|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Battle for Christianity
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Obviously there can be many reasons for this. But surely the prime one is that it's the Evangelical churches which are lively and growing therefore attract younger people, from where the supply of Ordinands potentially comes (although I recognise that not all Ordinands are young!)
Whether the younger clergy of today will still be as Evangelical in 20 years time is a different question!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Coming from a sending and training church that most of you would see as Anglo-Catholic, it is a sweeping generalisation. Most of the ordinands I know now have attended Westcott. Different areas of the country have different traditions.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489
|
Posted
I rather dislike the way that 'lively' and 'Evangelical' have come to be seen as synonyms - are we saying that any other kind of church is, um, deathly?
That simply isn't true. Nor is it true that it is only Evangelical churches that are growing - that certainly isn't the case round here. And while it might be the case that the majority of ordinands at the theological colleges in the Church of England are Evangelical, the picture on regional courses is much more mixed. (Also on regional courses people encounter different church traditions in a way that they don't, say, at Ridley Hall or Trinity College.)
I suspect that it's wiser to take the long view. Evangelicalism is in the ascendant right now, but what seems so 'lively' now may be thought dull and moribund in a few years.
--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/
Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
All kinds of church can be successful, but the contexts in which MOTR, Anglo-C/High Church or 'liberal' congregations can flourish in contemporary Britain seem to be somewhat more restricted.
I think there'll always be room for non-evangelical clergy, since most churches are non-evangelical. But I fear that in the upcoming decades even more of them are going to be expected to manage decline, closure and merges. There won't be enough jobs for everyone who wants to work in the vigorous but non-evangelical churches or parishes. And most probably won't have the temperament, skills or time to turn around congregations or to plant new ones.
As you say, lively evangelicalism may gradually lose its liveliness and its evangelicalism, but new or 'revitalised' forms of evangelicalism are also likely to arise.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
The churches (or rather groups) that survive will be the ones who either provide a specialised form of ministry (type of service) or those who commit to taking the church into their local community. The latter will not survive if all they do is social action - it will be grounded in a simple belief with clear principles which can be embraced by anyone.
Belief will be broad but there will be a return to propositional truths as the basis of that belief.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ... I'm interested in the ecclesiology behind that observation, ExclamationMark.
What is the difference between 'churches' and 'groups' in this context, coming at it, as you are, from a Baptist perspective rather than, say, a 'High Church' position in terms of ecclesiology?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Which is fair enough, but it doesn't address the ecclesiological issue, which is what my question was about ie, what is the difference between a 'group' and a 'church'.
EM's post implied that he believes that there is.
I'm interested to know what that difference is from his perspective.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
AFAIUI sociologists make a distinction between a 'church' and what they see as newer, more informal, less institutionalised and sometimes more theologically defined (although less theologically sophisticated) 'groups' or fellowships.
If you have a kind of church plant or fellowship meeting that has little formal connection with an denomination (and hasn't yet created its own denominational structures) you might refer to that as a group. In the Baptist case that's surely not hard to imagine, as the notion of denominational oversight seems to be weaker there than it would be for the CofE, the RCC or the the Orthodox churches, for example.
I feel that Fresh Expressions of church (i,.e. those founded by the CofE and Methodists, etc.) are in a kind of grey zone. In some cases there's probably a strong denominational allegiance and influence, while in others there might be a hands-off approach which could lead to a more independent, even a more sectarian identity.
[ 04. May 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I understand all that SvitlanaV2. I was interested in EM's 'take' as he seemed to imply that 'groups' rather than 'churches' in the formal sense, would survive longer into the future.
I'm interested to hear more on his perspective on that and when a 'group' becomes a 'church' in his opinion.
It's rather like the comments I've made on these boards before about what happens to 'Emerging Church' once it has 'Emerged' ...?
Or what happens to 'Fresh Expressions' when they aren't as 'Fresh' as they once were ...?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gamaliel--
Probably have growing pains, like most movements do?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The churches (or rather groups) that survive will be the ones who either provide a specialised form of ministry (type of service) or those who commit to taking the church into their local community. The latter will not survive if all they do is social action - it will be grounded in a simple belief with clear principles which can be embraced by anyone.
Belief will be broad but there will be a return to propositional truths as the basis of that belief.
By this shall all men know you ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Regarding the lifespan of groups, it was interesting to read that in 17th c. Germany there were some Reformed groups that lasted almost 200 years, and became seedbeds for revival in the 19th c.
We should remember that church institutions frequently have a finite existence. Countless formal congregations ceased to exist in my city in the 20th c., and many church buildings are long gone. I understand that previous centuries saw lots of demolitions, and sometimes I wonder what happened to all those church communities that were torn apart long before people started to talk about secularisation.
