|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: People who attend more than one church
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the sermon thread, SvitlanaV2 pondered whether increasing numbers if people attend more than one church.
I tend to flit a bit these days but was solidly based in one congregation back in the day.
I'm not sure how common this is, but it may be more true of the untrustful ...
What do Shipmates think. Is it common?
There are people who whose partners may belong to a different church or denomination or whose work patterns mean they can't regularly attend one single church - or there may be those who feel they need a more varied diet - or variations or combinations of all these.
Is it any more apparent now than it used to be?
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I once read that 10% of regular church goers are involved in more than one church. Of course I have no idea how many actually. The people I know who mention it don't want their regular church to find out, they fear people - especially pastors - will get mad at them. (Churches can be very tribal - you are fully our tribe or you are, in your words, "the untrustful.)
Common reasons I've run into range from practical to theological. An elderly woman who no longer drives at night attends a bible study walking distance from her at a different church. Neighbor teens attend a week night youth group where their friends are. Some parents send their kiddies to multiple vacation Bible schools to get them something to do out of mom's hair. The women's Bible study at one church has no babysitting so a dozen women go to a different church's group that does offer free babysitting.
Several (including a pastor) have told me they go to a different church about once a month for balance - one example, a baptist church offers the sense of immediacy and approachability of God, an Episcopalian church offers a sense of awe; takes both to have a balanced view. It's easy to think of other dualities a second church would help balance.
There talent and service opportunity limits in any church. One may need a second church to be able to work in a soup kitchen, use their musical talents, learn to run the sound system control board, or just sit on a non Sunday in quiet prayer (most churches stay locked).
There are probably 100 more reasons including taking grandma to her church before going to yours.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
We started attending a large Pentecostal mega-church about 20 years ago when I was working at a mid-size Presby church. We had 3 miscarriages in a short period of time, and the very caring congregation was surrounding us with love and support-- which felt great to me but was just too raw for hubby. He (like many) needed a space where he could grieve w/o having to tell his story over and over again. A big anonymous mega-church where no one knew him did the trick, and was large enough to have evening services I could attend that didn't conflict with my Sunday obligations.
I'm serving at a different church now but we still attend the large Pentecostal mega church, in large part because on Sunday mornings at the church I serve I'm spending so much time running around putting out fires (mostly metaphorically) and dealing w/ stuff I don't really get the worship I want and need. I notice a lot of other pastors from other churches at their Sat. evening services.
I do try and support my "2nd church" financially and with some volunteering to some degree. Not as much as the church where I'm on staff, but still something so it's not all just taking.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I attend a second "church". My childhood church is now a ministry center with outreach to the homeless and people in transition. I volunteer there and also pretty regularly attend their Thursday Eucharist and dinner plus the Wednesday evening Bible study. My home church is across town where I used to live and where I sing in the choir and help in the office. And I help both churches financially. And my friends at both churches are perfectly happy to share me.
I find the situation satisfying. The churches address following the Gospel in complimentary ways for me.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Interesting this should come up just now. When our child was nearly murdered the church were attending was shit for us theologically. As if, because we had most terrible misfortune, we offended the premise that God takes care of faithful people.
The bishop closed it due to the buildings being beyond financing repairs and put it together with another church. We did try to go there, but stopped. Too much pain, too much wrong with us, too much wrong with them. After a year with nothing, we started at a different Anglican church. It is a more formal and less personally engaging, but liturgically pleasing and comforting. But our discussion is now to possibly re-try the prior church. To see, though what exactly to see is hard to discern. I am nervous about what to say to people we know if asked. But I guess we will be attending 2 churches alternate weeks after tomorrow. That's our deal. Try it until after Xmas.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowGirl
Apprentice
# 18543
|
Posted
I attend three churches... All are aware of my attendance at the others. I live in the inner city and the parishes are quite geographically small and share various ministries. I have a church I attend every Sunday morning and serve at the altar, this is the only service a week this church has, though it has a once a month Messy church I also volunteer at. Then I attend a second church every Sunday evening to volunteer with their youth group, and I pop in and out of their morning services (they don't clash with the first church's times, so it just depends if I'm out of bed early enough). I also do some volunteer work at our Cathedral, and when youth group isn't running I go to Evensong there.
