In that sense a FE of church is a church when 2 or 3 gather, irrespective of whether one or more is referred to or see as "Priest". Arguably we are all that anyway.
A lot of what we know and understand as ordination is clericalism pure and simple. There is a move in soem circles to replace pastor as shepherd with pastor as entrepreneur, alongside a prediliction to self describe as apostolic. One church in this neck of the woods defines itself as the most vibrant church in the area - well it may be: another new church plant describes in glowong detail on facebook what it did for hallowe'en thta's ok but ...There is a growing trend of this self upmanship which is more of a look at me, than it is look at God. It's dangerously narcisstic.
Mind you, I am with BT - a lot of what passes for FE actually isn't - and a lot of what passes for cutting esge is about as radical as asking for Steak Diane withoiut the sauce. There's a pretty hefty element of illusion and make believe going on in quite a lot of cases.
Intentional and missional are the buzz words of FE such that you can make them mean anything you like to explain your way of "doing" church. [The latesgt phrase seems to be "people of peace" seemingly referring to those who agree with you and/or the way you do things].
FE is no newer than the house churches of the 60's and 70's - it's another cycle coming round again, just like the focus on prophecies and tongues.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
It all depends what you mean by "ordained." I understand all believers to be "ordained" in the sense of being given a mission by God alongside the means to deliver that mission.
So do I - but you know as well as I do that that view is one which isn't shared by everyone.
quote:
There is a move in soem circles to replace pastor as shepherd with pastor as entrepreneur, alongside a prediliction to self describe as apostolic. One church in this neck of the woods defines itself as the most vibrant church in the area - well it may be: another new church plant describes in glowong detail on facebook what it did for hallowe'en thta's ok but ...There is a growing trend of this self upmanship which is more of a look at me, than it is look at God. It's dangerously narcissistic.
I couldn't agree more. If I find another church which describes itself as "vibrant" or whose worship is "awesome" then I shall scream. I really don't think that churches should be talking themselves up like candidates in "The Apprentice"; it's barely honest, unrealistically heightens expectation and panders to Christian consumerism.
quote:
A lot of what passes for FE actually isn't - and a lot of what passes for cutting esge is about as radical as asking for Steak Diane withoiut the sauce. There's a pretty hefty element of illusion and make believe going on in quite a lot of cases.
The question that needs to be asked are, "Is our activity bringing people to Christ and helping them to grow in discipleship?"
[code]
[ 03. November 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The question that needs to be asked are, "Is our activity bringing people to Christ and helping them to grow in discipleship?"
In many cases, the answer is "no."
[code]
[ 04. November 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There is a move in soem circles to replace pastor as shepherd with pastor as entrepreneur, alongside a prediliction to self describe as apostolic. One church in this neck of the woods defines itself as the most vibrant church in the area - well it may be: another new church plant describes in glowong detail on facebook what it did for hallowe'en thta's ok but ...There is a growing trend of this self upmanship which is more of a look at me, than it is look at God. It's dangerously narcisstic.
It's the general influence of the business world. There's a parallel move to redefine anyone who works in the charitable sector as a 'social entreprenaur'.
The ideal seems to be pastor as CEO - segregated in an office somewhere on the church campus - who delivers the Sunday sermons and spends the rest of the time writing books and attending conferences in order to present them.
He will be backed by a large church staff, including a number of assistant ministers who then lead the volunteers who actually do the pastoral work.
What interests me is the extent to which startup culture in particular seems to have invaded some of the new church movements - the stages in which these churches try to grow are similar, with the above as an end state of a process which starts off with presentations in order to get backers, and a few years of the founders investing 'sweat equity' in their establishment. The 'campus' they seek to build will be similarly influenced - with break out rooms, coffee shops and earnest young interns typing away into their macbooks.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And the Pastor is such situations usually is a "he" ...
The questions we must ask about this model are these. Is this a case of Christians simply imbibing the wasy of business without critiquing it? - i.e. they are so bound up in the culture that they cannot recognise that to be the case.
Or: are they deliberately adopting this approach as it is one they know will resonate with folk who are spending their working lives wrapped in the corporate culture? - i.e. this has been an intentional decision.
Or: are they "having their cake and eating it"? - i.e. adopting this methodology both because they think it will "work" and also because it is the culture in which they feel comfortable.
Whether this model is "FE" is open to question. However it does lead to a discussion as to how much an FE should be "enculturated" and how much it should be deliberately "counter-cultural"? And - dare one say - to ask which approach is best at modelling Jesus?
And: does one have to be "entrepreneurial" to grow a church from scratch in an urban Western culture? (Rural areas may function differently).
[ 04. November 2015, 16:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And the Pastor is such situations usually is a "he" ...