Then there are entire denominations that fizzled out or came to a more dramtic end. Honestly, with regard to Europe ISTM that if you didnt get in the game early and accrue financial power and influence, like tbe RCC, the Orthodox and the various national churches, then your Christian movement was always going to be on borrowed time. But if thats how things have to be, then we just have to accept it. On a local level today in many parts of the Uk there is no guarantee that any gathering of Christians, whether official or not, will be able to maintain its presence for another 100 years.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
An RC priest once told me how he'd heard a speaker say at a conference that the effective life-expectancy of an RC religious order - such as the Carthusians, Franciscans, etc etc - was up to 600 years.
The effective life-expectancy of a Protestant denomination, such as the Methodists, was around 200 to 300 years.
However, the effective life-expectancy of the 'newer' Protestant groups - the US 'non-denomins' say, or their equivalent here in the UK and elsewhere, was a generation at most, essentially the life-spans of their leaders.
I'm not sure how we could prove or disprove that but it's an interesting observation.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
If the RCC can maintain their orders for such a long time (which is to be expected, considering how long the RCC has been around) then good on them.
However, I get the impression that in the UK the membership of the various religious orders is currently ageing quite significantly. Many of us admire kindly monks and nuns, but who wants that life for themselves or their children? Hardly anyone now, so it seems.
In any case, new Protestant movements aren't in competition with ancient RC orders. They appeal to different people.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course. The priest wasn't being triumphalist. It's well known that many RC religious orders are struggling.
Their 600 years are running out, just as 300 years are for the Methodists.
I'm not suggesting that some form of monastic order is a guarantee of longevity. There were a number of Anglican orders formed in the wake of the Oxford Movement, for instance, but little over a century on, few remain active.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The point is that with regards to ExclamationMark's earlier post, the longevity of several RC orders is not particularly relevant. What's relevant in the current and forthcoming context of many British towns and cities is that many institutional church congregations will most likely disappear. This includes the RC orders.
This being the case, some of the new (initially) informal groups that are likely to emerge over the next 50 years or so will quite likely outlive some of the institutional congregations. (Indeed, I imagine that many will come into existence to fill the gaps left by church closures). But that doesn't mean they will last as long as them. No one on this thread has said that they would - certainly not ExclamationMark. No one could make such a prediction, in any case. Even specialist sociological projections don't attempt to cover the next 3-400 years!
Moreover, the implication that longevity is always an advantage for religious groups could surely be challenged in a number of ways. What's gained in one aspect is frequently lost in another.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I understand all that SvitlanaV2. I was interested in EM's 'take' as he seemed to imply that 'groups' rather than 'churches' in the formal sense, would survive longer into the future.
I'm interested to hear more on his perspective on that and when a 'group' becomes a 'church' in his opinion.
It's rather like the comments I've made on these boards before about what happens to 'Emerging Church' once it has 'Emerged' ...?
Or what happens to 'Fresh Expressions' when they aren't as 'Fresh' as they once were ...?
'Emerging' and 'Fresh' churches demonstrate one thing - the church is as consumerist as the rest of society. OK, existing church may not be meeting our needs but is it about that or something else? Most of these kind of groups form, not because of a desire to do new things, usually from a need to get away from a "traditional" form of church. It's partly a pull, but more strongly a push.
In any event most of these kinds of churches have a very limited lifespan - usually until the first argument or until people's life and faith circumstances change. They are more likely to disappear than they are to transition: splitting up and moving on becomes a learned spiritual behaviour and the participants in such churches often move on to another expression that meets their (changed or current) needs or perceptions.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if something is easy to set up and easy to dissolve then the turnover of such churches is likely to be very high. If the need to meet your needs becomes greater than the claims of community then fragmentation occurs. Boredom can also set in for spiritual thrill seekers who then move on to the next fix - we get enough of that in the mainstream churches where inertia tends to keep people in even if they don't find much there - once you've moved out, then you'll do it again when the same conditions occur. It's easier too after the first time.
Groups which survive the 3 year boredom threshold become churches and usually align with denominations. They may call it a gathering or something else to sound cool, trendy and/or non churchy but it is what it is - a church. There's leaders, a constitution, links to other churches, liturgy (the way they do things), even doctrine (fluid non propositional truths are doctrine whatever else you may claim to call it). In short they become what many of them despise.
The pace of such change gets faste: soem time back the life span of "cutting edge" was 7 year on avergae, thn it became 5, now I'm seeing it cut in after 3 years. We seem to b e getting pop up churches almost.
I think that will be the future - I don't agree with it and I find it sad that commitment to a community trying to work things out doesn't last the course. It's non especially biblical in the sense of replicating the early church that such groups seem to want to do: I don't for example see many of them living in community, embracing poverty and sharing their lives and possessions. It's actually C1 church with C21 values and mores. The talk is of being radical - well its about as radical as ordering a skinny latte with full fat milk.