It's mainly because I have a particular interest in learning about ministry and there is no one church that has it all. Given that all churches are within 2km from each other I pop about. I have one parish I regard as 'home base' and thats where I am registered with, but all the priests know I go to the other church's and it doesn't seem to bother them, though there's been a lot of teasing threats about what would happen if one of the priests 'pinched me' and I stopped doing the volunteer work. I think I'm just a serial volunteer and I'm enjoying the diversity of opportunities that comes from living in the inner city.
Posts: 32 | From: Australia | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting. The inner city example is a striking one.
I meant to type 'unrestful' but either I had a brainstorm in a Freudian slip kind of way or my autocorrect on my phone changed it to 'untrustful'
Both might apply.
I have heard of people who attend a particular church regularly but who also meet with other Christians for ecumenical Bible studies and so in - which sounds good to me.
Back in the day, many Methodists used to continue attending communion services at their Anglican parish years after they'd seceded, a state of affairs that continued well into the 19th century in some rural areas.
My mother-in-law was involved with her evangelical Anglican parish but would go to the Pentecostals every now and again for what she called a 'top-up'.
I'm not so sure this 'trend', if 'trend' it is, has to be regarded as a recent thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
leftfieldlover
Shipmate
# 13467
|
Posted
I attended the same church (apart from baptisms, weddings and funerals) for over 30 years, until after lots of angst and prayer, I decided to move to a different benefice. There are seven churches in the benefice but I try to stick to two which are within reasonable driving distance. My previous church was a 5-minute walk. So, it could be said that I attend more than one church, but the clergy are the same and some of the congregation move from church to church. If things had been different. I would have stayed at my 'home' church. I still attend the Home Group I went to before, but since I moved on, there are many people who I do not see anymore. I think sometimes that it would have been easier to move house than move church!
[ 04. September 2016, 08:58: Message edited by: leftfieldlover ]
Posts: 164 | From: oxford | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I regularly attend the local Church of Scotland (it's either that or the Baptists), but whenever I get the chance I attend Episcopalian services, which usually means the Cathedral in Oban, and that's where my daughter will be baptised. In a sense my day-to-day engagement with the local church has become detached from my engagement with the wider church and my own personal practice. It's an ongoing problem that I don't yet know how to resolve. I can't commit fully to the Church of Scotland, too many differences in both theology, polity and style for me to be comfortable, and yet there seems no prospect of there being regular worship in any Anglican tradition here in the foreseeable future.
[ 04. September 2016, 09:25: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
I did for a time - the other church I attended didn't have their own building, so always met in the afternoon - which meant there wasn't much of a scheduling clash.
Not sure I'd necessarily want to these days. I think it may be easier when you are less busy, when getting to know your peers outside the main meetings can be done in a more informal and less programmatic way.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Reading the above posts, I am thinking the responses show a sense of consumerism. When we can't get something we want at a small store on Main St, we will go to the Big Box Store to find it. Deal of it is (and I work at a Big Box Store) is many times the Mega store doesn't have what we want either, so we hunt for another store (maybe go on line for it).
Not that this is wrong. It is true for many people that one brand or one store will not give us everything we think we need.
But there is a problem, in my mind, if there is no such thing as brand loyalty anymore, the small store is at a disadvantage. It does not have the resources to make changes in order to stay competitive.
Another problem I see is that bigger or improved or innovative is not always better. Take for instance the recent FDA (US) ruling that antibacterial soaps are really not that good and, in fact may be detrimental to our health. They have come out and said just plain soap and water is the best cleansing solution.
I am old enough to remember with antibacterial soaps first came out. It started rather slowly at first, and then all of the sudden everyone was doing it. Just saw a report of a mother who thought she was doing the right thing making her kids use the antibacterial soaps and now she is conflicted that she may have actually harmed her kids. I almost screamed at the report: Lady, let your kids play in the dirt. Let them get exposed to common germs, it will actually help their immune systems.
I know I am speaking in parables here, but my question is, using a cost benefit analysis model, what do we give up when we do not stay with one congregation, v what do we gain when we go congregational hopping or mixing?