I thought of pointing that out, but was trying to avoid additional tangents.
quote:
The questions we must ask about this model are these. Is this a case of Christians simply imbibing the wasy of business without critiquing it? - i.e. they are so bound up in the culture that they cannot recognise that to be the case.
The other variant on this possibility - which maybe you missed - is that in a culture which celebrates a particular sort of (in this case business values) it is comfortable to set up a church along similar lines - it becomes easier to explain your lifestyle choices to your peers, it similarly becomes easier to measure your own success, and in doing so appeals particular personality types which may at least make the strategy a numeric success.
quote:
Whether this model is "FE" is open to question. However it does lead to a discussion as to how much an FE should be "enculturated" and how much it should be deliberately "counter-cultural"?
Taking the above as a starting point; I would ask, do some FEs resemble any other type of cultural institution - in a way that makes running them a more acceptable lifestyle choice, and is this to the detriment/benefit of the FE concept as a whole.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A FE of church is a church when 2 or 3 gather, irrespective of whether one or more is referred to or see as "Priest". Arguably we are all that anyway.
A lot of what we know and understand as ordination is clericalism pure and simple. There is a move in soem circles to replace pastor as shepherd with pastor as entrepreneur, alongside a prediliction to self describe as apostolic. One church in this neck of the woods defines itself as the most vibrant church in the area - well it may be: another new church plant describes in glowong detail on facebook what it did for hallowe'en thta's ok but ...There is a growing trend of this self upmanship which is more of a look at me, than it is look at God. It's dangerously narcisstic.
Mind you, I am with BT - a lot of what passes for FE actually isn't - and a lot of what passes for cutting esge is about as radical as asking for Steak Diane withoiut the sauce. There's a pretty hefty element of illusion and make believe going on in quite a lot of cases.
Intentional and missional are the buzz words of FE such that you can make them mean anything you like to explain your way of "doing" church. [The latesgt phrase seems to be "people of peace" seemingly referring to those who agree with you and/or the way you do things].
FE is no newer than the house churches of the 60's and 70's - it's another cycle coming round again, just like the focus on prophecies and tongues.
I'm just wondering if it's helpful to use 'FE' in the way you have here. My understanding is that a 'Fresh Expression of church' is a term devised by the mainstream Protestant denominations in the UK to describe a form of evangelistic church community that they've planted and that sits under their denominational umbrellas, whilst being run very differently from their normal congregations.
IOW, it doesn't apply to independent church plants whose hierarchical structure may simply be rather unusual.
I think this is a useful distinction to make, not least because the latter group of churches are unlikely to recognise the term 'FE' and apply it to themselves. By contrast, the former group are clear about what counts as a Fresh Expression of church in their own context, and they may use branded materials and a website (see below) that address the issue of definitions and encourage the founding of FE congregations.
Moreover, I think it's helpful to have a term which refers only to congregations that have been established within the denominational mainstream, since the mainstream has particular problems (namely, long term decline) that aren't necessarily relevant to new independent churches.
I identify official 'Fresh Expressions of church' with the CofE and Methodism in particular, perhaps because of the history of the term. I'm wondering if the initiative presented on the website that I've linked to involves many Baptists. As well as not working in the same denominational way, ISTM that Baptists find it easier to transform the culture of their existing congregations, which means that the Methodist, CofE and URC need to bypass their rigid congregational cultures by planting FEs is perhaps less relevant to Baptists in general. (But the website does state that the Baptist Pioneer Collective is an associate partner).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I I'm wondering if the initiative presented on the website that I've linked to involves many Baptists. As well as not working in the same denominational way, ISTM that Baptists find it easier to transform the culture of their existing congregations, which means that the Methodist, CofE and URC need to bypass their rigid congregational cultures by planting FEs is perhaps less relevant to Baptists in general. (But the website does state that the Baptist Pioneer Collective is an associate partner).
I take your point but whatever a "gathering" sees itelf as, to the outside observor it's an FE of church whatever the group themselves says.
As for baptist involvment, it is both considerable in contemporary terms and significant historically. Our associations (regions) are now missional in outlook and intent with the innate flexibility (owing to our ecclesiology), to explore and develop new forms of church at a fair pace and with little hierarchical approval needed.
The same, sadly, cannot be said of the CofE and the Methodists. The former seem to spend too much time arguing whose parish it's in and the latter find it hard to justify the cost as they don't have much cash.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I got a bit confused reading the above. Are we actually talking about the same things here?
By FE, do we mean "official" Fresh Expression congregations - or are we talking about any old fresh expression of church? I'm not totally convinced these two things are totally overlapping and the same.
I think there is a CEO mentality amongst some (many?) new church planters. In my view this isn't helped because these kinds of churches tend to end up looking exactly the same: led by a small group of 30s/40s white men, worship bands (with a lot of wires and other stuff), school halls, hands waving in the air - etc and so on.