Denominations will struggle but those with strong and stated values will, I think survive. URC and Methodism where finding doctrinal belief in the churches is like nailing jelly to a wall with 6 inch nails, will implode in the next 10 years unless something drastic happens. (I believe in revival but for that to happen prayer is vital and humility essential: both seem in short supply).
The Baptists (BUGB) will probably fragment over SSM and arguments about what "covenanting together" means. A recent reorganisation was botched as it didn't go far enough. There's a move towards more elder driven governance (CIO's anyone) which will alienate many who find the concept of every member ministry winsome.
The CofE will survive. It will be propped up by the state, the buildings will get alternative uses, and in some places there will remain an authentic faith witness with many liturgical expressions. It could even be the future of UK Christianity.
Small groups will survive but will either morph into mainstream denomination or will continually churn into more and more, smaller and smaller, groups - each of which has a particular expression of faith - e.g arts, music etc. They will become the exclusive enclaves they have been keen to escape.
It may seem bleak but actually it isn't. I think the dross from the UK church will fall away faster and faster, to be left with a committed core which is no longer the core but the whole. OK it will be small but that's how the church started: I think there will be aturn of the tide but as to when - who knows?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, thanks, that's really interesting ExclamationMark and I find myself in broad agreement with your take here - although I'm not so sure that State sanction of the CofE will continue into the mid-term future ... but I don't see Disestablishment happening any time soon either.
I think you've articulated my own concerns about 'pop-up' church (great phrase) and so called Fresh Expressions better than I could have done myself ... in fact, you've helped me in my own thinking here.
It reminds me of some of the public school kids I used to know at university who would try to be 'wadical' by joining the Socialist Worker's Party or some radical feminist group or something of that kind. You'd see them outside the Students' Union, 'Seychellist Workah ... Seychellist Workah ...'
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
So yes, bugger all radical about some of the new 'pop-up' groups, it's just about hanging out down at Starbucks or Costa with their mates thinking they're being 'New Testament' and changing the world ...
The only concern/difference of opinion I might have with your projection is that all churches, of whatever stripe, need a 'periphery' to draw on.
I'm all for 'gathered churches' but there's gathering and there's strait-jacketing ... It depends on how tightly you strap the stays ...
If all we end up with is some kind of apparently pure and committed core then that, in itself, is problematic. At least with the more traditional Big C Churches where nominalism is certainly a problem, there is a periphery to draw on. People can be brought into the core as it were ...
If all we have is a 'core' then it becomes difficult to pack things around it ...
One of the observations that rang true with me from the Beckford programme came from the Lancaster University academic who has studied these things. She said that whilst enthusiatic forms of religion can be successful to an extent, they ultimately end up undermining themselves because not everyone wants to be a full-on religious enthusiast.
I think you can see the effects of that in Wales, for instance, where the 1904-05 Revivalists insistence on meetings, meetings, meetings and more bloody meetings - at the expense of people's legitimate involvement in sports, social activities, political groups and whatever else - effectively estranged the next generation.
People broke away from the chapels to engage in rugby, football, Nationalist or Labour Party politics, choirs and Eisteddfodau and so on ...
As I've said before, there's only so long you can stand in church singing 'Here is love vast as the ocean ...' over and over and over again.
Heck, to be honest, I think you can see it in my own life. I've gone from being church, church, church all the time to getting involved with local politics, the local arts scene and all sorts of other things ... I'm still involved with church but I have no interest whatsoever in going to prayer meetings, house-groups and the like - at least not regularly.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
, quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
(I believe in revival but for that to happen prayer is vital and humility essential: both seem in short supply).
Very interesting post. Perhaps the reason is thate it is becoming clear to a greater number of people that (a) prayers to their God for ) violent extremism to stop are ineffective, (b) that it is only human endeavour that will make a difference, whether those people pray or not, and (c) that trying to revive situationsbeliefs and formats which, because they are declining, is something that no longer merits the time (and money) spent on them.
As far as humility is concerned, I cannot think of any situation where I should be humble. Respectful, and all sorts of other positions? Yes, but humble? No. I received a letter this morning from a local committee chairman who said he was ‘honoured but humbled’ to be voted to the position. He could have left out the word humbled.
quote:
The CofE will survive.
With this, I very much agree. Principally, because it is part of the historical, traditional background way of things and is one of those things that ‘ain’t broke’, so doesn’t need ‘fixing’ at the moment. It will become less influential as time passes because more and more people prefer to deal with practical, real things of life and know they can rely on tried and tested technology etc etc in all areas of life. They are also aware that humans alone are responsible for their success or failure. And, as I mention on occasions, I am firmly of the opinion that the status quo is better than any other religious faith becoming dominant.
quote:
It will be propped up by the state, the buildings will get alternative uses, and in some places there will remain an authentic faith witness with many liturgical expressions. It could even be the future of UK Christianity.