Now, I grant you, based on the testimony above, for some, it has been beneficial and even necessary. All I am asking is before you take that step is to ask yourself do you really need to do it.
No prophet, I can see how mixing your communities have helped you deal with your struggle. It is something that will stay with you for the rest of your life. Thank you for sharing it, though. Peace be with you.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I guess the interesting question is can you 'belong' to more than one church? When I lived in London I went to one parish church regularly on a Sunday, but might also go to midweek masses nearer my office, and Evensong as Westminster Abbey from time to time. But that, I suspect, is a city thing.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I do know of expats (eg Indian Christians living in Britain) who go to a British church on Sunday mornings and then a language-group church later on. Typically IME the latter draw from a wide geographical area and may only meet monthly.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the sermon thread, SvitlanaV2 pondered whether increasing numbers if people attend more than one church.
There's one church (which I consider my "home" church) at which I regularly worship, and where I serve in various capacities. It's close to my house.
There's another church, which is close to my place of employment, where I will attend a lunchtime service from time to time. I don't have any involvement in that church beyond that, but I go regularly enough that I know a few of the people there.
But this isn't quite what you're getting at, I think. I don't attend that church because it provides some kind of worship experience that my regular shack doesn't, in some kind of ecclesiastical pick'n'mix arrangement - I go because it's the place I can get to from work at lunchtime.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I am thinking the responses show a sense of consumerism. When we can't get something we want at a small store on Main St, we will go to the Big Box Store to find it... many times the Mega store doesn't have what we want either, so we hunt for another store...
Of course if you need a shirt and the nearest store doesn't carry your size you try elsewhere. Should one be cold and naked just because the local place is not set up to meet your legitimate needs? And then after buying the right sized shirt elsewhere you come back to the local store, why is that a problem?
After a family member dies is a bereaved wrong, "consumerist," to go to a grief group at a different church when his is too small to offer similar?
To say they should be "loyal" to "one and only one church" is to treat people like serfs, it disses the mandate that independent moral agents should seek to grow and use their talents, not bury them. Often growing requires using talents outside the local church.
I wish churches would more freely advertise things going on in other churches, help people know where to go for the programs they would like to participate in, instead of pretending "anything *we* don't do isn't worth doing at all."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I currently attend two churches, but basically one is definitely my regular church, the other more a case of the regular church currently doesn't have regular evening services, and the other church - also Baptist - is convenient to attend in the evening. Everybody is happy with the situation and friendly, and it gives me a broader view of things than sticking to only one church might.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I remember that I once visited my grandparents in Maryland to attend the wedding of some friends. If I remember correctly, the wedding was on a Sunday, and they took me to two church services before dropping me off at the wedding chapel, and then they went on to a third service. I think it was essentially a hobby. They were originally Quakers but joined a Methodist church when they could not find a meeting.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
This is not new, not where I come from, anyway. My mum and aunties talk about going to morning worship at their Presbyterian church, then to Evensong at the local Anglican. This was back in the 1940s, and earlier generations had done it too. In a small town, the draw seems to have been socially driven (and perhaps a bit musically).
It wasn't until the late 40s that a new Anglican priest got up in arms about it and forbade it, thus making a blow against church unity and cooperation.
A while later, when I was a child in the 1970s, the same Anglican church (a new vicar) developed a close relationship with the Marist Seminary up the road, the choirs singing with each other for various services through the year. That got knocked on the head by the NZ Catholic Archbishop after about 7 years. I remember it very fondly - we were possibly the only Anglican parish in the country where members regularly had trainee Catholic priests over for dinner.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I was amused when I saw a friend resident in a nursing home had joined a second church. Each church visits the nursing home once a month, by belonging to two churches he gets invited to two worship gatherings a month instead of just one.
Life in those places is so sterile and an invitation to a worship gathering so welcome, I'm surprised more people don't do that, but it seems socially ingrained that you supposedly can belong to only one church.