For some reason this seems to attract the men in shiny suits, who seem to want to be the CEO, with glossy websites, publicity materials etc and so on.
But - please correct me if your experience is different - I've not seen this in any of the "official" Fresh Expressions that I'm aware of. They occupy a strange position within the denomination that they're supposed to be part of (and I think this is a notable difference to these other kinds of new church - they are at least trying to work within the existing denominations, whereas the men in shiny suits tend to want their own). In my experience they're also tiny tiny tiny and grow extremely slowly so good luck with thinking that you're going to be a CEO pastor of a 500 member church next year.
The "official" FE congregations seem to be split into different types - with some also following the school hall guitar model, some the messy church model, some completely different models. I think it can be fair to ask to what extent some of these are truly "fresh" as they just seem to be replicating what others are doing.
But even here, I don't see this CEO mentality others describe, possibly because they tend to be, and stay, so small.
Another point I was thinking is that some of those involved do not primarily see their role as evangelism. So a Messy Church has not "failed" if a certain percentage of people are not led to Christ.
Some say that these things are "pre-evangelistic" communities. One Church Army worker who was involved in one of the first Anglican FE said to me once that people need to get a positive conception of church before they are in a position to hear the teaching.
Which might be a difference in perception to the one our Baptist brethren have described above.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm just wondering if it's helpful to use 'FE' in the way you have here. My understanding is that a 'Fresh Expression of church' is a term devised by the mainstream Protestant denominations in the UK to describe a form of evangelistic church community that they've planted and that sits under their denominational umbrellas, whilst being run very differently from their normal congregations.
I don't think this is it, quite. Two Anglican "official" FE communities that I know were given special permission to form by their respective bishops - and they began, uncomfortably, outside of the normal parish organisation. In one, the bishop had to unilaterally declare that the new church was a non-geographic parish but should otherwise be considered like any other church in the deanery.
I know that sounds a little bit like semantics, but the way the Anglican setup is organised, local grumbling from other congregations can on occasion be over-ruled from above with regard to new congregation.
That's a bit different to the parallel phenomena where Anglican parishes plant new churches within existing parish boundaries - and the uncomfortable situation where Anglican churches start plants in someone-else's parish without asking (sometimes needing to do this under the jurisdiction of some other non-Canterbury diocese).
And it seems to be a different thing to the LEP phenomena.
quote:
IOW, it doesn't apply to independent church plants whose hierarchical structure may simply be rather unusual.
No, I agree, that's a red herring.
quote:
I think this is a useful distinction to make, not least because the latter group of churches are unlikely to recognise the term 'FE' and apply it to themselves. By contrast, the former group are clear about what counts as a Fresh Expression of church in their own context, and they may use branded materials and a website (see below) that address the issue of definitions and encourage the founding of FE congregations.
Moreover, I think it's helpful to have a term which refers only to congregations that have been established within the denominational mainstream, since the mainstream has particular problems (namely, long term decline) that aren't necessarily relevant to new independent churches.
Right. I think FE also should only describe churches with denominational ties, albeit sometimes quite tenuous ties.
quote:
I identify official 'Fresh Expressions of church' with the CofE and Methodism in particular, perhaps because of the history of the term. I'm wondering if the initiative presented on the website that I've linked to involves many Baptists. As well as not working in the same denominational way, ISTM that Baptists find it easier to transform the culture of their existing congregations, which means that the Methodist, CofE and URC need to bypass their rigid congregational cultures by planting FEs is perhaps less relevant to Baptists in general. (But the website does state that the Baptist Pioneer Collective is an associate partner).
I think the important thing here is that Baptists are essentially congregational in organisation. So there is no "parish" boundary to invade, and nobody can complain when a new baptist congregation starts in a town even if there is an existing baptist church there. In some towns it is possible to be walking along a street and see two baptist churches which appear to be very much alike and in talking to members discover that the one is just the "baptist church they don't go to".
This might happen a bit less with Baptist Union churches than with some of the other types, because I think new start-ups are relatively rare.
Anyway, essentially what I'm saying is that baptist churches don't really need to describe themselves as a Fresh Expression from within the Baptist Union - because they're already independent and could at any time start a new congregation anyway.
I'd also say that the comments above about the Anglican system are almost totally wrong. Many of the Fresh Expressions have come out of the Anglican setup - which surprisingly have proven to be quite flexible in experimenting with new things, largely because - I think - only one or two people in the hierarchy need to be convinced to allow it to happen. Anglicans also have a long history of under-the-radar church planting with the Church Army working in a weird guerilla pattern on things that do not seem to fit the norm.