I raise my eyebrows slightly at the phrase ‘authentic faith, but that’s all, as I know what you mean. All religious beliefs will gradually become a minority over this century. I hope so, anyway.
quote:
It may seem bleak but actually it isn't. I think the dross from the UK church will fall away faster and faster, to be left with a committed core which is no longer the core but the whole. OK it will be small but that's how the church started: I think there will be aturn of the tide but as to when - who knows?
Yes, I think you are right. I think there is much to be optimistic about.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You'd see them outside the Students' Union, 'Seychellist Workah ... Seychellist Workah ...'
Ours said, "BUY the Socialist Worker, SMASH the Tory Government" - which always seemed to be a bit of a non-sequitur.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So yes, bugger all radical about some of the new 'pop-up' groups, it's just about hanging out down at Starbucks or Costa with their mates thinking they're being 'New Testament' and changing the world ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
The only concern/difference of opinion I might have with your projection is that all churches, of whatever stripe, need a 'periphery' to draw on.
I'm all for 'gathered churches' but there's gathering and there's strait-jacketing ... It depends on how tightly you strap the stays ...
If all we end up with is some kind of apparently pure and committed core then that, in itself, is problematic. At least with the more traditional Big C Churches where nominalism is certainly a problem, there is a periphery to draw on. People can be brought into the core as it were ...
This to me is a real problem. I agree with having the periphery or fringe; the problem is that many folk in that area think of themselves as "proper Christians" and are very unresponsive when they are approached to be drawn in further.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Depends what you mean by a 'proper Christian' of course.
Is an indifferent or apathetic Christian not a Christian in the first place, or are they a Christian who is indifferent or apathetic?
There are various ways of approaching that condundrum, just as there are of trying to challenge/stimulate people to engage with faith in a more committed or serious way ...
But how to do that without resorting to guilt-inducement ... a preacher's short-cut stock in trade ... or manipulative techniques of one form or other?
This isn't something restricted purely to the Big C Churches where there might be nominal allegiance.
I don't know what the answer is. An Orthodox priest friend tells me that he's tried reasoning, hectoring or 'shaming' those who come in for the 'Christ is Risen!' part of the Paschal Vigil but who don't engage with anything else, stay for the Eucharist etc etc ... and they simply shrug and walk out. How should he 'tackle' or engage such people?
We can take horses to water but we can't make them drink.
Nor should we encourage thirst, I don't think, by putting salt in their food ...
The best we can do is be salty ourselves and perhaps they'll see something that will rub off, as it were.
But that's easier said than done.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
It's my guess, if we don't know what to do (and in my context, I don't) then prayer is probably a safe bet...
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In what sense? Not doing what to do and living with mess and ambuguity is part of the human condition.
I don't see us being able to pray our way out of those conundrums.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think that not knowing is actually a promising sign. It is one of the marks of dealing with God.
So to pray, and therefore remain in the place of not knowing, seems right. And much better than doing something, anything, to avoid the difficulty of not knowing.
Everyone in every church I know is always asking themselves what the way forward is. Thinking harder won't bring an answer. Waiting might.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, there can all too easily be a 'Mr Fix-it' attitude ... we all want to get things done, but when it comes to dealing with people's spirituality and personal lives, we have to be careful.
It can all too easily spill over into interference or manipulation. I think all of us here are aware of the dangers of that.
However we cut it, people are people not 'programmes' to be marshalled and manipulated or 'resources' to be consumed in pursuit of some goal or other ...
Coming back to the smaller and apparently 'purer' idea of church as a gathering of the committed and the fervent ... well, it strikes me that this wasn't necessarily the case from the get-go ...
The original Jesus Movement, if you like, within Judaism had a hinterland and a periphery - it consisted of every Jewish person who hadn't 'recognised' Christ as the Messiah at that point - and then the radiating, concentric circles of God-fearing Gentiles, fellow-travellers and then the wider pagan society as a whole ...
Whatever else we can deduce from Acts there's this radiating movement outwards from Jerusalem to Rome.
Yes, the action takes place on the streets, in market-places, in lecture-halls, in the Temple forecourts, in the Areopagus and many other places besides ... Cornelius's household, a Philippian jail ...
But it happens with groups of people and the periphery of those groups of people.
If nothing else, the pastoral Epistles then tell us how messy things were - people getting drunk at love-feasts, people forming relationships that were considered illicit ...
Hardly a perfect band of stalwarts.
By the time we get to St John Chrysostom's Easter sermon, of course, it's pretty evident that there are occasional and casual attenders as well as a core of committed 'regulars' as it were.
So this idea that cutting things back to a committed core somehow makes for greater purity isn't necessarily pertinent, in my view.
It's not as clear cut and simple as that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think that not knowing is actually a promising sign. It is one of the marks of dealing with God.
So to pray, and therefore remain in the place of not knowing, seems right. And much better than doing something, anything, to avoid the difficulty of not knowing.
Everyone in every church I know is always asking themselves what the way forward is. Thinking harder won't bring an answer. Waiting might.