It's not a marriage, there's no "forsaking all others" clause when joining a church, and if someone wants to do more God-oriented activities than one church offers, how is that harming anyone?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Gramps49: quote:
Reading the above posts, I am thinking the responses show a sense of consumerism. When we can't get something we want at a small store on Main St, we will go to the Big Box Store to find it. Deal of it is (and I work at a Big Box Store) is many times the Mega store doesn't have what we want either, so we hunt for another store (maybe go on line for it).......
But there is a problem, in my mind, if there is no such thing as brand loyalty anymore, the small store is at a disadvantage. It does not have the resources to make changes in order to stay competitive.
I started my faith journey over fifty years ago at what is now a ministry center to the poor. I joined my Sunday church about twenty years ago. I like the opportunity to be useful to and break bread with the disadvantaged at the ministry center. I like the quiet worship and friendships I have found at my Sunday church. I contribute to both communities weekly. I hardly think this makes me a cafeteria Christian who is out only for my taste, my comfort and convenience. My brand is Christianity and I am loyal to it.
I don't see "consumerism" in most of the responses on this thread. Just people making the best decisions they may to regularly worship God in community.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Japes
Shipmate
# 5358
|
Posted
I've always done this - had one church which is my main church, but gone elsewhere for what is not available at my church. (At the moment that's Evensong and Eucharists for major feasts not done at my church.)
For the most part, I prefer being at a smaller church as an organist, (keeps me out of mischief allegedly...) and where I can contribute to the life of that church usefully, but I do need to go to services from time to time where I have no responsibility whatsoever. I learnt after a very necessary period of time of no responsibility whatsoever at a couple of churches which I found impossible to settle that I needed a good balance of involvement and no responsibility which I've now found - and that is by going to other churches occasionally.
--------------------
Blog may or may not be of any interest.
Posts: 2013 | From: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But there is a problem, in my mind, if there is no such thing as brand loyalty anymore, the small store is at a disadvantage. It does not have the resources to make changes in order to stay competitive.
Sure, and I have much sympathy with the idea that the church consists of more than just an outlet for a set of services for consumption, community has to be a large part of it.
But there is an equal and opposite issue exposed by the fact that churches can be described in terms of brands to which one has to be loyal.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I don't like the idea of us treating churches as a "consumers" who need to be satisfied; nor do I like the concept of "brand loyalty". However both those terms do reflect the reality of today's world, and many churches do seem to "market" themselves in terms of "You'll like what we're offering" - whether that be "vibrant" worship, high-quality music, good children's activities or whatever.
Now this poses a problem as people will look for "excellence" or "experience" with the result that the churches with a god reputation will do well, while others will fall by the wayside. Although sociologists will argue that that has long been the case in the USA, it is not to my mind the traditional approach in Britain (and, probably, elsewhere in Europe).
To my mind there are two issues here. One is the insidious idea that church is basically about "what we get out of it" and the other is to forget that Christians need to be prepared to "sacrifice" if mission and witness are to continue.
So let's think of Little Slapbury-in-the-Marsh Methodist Chapel" (average attendance 7). It's hardly going to be seen as attractive by someone moving into the village who regularly attends "Spring Harvest". Yet said chapel may be providing the only viable Christian witness in the village (sorry, Anglicans, we'll just have to assume that the Parish Church has already been declared Redundant!) and they could desperately do with the energy and companionship of these new folk.
So perhaps their best solution is to ally themselves with the Methodists each Sunday morning but, once a month, go to the Evening Gathering at the Baptist church in the town 10 miles away. I can't say that I'm uber-keen on such a solution, but it may be the only way of keeping these folks "inspired" enough to keep going in the more humdrum environment of the village chapel.
Does that make any sense?
[ 05. September 2016, 10:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do know of expats (eg Indian Christians living in Britain) who go to a British church on Sunday mornings and then a language-group church later on. Typically IME the latter draw from a wide geographical area and may only meet monthly.
That's true of a number of people in our congregation. Indian and Nepali.
We also have a few people (10 yesterday morning) who joined us from the Portugese speaking Church (mainly Brazilians) who meet at our place on a Saturday evening.
They like to practice their English.