[ 06. November 2015, 07:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes and no - and you are right to recognise that not all "Baptist" churches have ties with the "Baptist" denominations. (For instance, in my town we have BUGB churches, Grace Baptist churches and at least one Independent Baptist church, all of long standing).
Coming back to FE. I think the "official" denominational affiliation is one thing - and I think it's right to say that this was born out of the Anglicans and Methodists. The Baptists arrived later. I also agree that Anglicans and Methodists have more organisational issues to get through (e.g. Bishops' Orders) if they want to start a completely new FE - although of course most are outreach projects of existing churches (which can be tricky when the new housing estate they're "targeting" is geographically in the next door parish).
(By the way, when ++Rowan came to our local Cathedral a few years back and had a session with clergy (not just CofE), what did he talk about? Yes, "Fresh Expressions" - you can't get more official than that!)
What I think is more interesting - and more germane to this thread - is to notice that there is a very different ethos or feel about an FE, which is often a very low-key sort of thing, possibly getting together a group of people with common interests and sharing faith; and the entrepreneurial type of "new church" which is much more like "church as we know it" albeit very contemporary and possibly meeting in a hotel or hired space.
For instance in my town we have an FE - actually an offshoot from one of the Anglican churches - which has led a quiet and reflective life for some years; in some ways it's not far from a monastic community that practices 'alternative' worship. We have also had a new-start church (which, to everyone's annoyance, refused to cooperate with existing churches); although it is snazzy and slick it is very definitely "modern" rather than "postmodern" and in no way would I call it an FE. (It has recently joined one of the large charismatic networks and adopted its "brand").
[ 06. November 2015, 08:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Baptist Trainfan ignoring for a moment the non-BU baptist churches - are you saying that it would be a problem to plant a new congregation in a town with an existing BU church?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Put it this way: it wouldn't be "illegal" to do this as Baptist churches don't have "parishes". However a Regional Minister might raise their eyebrows if you just went ahead off your own bat. More to the point, I don't think it would be good manners; and it would also be good for fellowship and prayer support to liaise with the existing church, even if you are fishing a rather different pool (e.g. existing church could be very staid, elderly, introverted and the new outreach is among young professionals).
As a general rule I feel that anyone who aims to start a new "work" should do so in consultation and fellowship with the existing churches in that area. We are, after all, one Body of Christ and I despair of new groups who brashy come in and do their own thing as if no-one else counts.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Wise words.
Just on a slight tangent, has anyone ever heard of a church plant going the other way to the example BT gave- that is, appealing to the more elderly/staid etc who are otherwise not catered for? It seems to be a real issue in the town in N Wales where Mrs A's parents live: lots of retired people there, the Methodist Church closed, there is a URC/PCW church that seems to be the natural alternative for people like the parents-in-law, except that the minister appears to be rather a buffoonish charismatic-lite type who is effectively unchurching that substantial part of his congregation who like a hymn-prayer sandwich and a reasonably thoughtful sermon- to the extent that my in-laws, both of whom have attended church (m-in-law before her marriage) or chapel almost every Sunday throughout their lives, now frequently don't go anywhere at all (F-in-law is far too culturally Welsh nonconformist to go to Church, and at his age that's not going to change). Any plant catering for people like them might necessarily be a time-limited project, for the end of one generation only, but it would meet a real pastoral need.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Put it this way: it wouldn't be "illegal" to do this as Baptist churches don't have "parishes". However a Regional Minister might raise their eyebrows if you just went ahead off your own bat. More to the point, I don't think it would be good manners; and it would also be good for fellowship and prayer support to liaise with the existing church, even if you are fishing a rather different pool (e.g. existing church could be very staid, elderly, introverted and the new outreach is among young professionals).
Right - but then this is presumably only going to be an issue in a very small town, or a place where there might end up being two BU churches in extremely close proximity (ie on the same street in a city).
Major towns and cities usually have several BU churches, it is hard to imagine anyone batting an eyelid if one church decided to start a new congregation in a suburb or estate.
quote:
As a general rule I feel that anyone who aims to start a new "work" should do so in consultation and fellowship with the existing churches in that area. We are, after all, one Body of Christ and I despair of new groups who brashy come in and do their own thing as if no-one else counts.
Well I guess this might conceivably be an issue if the Fresh Expression is specifically badged as a "Baptist Union" supported effort. But obviously most towns now also have a range of baptist/evangelical churches of a range of stripes - it is hard to imagine that anyone has consulted the others before they start (some probably started due to some problem with the Baptist Union).
I just don't think the Regional Ministers are really in a position to complain here. I'd be fascinated to hear of a Baptist Union church which did not get off the ground because of a lack of discussion with other local congregations or the regional minister. Each church is an individual entity, the Baptist Union structure and regional minister system is only an advisor to the primacy of the local congregation, as I understand it.