This is very good. In general, I am a big fan of not knowing, being confused, and so on.
I used to help run meditation retreats, and you would notice that some people would start off in a tone of bright certainty, about who they are, and their purpose in life, and so on, but after a few days, this would disappear, and you would hear the cry, 'I don't know'. Well, I won't bore you with the rest of it, but it can be the gateway. Ah, but to what, I hear you cry.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
I think though that EM was using the 'committed core' term different to how you are using it above. Applying it to groups is somewhat different from applying it to the individuals within that group.
So, I can see a case for what he was saying, alongside what you were saying. The 'committed core' of groups surviving comprising those with relatively strong identities - though inside them there will probably be a 'core' plus a whole bunch of people at the periphery.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ExclamationMark
Thanks for returning to this thread to discuss your thoughts on all this. Myself, I'm rather more critical of traditional forms of church structure and engagement, although I fully accept that they're convenient for most practising Christians, and valuable from a cultural and historical perspective.
While small groups may be 'consumerist', nothing seems to swallow up more money than a fully fledged church with buildings and hierarchies to maintain. I think this is a challenge for the churches. Most people don't want to have to shell out endlessly to uphold institutions which you imply ought to be uninterested in their 'needs and perceptions'.
Moreover, 'commitment to a community trying to work things out' is nice idea, but problematic. As you say, we live in a fast paced culture. People move around, move on from relationships and jobs. Christians are more likely to switch denominations nowadays (though this does make us more ecumenically aware). Making a lifelong effort to fit in with people who don't agree with you is a lot of hassle, and who has the time for that? Christians have other things to do.
Hanging around to squabble about differences may be tolerable in the CofE (which, I agree, is likely to survive) as it has strong brand recognition , but even the CofE might be a more effective institution if it could focus on evangelism rather than pretending to reconcile conflicting beliefs about, say, homosexuality.
Otherwise, be honest: aren't you grateful that the restless ingrates you mention aren't members of your own church? If they're so self-centred, with delusions of their own importance, and likely to spread their dissatisfaction to other churchgoers surely it's better for your mission that they leave, or don't join churches like yours in the first place!
Finally, re the problems of boredom for new, exciting movements; perhaps Christians need to learn how to be bored at church. I think regular churchgoers in regular churches mostly accept that they're going to be bored a certain amount of the time, but this remains unspoken. We probably need to develop a theology of churchly boredom.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Chris Stiles, thanks, yes, I take your point and you've issued a valuable corrective there.
EM was indeed talking about groups rather than individuals within groups.
I agree with him that those groups that have a clear and more definable stance are more likely to survive than those that don't.
@SvitlanaV2. We are all influenced by what we've experienced. You've experienced decline within a traditional denominational setting, so that's inevitably going to make you more suspicious of traditional denominational structures.
I get that.
EM (and myself to an extent) have seen the opposite, groups setting out full of zeal and life and vitality which ultimately have to face reality and get on with the day to day drudgery of keeping the show on the road just like everyone else.
Of course, small groups may not have expensive church buildings and heirarchies to maintain, but in my experience they consume an inordinate amount of their members time and energies. They easily lead to burn-out.
There's some kind of balance somewhere.
As far as the CofE goes, the impression I get isn't that everyone is squabbling about Dead Horse issues and so on but simply trying to keep things afloat.
I take your point about life being too fast-paced to hang around trying to acclimatise oneself to viewpoints and positions one might not hold oneself ... and yes, I'm experiencing that myself at the moment. I have to grit my teeth whenever I'm around people from our parish church. Thing is, it might well be like that elsewhere, only over different issues. That's life. Unless I were to go and live on a desert island or drop out of church life altogether, I don't see any way around that one.
On learning to be bored at church. Yes, well we do need a 'theology' of that. That's part of the problem with the new, more exciting movements. They don't allow for that. Consequently, when apparent routine sets in they find themselves reinventing things, stirring and whipping things up and bending over backwards to try and create the initial buzz and excitement that they first had.
They don't realise that this is simply par for the course, part and parcel of the way things are, the way human beings operate.
The problem is that they confuse 'boredom' or mundanity with lack of spiritual drive and if things aren't on Cloud Nine the whole time they think there's something wrong. They have to pray harder, sing more loudly, do this that or the other a lot more ...
It becomes a vicious circle. Rather like rave-culture with highs followed by depressed lows.
Ok, most groups will settle into some kind of equilibrium on that score, but I do think that a kind of high-octane religious enthusiasm is hard to maintain over the medium to longer term.
Which is why I think that interest in retreats, in neo-monastic movements and so on can serve as a healthy antidote to such tendencies.