Of course, most Baptist Union churches are centuries old - has any Baptist Union church started from scratch in England in the 21 century? I'd imagine they're closing faster than they are opening, no?
I guess it is possible that interchurch relations inside the Baptist Union have improved, but I know of two BU churches in a town which barely acknowledge the others existence (and probably have not for at least 50 years) - and another where a small struggling congregation was allowed to share a building during repairs (providing they held services at 3pm) with no obvious discussions as to the practicalities of continuing in this way rather than some kind of merger. My experience of BU churches seem to have little or no interaction with other local BU churches, never mind anyone else. Maybe this is not the way it is done elsewhere, I'd be interested to hear if not.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Major towns and cities usually have several BU churches, it is hard to imagine anyone batting an eyelid if one church decided to start a new congregation in a suburb or estate.
Of course not, but you must remember that most Baptist congregations are "gathered" and people may come from quite a variety of locations.
quote:
I guess this might conceivably be an issue if the Fresh Expression is specifically badged as a "Baptist Union" supported effort. But obviously most towns now also have a range of baptist/evangelical churches of a range of stripes - it is hard to imagine that anyone has consulted the others before they start.
Why not? We are all the Body of Christ (and I include the non-Evangelical churches as well). We need to be courteous and recognise each other. The exception I can think of is churches which cater for a specific ethnic group and language.
quote:
I just don't think the Regional Ministers are really in a position to complain here ... the Baptist Union structure and regional minister system is only an advisor to the primacy of the local congregation, as I understand it.
Yes.
quote:
Of course, most Baptist Union churches are centuries old - has any Baptist Union church started from scratch in England in the 21 century?
Well, here's one at least ... I'm sure there are others.
quote:
I guess it is possible that interchurch relations inside the Baptist Union have improved, but I know of two BU churches in a town which barely acknowledge the others existence (and probably have not for at least 50 years).
Sadly true. But that's "the independence of the local church" gone mad.
[ 06. November 2015, 10:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I got a bit confused reading the above. Are we actually talking about the same things here?
[/qb]
I think the tangent went on to other groups that attempt to do the replanting thing - the takeaway for me anyway is that it's worthwhile trying to think about the parallel non-religious institution that the particular group may be unconsciously attempting to imitate, as it leads to thoughts about the validation mechanisms being used and suchlike.
[quote]
The "official" FE congregations seem to be split into different types - with some also following the school hall guitar model, some the messy church model, some completely different models. I think it can be fair to ask to what extent some of these are truly "fresh" as they just seem to be replicating what others are doing.
Well, perhaps rather than comparing it with a startup, the more apt comparison is with a badly run community arts centre
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just on a slight tangent, has anyone ever heard of a church plant going the other way to the example BT gave- that is, appealing to the more elderly/staid etc who are otherwise not catered for?
I've not heard of it as a church plant. But I do know of one Baptist church in a "south coast town" which deliberately aimed at the "grey" market; and of a very reactionary URC which has become a haven for disaffected folk from elsewhere.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, here's one at least ... I'm sure there are others.
I stand corrected. It appears to have started in 2002.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, here's one at least ... I'm sure there are others.
I stand corrected. It appears to have started in 2002.
The Stowe in Swindon. Bussage in Gloucs and probably 6 or 7 others around Bristol.
Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on
:
A page back, someone said "ekklesia pretty much means gathering, so to ask when a gathering becomes a gathering is tautological"
They were wrong but it was helpful as I have koine Greek.
ek-kaleo is to call out - (not like 'cry', but like 'call up' as in 'call of duty'.
Therefore perhaps a gathering becomes an ekklesia when the gathered recognise and respond to the fact that they are being 'called out' or 'called up' and start to in turn do mission... so actually what we often have in church buildings these days is a lot of people 'gathering' and only a few recognising that they are actually 'called up'.
So Church has perhaps become a gathering!
(Also whilst ecclesia comes from ekkaleo, 'Church' may be more closely from 'oikia kyrie - like Scottish kirk. From household of the Lord)
Sorry for lazy phonetic spellings- but you get the gist.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Whatever a "gathering" sees itelf as, to the outside observor it's an FE of church whatever the group themselves says.
As for baptist involvment, it is both considerable in contemporary terms and significant historically. Our associations (regions) are now missional in outlook and intent with the innate flexibility (owing to our ecclesiology), to explore and develop new forms of church at a fair pace and with little hierarchical approval needed.
The same, sadly, cannot be said of the CofE and the Methodists. The former seem to spend too much time arguing whose parish it's in and the latter find it hard to justify the cost as they don't have much cash.
I don't see the point in broadening the usage of this term in a way that only creates confusion. 'Alternative church' might be a good all-purpose term, but if you're talking specifically about a new independent church plant why not simply refer to it as such?
Moreover, the CEO-led type churches you mention above don't seem to be so much 'Fresh Expressions of Church' as 'Fresh Expressions of Church Leadership'. IME 'FE' refers primarily to creating new ways of being church for specifically evangelistic purposes, which is to say that the experience of ordinary participants is paramount. The administrative and management style might not be immediately relevant to the curious non-Christian passing through the doors; the welcome they receive and the style of worship and spiritual nurturing available to them will be.
The distinction I'm making here may be less interesting to others than it is to me, but it does help to highlight a question that some commentators find important: Is it better for an 'alternative church' to be run and controlled by an established mainstream denomination (i.e. as an FE) or for it to be separate from all official denominational interference? Or something in between?
In theory, mainstream denominations with their liturgies and established theology can possibly prevent wacky doctrines from making headway, as Gamaliel argued a couple of pages ago. The downside is that their age and status gives them a vested interest in maintaining things as they are, even if their own members are growing restless, and the population around them is losing interest. These churches are so caught up with maintaining the burden of their complex structures, buildings and traditions that they're often exhausted when it comes to evangelism. Hence the challenges facing the CofE and the Methodists. (I also think there's plenty of unorthodoxy in these respectable mainstream church circles too. It just doesn't present itself in such a flamboyant, upfront way.)
The Baptists possibly have the best of both worlds, but on the ground they may be busy with their own vision and projects, and can't be expected to do everything or appeal to everyone, certainly not in urban areas. I therefore remain convinced that we in England ought to have a mixed economy, which will include various types of independent small scale Christian groups, as well as established congregations of various types, including the traditional mainstream churches. In our plugged in culture in 2015 it must be hard for any independent group to remain completely isolated anyway. (It may be different in other parts of the world though.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
As (I think) I said earlier:
the "CEO" type churches are still basically "Modern"; they're not FE but "old church" with new packaging.
FE are Postmodern, often low key and "alternative" in some way. I'm not too concerned if they are part of the "official" FE networks or not.
Would you agree?
[ 07. November 2015, 11:26: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
That's one way of looking at it, and a helpful one, in some respects.
I suppose that because of my church background I just find it helpful to maintain a distinction between denominational grass roots church groups and freelance ones. For example, I imagine a new Methodist FE in a given area would arouse fewer theological and ethical concerns among the local churches - even among the local Baptists! - than the arrival a small, unknown freelance group.
Whether or not one is 'concerned' about freelance groups depends on various factors. In reality, I imagine that most small church groups that deliberately aim to be alternative are founded within larger church movements or denominations. The challenge is that their aims and desires may diverge so much from the parent church that they may end up becoming independent anyway.
(An interesting historical perspective on this issue is given by Peter Bunton's book 'Cell Groups and House churches: What History Teaches Us'. It looks mostly at small groups from the 1500s to the 1700s.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Fair enough. I think too that some (the best) FE groups are deliberately "missional" - some though are basically havens for folk who have become disgruntled with ordinary church. But perhaps I'm being a bit unkind.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd agree with all of that, SvitlanaV2.
I also agree that both the CofE and Methodism can and do harbour 'heterodoxy' or 'un-orthodoxy' or whatever we might wish to call it in a less flamboyant and often understated way ...
So, I wasn't suggesting that the presence of traditional liturgies and so on - in and of themselves - were fool-proof safeguards against 'apostasy' or whatever we might call it ...
Rather, the presence/existence of these things can and does provide some kind of reference point and act as a framework and plumb-line.
I'm less sanguine about that if an FE is meeting in a school hall and twanging guitars and singing exclusively feel-good-factor worship songs or farting around eclectically with T-lights and bits of self-help make it up as you go along liturgies drawn from hither and yon,
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wasn't suggesting that the presence of traditional liturgies and so on - in and of themselves - were fool-proof safeguards against 'apostasy' or whatever we might call it ...
Rather, the presence/existence of these things can and does provide some kind of reference point and act as a framework and plumb-line.
I'm less sanguine about that if an FE is meeting in a school hall and twanging guitars and singing exclusively feel-good-factor worship songs or farting around eclectically with T-lights and bits of self-help make it up as you go along liturgies drawn from hither and yon,
I don't understand what 'twanging guitars' and 'feel-good-factor worship songs' have to do with anything. It's just a matter of people worshipping in their preferred way! The 12th century high church place down the road (for example) is freely available to those whose preferences are more traditional and refined.
Similarly, frameworks and plumb-lines will remain so long as civilisation exists. You don't have to be a member of the CofE to have access to their liturgies or their theology. If you live in a free country and have the means you can get hold of whatever you need.