It's interesting when looking at the way the Quakers developed how quickly initial fiery enthusiasm gave way to a kind of principled Quietism. Perhaps we'll see parallels to that with some of the current rah-rah-rah lively groups?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, small groups may not have expensive church buildings and heirarchies to maintain, but in my experience they consume an inordinate amount of their members time and energies. They easily lead to burn-out.
and in some ways this is a 'feature' rather than a 'bug'. Momentum in such groups are generally kept up by the sense of an external mission, and so activities are both expected and a large part of keeping everyone excited.
At the same time, I question Svitlana's complaint about buildings and hierarchies. Eventually all groups/denominations (call them what you like) are going to have to offer something to actually be seen as valuable - and to be able to grow they have to be based around more than simply some kind of organic model (which usually actually comes down to a bunch of people who find it comfortable to be friends/acquaintances with each other and just hang out) - so some infrastructure is needed, whether it be a building, the ability the hire someone full/part time who thinks the thoughts that others do not have time to do and so on.
and tbh buildings being the big expense is very much a locational thing.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The cynic in me supposes that 'balance' occurs when people do what they like, and then stop doing it when they don't like it anymore. On a more positive note, From Anecdote to Evidence talks about various established CofE congregations that seem to be lively and active without out being wacky.
Re burden of buildings being a very localised thing, I'd have to disagree. Of course, I fully accept that in the places you know the churches are probably fortunate enough to be well-attended and well-funded. But the burden of expensive and often underused buildings has been a widespread challenge in Britain for a century or more, and has been documented by scholars of church history. The burden has been felt most strongly among the Nonconformists. Two interesting books, 'The Myth of the Empty Church' and 'The Empty Church Revisited', both by Robin Gill have more to say about this.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that buildings can be a burden wherever the location. The restorationist 'new church' I was part of from 1982 to 2000 has recently got rid of its burdensome building and begun hiring a hall again because it could no longer maintain and upkeep the building it'd purchased after many years of nomadic hall-hiring ...
I also agree that it's possible to be lively and engaging without being whacky.
However, I also think that Chris Stiles is right with his observation that you need some form of infrastructure to maintain and sustain things beyond a group of like-minded people meeting together several times a week.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I suppose it's a question of what one means by an essential infrastructure, and what will be gained and lost by buying into some aspect of it. No doubt, there could be mileage in discussing what kind of church government and organisation has been the most successful according to various criteria.
Put bluntly, I think it's also a matter of what any particular merry band of Christians are willing and able to pay for.
[ 11. May 2016, 13:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that buildings can be a burden wherever the location.
Of course they *can* be, the point was that they didn't have to be - a lot of the issues are around; heritage buildings and the high cost of property/buildings - this isn't something that has to be universally true.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, Chris, but buildings and infrastructure are going to be a significant drain on any church's resources.
I know an Orthodox parish which is using a redundant Anglican church building on a pepper-corn rent. The Anglicans may well turn round and let them have it for next to nothing rather than maintain it. So, at the moment it's not costing them a great deal to run, but as soon as they have it as 'their's' for keeps, that's when the bills will start. They're already planning to put in loos and plumbing - at the moment the altar-boys pee in the church yard or in the scout hut opposite. That's going to cost them a pretty penny when the average Sunday attendance is only between 20 and 40 people.
I think there's scope for more creative ways of sharing and using buildings, but they are always going to be a source of great expense.
As for what types or kinds of church are likely to be more sustainable into the future, well, that'll depend on all sorts of criteria.
I'm not sure the 'Let's all meet at Starbuck's with our mates' approach is any more sustainable than the existing traditional models.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that buildings can be a burden wherever the location.
Of course they *can* be, the point was that they didn't have to be - a lot of the issues are around; heritage buildings and the high cost of property/buildings - this isn't something that has to be universally true.
Just to add to what Gamaliel has said, let's remember that at this point most churches aren't starting afresh, are they? They have to deal with the buildings they've got. Even a new group looking to buy in a particular area has to choose from what's available. Gill above notes, for example, that the black congregations that have bought hulking old Nonconformist churches are facing the same expensive challenges in looking after them that the Methodists and the URC had before them. I agree with him.
Knocking down a money pit of a 19th c. church building (or even a badly designed mid-20th c. replacement) isn't cheap either, and raising the funds to do that takes a whole lot of time and effort that could be spent on something else. Unfortunately, in some cases the effort spent on rebuilding isn't spent on refocusing the church's mission and long term future adequately, so the churches may still end up having to close.
For the Nonconformists and other independents, it doesn't matter how big a congregation is; if the members can't afford to run their church building or attract every Tom, Dick and Harry to rent church rooms on a regular basis, then they have to close. My former minister described one building in the circuit as a letting agency with a church attached(!) but I'd say that any Methodist church now in the lucky position to move or rebuild should have the same goal: theologically you're a church, but on a practical level, be a letting agency with a church attached. Money rules the real world.
The CofE is willing to support tiny congregations in huge, ancient churches to an extent that no other British denomination could ever imitate. But even the CofE has to draw the line somewhere, and there are a number of ex-CofE churches (in terms of not being used for CofE worship) around.