Of course, if you don't live in such a place it may be much harder to maintain an orthodox church, and I suppose some church planters just don't care very much about proper liturgies and theology anyway. But the OP probably wasn't thinking along these lines.
[ 07. November 2015, 19:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
And an FE, in my understanding, would be led by Anglicans or Methodists, etc., in any case, so regardless of the twangy guitars the protective denominational framework would be there anyway.
Previously on the Ship people have complained about certain CofE congregations that don't follow the liturgical 'rules' for the denomination. I don't know if these congregations are known to be significantly less orthodox than others, although perhaps they stick out like a sore thumb in cultural terms. I assume their well educated leaders would use other means to teach their members about the basics of the Christian religion; you don't need to repeat an ancient liturgy to do that.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
It's not about teaching the basics; it's about being visibly part of the (bit of the) Church to which you profess to belong and about keeping your oath of canonical obedience.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure you've grasped the point I was making. I don't have an issue with guitars per se, twangy or otherwise -- the issue is the content of the material.
It's not the guitars so much as the material that is said, sung or preached.
The impression I get of FE and other forms of supposedly more contemporary or accessible worship is that they don't tend to employ the breadth and balance of resources that are available to some of the older outfits - even if those older set-ups aren't using them properly themselves they are at least 'there' to be used ...
The point I'm trying to make - badly I suspect - is that with lectionaries, litanies and set-forms you at least cover the 'Christian year' and the drama/narrative of the salvation story.
With some of the 'newer' material, that can't always be taken for granted ... what you can end up with, if you're not careful, is a rather shallow and truncated approach that doesn't cover all the bases as it were. Not that anything covers all possible bases, of course, but with the traditional rhythm and round of the calendar, daily offices and so on you can cover a lot more ground than can be the case in a 'make it up on the spot' approach.
To use an analogy, I've returned today from a week-long poetry Masterclass led by Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy and National Poet of Wales, Gillian Clarke. It blew me away.
One of the things Carol Ann said was, 'form is your friend.'
I'm not saying there isn't 'form' in an FE settings - such things develop their own forms ... but the old wine is best ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm not hugely into the church year stuff, although I'm glad it's there in the background. In Methodism I think the lectionary is pretty well essential because it offers the only sort of continuity that many pulpits have. But I'm sure it's not the only way to create a preaching programme.
As for canon law, ISTM that laws need to serve the people rather than people serving the law. The purpose for reciting a particular liturgy is more important than the liturgy itself. Some Anglican leaders presumably agree, or else these recalcitrant churches would be forced into line.
In a way, though, these arguments may not really matter. Worship in countries like ours is likely to become less and less dominated by the traditional frameworks that some Christians feel to be highly important.
Perhaps we'll have centres of excellence where individuals can participate in old liturgies and hymns when they want to, but rely on far more informal kinds of religious community for regular use. But the informal religious communities are still mostly in gestation. I think we need more of them to be in place so that when in a few decades the demographic time bomb finally goes off, there are networks of laypeople who have some experience of running groups, of evangelism and of counselling, for example. They'll be there to assist when many of the remaining traditional churchgoers in the smaller congregations realise their churches won't be around any longer....
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And if I were in one of those networks I'd be jolly glad to have a liturgical framework and a calendar there to structure what I was doing, because I'd have quite enough on my plate already without having to think about all that stuff from scratch, thank you very much!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm sure that would be possible.
Some FEs are sacramental, so I understand, but we don't hear much about them. The shortage of priests might create a problem for some highly sacramental groups of Christians.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
In which case, the churches need to think again about who they ordain and what kinds of priests they ordain. But that's probably another discussion.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure that would be possible.
Some FEs are sacramental, so I understand, but we don't hear much about them.
Don't we? Things like Moot in the City of London are well-known.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[Some] FE groups are deliberately "missional" - some though are basically havens for folk who have become disgruntled with ordinary church. But perhaps I'm being a bit unkind.
Isn't it better to have a haven for these folk than just bid them goodbye and good riddance? If the churches can't hold on to the people they've got, what chance do they have with non-Christians?
But no doubt, it's harder to reach out to people who have no Christian memory to retrieve.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Lots of reasons why people get disillusioned with church - not always the fault of the churches or leaders themselves.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure that would be possible.
Some FEs are sacramental, so I understand, but we don't hear much about them.
Don't we? Things like Moot in the City of London are well-known.
Ah, but that's London! Weird and wonderful things are supposed to happen there!
It would be interesting to know if Moot had created offshoots in other parts of the country.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
We tried something similar here but it didn't last because key players moved away becsause of their jobs.
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure that would be possible.
Some FEs are sacramental, so I understand, but we don't hear much about them.
Don't we? Things like Moot in the City of London are well-known.
Ah, but that's London! Weird and wonderful things are supposed to happen there!