[ 11. May 2016, 15:10: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think that not knowing is actually a promising sign. It is one of the marks of dealing with God.
So to pray, and therefore remain in the place of not knowing, seems right. And much better than doing something, anything, to avoid the difficulty of not knowing.
Everyone in every church I know is always asking themselves what the way forward is. Thinking harder won't bring an answer. Waiting might.
This is very good. In general, I am a big fan of not knowing, being confused, and so on.
I used to help run meditation retreats, and you would notice that some people would start off in a tone of bright certainty, about who they are, and their purpose in life, and so on, but after a few days, this would disappear, and you would hear the cry, 'I don't know'. Well, I won't bore you with the rest of it, but it can be the gateway. Ah, but to what, I hear you cry.
It's fine if you really don't know. It isn't much good though if you use "don't know" when you do know - ie as a means of avoiding tough decisions or commitments.
Don't know can also be equated to don't want to know - ie I'll happily sit dialogueing over some issue because I don't actually care about the outcome. Don't know is, in those cases, n excuse for inertia.
[ 11. May 2016, 15:37: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Picking up the issue with buildings ... there's a lot of church buildings which are underused. Soem can't be used by others (locations, listings, willingness), others might be but aren't.
Think of it this way: if a church moves its mindset from mission to maintenance (that is, it is simply trying to "be" there, keep the show on the road), then does it deserve to be kept going? Isn't God's big plan something about going out and not staying at home?
I hear all the arguments about incarnation and intention, but these can be substitutes for laziness and complacency, especially if you have an endowment fund or cash in the bank.
The questions for all of us should be along the lines of exactly what are we quantifiably contributing to the mission of the church? How are we proclaiming Christ through our concerts, Toddler Groups etc and what steps are we taking to bring the people who attend these to a place where they meet Christ?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
They have to deal with the buildings they've got.
Sure, and I'm not sure what else you are suggesting, apart from wringing ones hands.
quote:
Gill above notes, for example, that the black congregations that have bought hulking old Nonconformist churches are facing the same expensive challenges in looking after them that the Methodists and the URC had before them.
Yes, and this is a perfect example of making an existing situation much worse than it has to be (presumably they bought them out of a misplaced desire to get a building that 'looked' like a church).
I'm not suggesting that these issues magically go away - but that we can look to the past and make adjustments (and that additionally the building issue is much more of an issue in places like the UK than in other places).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
They have to deal with the buildings they've got.
Sure, and I'm not sure what else you are suggesting, apart from wringing ones hands.
Speaking personally, I'm suggesting that more congregations should be willing to do without buildings. (That's not a popular idea among those of you with experience of smug middle class men in t-shirts who meet for fellowship in coffee shops. Fair enough. More of them should probably be led by working class ladies in dungarees, maybe meeting in a greasy spoon, or something....)
As I said above, if you must own a building, another another option is to become a 'letting agency with a church attached'. What this does is create less anxiety about finances and frees up the church to focus on its true God-given mission and calling.
However, our congregations are free to do what seems best to them, according to their denominational history and expectations. quote:
quote:
Gill above notes, for example, that the black congregations that have bought hulking old Nonconformist churches are facing the same expensive challenges in looking after them that the Methodists and the URC had before them.
Yes, and this is a perfect example of making an existing situation much worse than it has to be (presumably they bought them out of a misplaced desire to get a building that 'looked' like a church).
I'm not suggesting that these issues magically go away - but that we can look to the past and make adjustments (and that additionally the building issue is much more of an issue in places like the UK than in other places).
Looking like a church would be part of it, but it would be strange for an advocate of traditional church structures to knock them for that. The more obvious reason is that their membership had grown. There was a limit to how many worshippers would hold in a bedsit in Wolverhampton in the 1960s.
Moreover, such groups had no foundational theology of 'organic church' or whatever - they were just doing what it took to pursue a Christian ministry in a strange land. Most of them had come from institutional churches in their homelands.
I'm not sure what you mean about looking to the past and making adjustments. What adjustments are you thinking of?
(BTW, my comments are focused on the UK, but there are no doubt interesting comparisons that could be made with other countries.)
[the Battle for Correct UBB Code]
[ 11. May 2016, 16:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Speaking personally, I'm suggesting that more congregations should be willing to do without buildings. (That's not a popular idea among those of you with experience of smug middle class men in t-shirts who meet for fellowship in coffee shops. Fair enough. More of them should probably be led by working class ladies in dungarees, maybe meeting in a greasy spoon, or something....)
Sure, and I'm all for renting/hiring rather than buying - though the areas that are expensive to buy in tend to be equally expensive to rent in (hence all those swanky coffee shops) - and finding room for a church of any size is usually a huge problem (there will be all sorts of issues around parking, noise and so on - and most ethnic church will face more than their fair share of complaints around these issues).
quote:
Moreover, such groups had no foundational theology of 'organic church' or whatever - they were just doing what it took to pursue a Christian ministry in a strange land.