It would be interesting to know if Moot had created offshoots in other parts of the country.
Not an offshoot of Moot, but there are a few I can think of not in London. Feig in Gloucester for instance (attached to the Cathedral), or Blessed in Plymouth. Whether they would characterise themselves as 'church' or not I don't know, but I think to characterise this sort of gathering as a London thing is inaccurate.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We tried something similar here but it didn't last because key players moved away becsause of their jobs.
Which reflects the fact that many of these things depend on people with particular talents/giftings that may be in relatively short supply.
This also has resonances with Albertus' point above - often improvisation around a fixed framework relieves organisational pressure to an extent.
[ 09. November 2015, 11:15: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
There is/was also safespace in Telford, which was exploring liturgy, but I've not heard anything about it for a few years.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
There's Morph in Ipswich (not often known as a hotspot for innovation). Not sure how "alive" it is. Again I've heard that is has been affected by people moving away from the area.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Morph? Morph?!
I thought Morph was a clay stop-motion animated figure created by the late, great Tony Hart ...
Whatever will they come up with next?
An FE called 'Rhubarb and Custard' or 'Mary, Mungo and Midge'?
One where the pastor is called Mr Geoffrey and the worship is led by Zippy ... with Bungle as the sidesman ...
'Light the whole world up with a ... Rainbow!'
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Morph? Morph?!
I thought Morph was a clay stop-motion animated figure created by the late, great Tony Hart ...
Whatever will they come up with next?
An FE called 'Rhubarb and Custard' or 'Mary, Mungo and Midge'?
Well, I didn't think of it nor have I ever attended!
And, if you can have a well-publicised FE based around shared bread-making, then you could have a equally fruit-picking-and-preserving one called "Rhubarb and Custard" (though I dread to think what two Kinds they might use in their Eucharists ...).
(Of course, a "Roobarb and Custard" FE would be centred around lovers of canines and felines. But I jest).
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One where the pastor is called Mr Geoffrey and the worship is led by Zippy ... with Bungle as the sidesman ...
'Light the whole world up with a ... Rainbow!'
You jest - but some attempts an novel 'experience' do end up along the lines of the ridiculous.
At the end of the day, attempting to create a fresh sacramental/spiritual experience/environment is very difficult to do if one attempts to do it sui generis.
It is slightly easier but still hard even if you rely on the combined liturgical resources of a historic church body.
It often doesn't scale out very well - depending as it does on particular gifts/charisms that not everyone has, and so even successful expressions end up very prone to failure if one or two key people relocate. There is a sense of balance about them that is easy to disrupt.
In essence these were the failures of past movements that had similar goals and aims (alternate worship, the emerging church, missional communities, the new monastics etc).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I know it might be entertaining to give these groups a bit of gentle ribbing, but I can't help thinking that this is only the kind of conversation that has been going on between one generational church and the next for.. well, forever.
I'm not playing that game. It might not be to my taste, it might not (often) be particularly novel or interesting, but they are at least trying to do something. And I think they've got to get a bit of credit for that.
Particularly if they operate under the radar to such an extent that we can't even be sure from the outside that they're still running.
Incidentally, from what I hear via the Church Army, they are very quietly planting various forms of church, directed at people who may not have access to the internet. So unless you know about them, you don't know about them.
I have a lot of respect for that kind of work, personally.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I've not heard about that (obviously), but it does sound good.
By the way, I also think that one can make a lot of fun by lampooning "traditional" church, too.
[ 09. November 2015, 13:46: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I know it might be entertaining to give these groups a bit of gentle ribbing, but I can't help thinking that this is only the kind of conversation that has been going on between one generational church and the next for.. well, forever.
I'm not playing that game. It might not be to my taste, it might not (often) be particularly novel or interesting, but they are at least trying to do something. And I think they've got to get a bit of credit for that.
I don't often agree with Mr. C, but here I have to say, yes.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
One can (and I would argue should) think of cross-generational worship (acknowledging that there is tremendous diversity in what each gen is looking for in worship styles) in much the same way we look at cross-cultural worship. It's about humility and serving one another, and so takes some generosity and some give-and-take and a whole lotta grace.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, it was that Roobarb and Custard I had in mind ... diddle-di-durrn, diddle-di-durrn, dum-da-dum-da-dum ...
And yes, it's easy to take the rise out of FE style and 'alternate' groups ... as indeed it is out of more traditional forms of church too. They are all fair game.
I do acknowledge mr cheesy's caveat that at least the pioneering types are doing something ...
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take the piss when occasion demands.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Perhaps I got carried away a bit ... sorry ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No need to apologise at all, Baptist Trainfan.
You reminded me of the proper spelling of Roobarb as in Roobarb and Custard the cartoon characters created by the excellent Bob Godfrey.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0