I did not claim that they had to be an organic church - however buying creaking old buildings wasn't the wisest thing to do (having been a disinterested observer to a couple of these things of things).
I think the redevelopment option which you outline will work for some churches, but perhaps in future we should tend towards building plain churches that aren't likely to end up as the targets of the heritage industry.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I can't imagine much church building going on in the future, THB. I live in a city, and there wouldn't be the room. It's going to be hard enough to find the space for everyone just to have a home! And where would the average mid 21st c. church group (which is likely to remain smaller than churches of the past) find the money?
I know of Pentecostal churches that meet in redundant office blocks and converted industrial properties. This practice may increase. There are also lots of empty shops in some town centres, so the 'store front church' might become a more common sight in 21st c. Britain. Maybe that depends on whether the stigma against such churches will fade. Also, will the declining number of practising Christians want to spend money to establish ministries in dying urban centuries? It remains to be seen.
Talking of crumbly old church buildings, many of the ones in my region have been converted into mosques and gurdwaras. The Muslim and Sikh communities don't appear to be struggling to maintain them. What is obvious is firstly that mosques in particular tend to be in much more frequent use than churches, and the numbers of people involved are much larger.
Secondly, these faith groups appear able to raise much more community funding than churches usually can. It seems that even the people on the fringe of public worship are donating money to the mosques. Conversely, most churches these days only belong to the people who attend them, and the ability to raise regular funds from a vague Christian penumbra is surely decreasing. The CofE is only a partial exception to this, depending on the area.
Some claim that the mosques are also partly funded by donations from abroad. I don't know how true this is, but it's another very different scenario from most British churches.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I have no idea how mosques are funded; but I suspect that they either exist in areas with high concentrations of Muslims, or draw from a wide area. Either way, not quite the same demographic as your average church these days.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can't imagine much church building going on in the future, THB. I live in a city, and there wouldn't be the room.
Presumably these would be the same urban centres that are dying later on in your post ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I'm not sure I can decipher what your entire argument is - other than that a number of MOR churches in certain denominations are going to have difficulties around finding/owning places to meet.
quote:
I know of Pentecostal churches that meet in redundant office blocks and converted industrial properties. .... Maybe that depends on whether the stigma against such churches will fade.
A number of churches in London have gone down the route of using a converted warehouse - either some or all the time - clearly among their congregation (which include the charismatic, ethnic and young) there isn't any stigma (by which I take it you mean stigma around meeting in a building that doesn't look like a traditional church). Certainly this is more realistic than taking over a crumbling old Victorian pile which is incredibly hard to modify and retrofit with modern facilities assuming the planning rules permit such use.
That some types of churches are being priced out of some areas is part of the wider issue of young people being priced out of the same areas - and I'd rather tackle the social issues at that level rather than necessarily worry about whether or not a particular church tradition may disappear in that same area.
[ 11. May 2016, 23:51: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can't imagine much church building going on in the future, THB. I live in a city, and there wouldn't be the room.
Presumably these would be the same urban centres that are dying later on in your post I'm not sure I can decipher what your entire argument is - other than that a number of MOR churches in certain denominations are going to have difficulties around finding/owning places to meet.
I've already told you what my argument is: I think fewer church groups should spend their money on expensive buildings. Those that do so will need to ensure they can fund not just the purchase but the upkeep. The upkeep will be significant whether they take on a crumbly old building or decide to demolish something else and rebuild. I also mentioned some others options, which might or not be manageable for some churches in the future.
My city is not one of those with a dying urban centre, but I can think of smaller towns in the wider region where this is an issue. The problem, ISTM, is that where population growth is highest, there will be less and less room for church building, even if the demand and the money are there. However, where there are dying urban centres there may also be smaller populations - but probably not much energy and money among the few churchgoers among them to 'build' new churches or to engage in a significant ministry.
Tackling the problems of young people being priced out of homes in the South East is an important issue. Kudos to you if you're able to do something about that! I'm simply talking here about the challenges of church buildings, and normative church structures more broadly - particularly outside the South East.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree that there's not likely to be a great deal of church-building in the future, other than, perhaps, by well-resourced megachurches that might develop from some of the BME churches and streams ... I think Kingsway International Christian Centre in London already have significant plant across the city.
Elsewhere, it'll be make-do and mend, and yes, 19th century non-conformist chapels and old Anglo-Catholic 'barns' are all going to be difficult to maintain.
On the missional aspect that EM mentions - quite rightly.
I find myself in a quandary on this one, as whilst I believe that mission should be at the heart of what churches do and are all about, I'm struggling to find how that applies to me and mine at this point .. there's not a great deal of evangelistic activity (in the traditional sense) that I feel particularly comfortable with these days ...
Time for another thread, I think ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