The one issue we do have is a couple of people who want to be members here and elsewhere. So far we have not considered it appropriate as one's major contribution should always be to one church.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I was amused when I saw a friend resident in a nursing home had joined a second church. Each church visits the nursing home once a month, by belonging to two churches he gets invited to two worship gatherings a month instead of just one.
Life in those places is so sterile and an invitation to a worship gathering so welcome, I'm surprised more people don't do that, but it seems socially ingrained that you supposedly can belong to only one church.
It seems to me that anyone conducting worship services in a nursing home should invite anyone who wants to come.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Absolutely. There can be issues if the service is Eucharistic, but that needn't stop anyone from attending even if they can't "commune".
(Mind you, I believe that any Christian should be able to take Communion in any church).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Baptist Trainfan, that does make sense - and also what EM says makes sense too - perhaps it's a residual congregational streak in my make-up, but whilst I don't have much difficulty with the idea of people attending more than one type of church, the idea of someone being a 'member' of more than one does rankle with me to some extent.
That's not just an RC and Orthodox thing - although they tend to take a dim view of 'dual citizenship' - it can be found among non-conformists too. It's fair enough, in my view, provided it doesn't spill over into exclusivity - but then we run up against the hoary old issue (a Dead Horse one?) of open or closed communion and so on.
It's one thing, to my mind, for someone to worship with a particular congregation on a Sunday, say, but to attend a mid-week communion service close to where they work. But if someone were volunteering their time and energies across multiple congregations I would question whether they were diluting effort that might be assigned more effectively in one or two places.
I found the inner-city example interesting, though and that might be an exception to the general rule - I don't know. As someone who has a tendency to spread themselves too thinly - freelance work, town council activities, voluntary arts and community activities - I can see the problems this might pose.
But then again, some people might be able to juggle priorities and make a valuable contribution across several fronts.
On the consumerism thing - no, that doesn't sit well with me but it's increasingly part of the territory these days. Perhaps it's always been like that to some extent in cities or places where access and transportation was easy. I think it was Mousethief who observed that in 19th century Moscow, even, people didn't necessarily attend their nearest Orthodox parish church but would nip across town to attend the service of their choice - either because they preferred the priest, liked the choir or for whatever other reason.
One person's consumerism is someone else's way of preserving their spiritual sanity ...
So we perhaps shouldn't be too prescriptive or quick to judge.
Whilst I do detect some consumerist notes on this thread, I'm not sure I'd want to start pointing the finger - because, for all I know, I might be consumerist in a different kind of way.
One person's consumerism is another person's way of acquiring depth and clarity.
So, it all depends on the context, I suspect.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Then we run up against the hoary old issue (a Dead Horse one?) of open or closed communion and so on.
Tangent:// I know of at least one Baptist Church which would like to offer Open Communion but their building's Trust Deed stipulates Closed. If they went ahead and did what they wanted to, they could be subject to legal challenge. Amazingly, they'd need to promote a private Act of Parliament to get this changed!!! //: Tangent ends, stable door bolted.
[ 05. September 2016, 12:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
It often depends on location (availability) and on someone's reasons.
What I regard as my home church (that which I go to most Sundays) is neither near my office nor does it run lunchtime services in the middle of the week. But I know a Methodist church that is near me and does run a lunchtime service, so I pop in there when I haven't got meetings or tight deadlines (I haven't been lately).
Plus, it's good to get a different perspective that that offered by one's own tradition/denomination.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure - I suppose a lot of it depends on how tightly, or otherwise, we want to draw our lines.
I mean, if someone is of a particularly 'exotic' or 'minority' persuasion then it makes sense for them to travel or seek out their church of choice - be they Seventh Day Adventist, say, or an Anabaptist here in the UK - or an RC in some areas even or an Orthodox living away from the main conurbations where churches of their own tradition may be few and far between.
I've probably visited the services of almost every conceivable mainstream denomination active here in the UK - with the exception of the Copts, Eastern Catholics (Melkites) and what might be regarded as some of the more fringe elements within Protestantism - such as the Seventh Day Adventists.
So I've visited Anglican, Methodist, URC, Church of Scotland, independent evangelical, charismatic, Pentecostal, Salvation Army, Brethren and so on ... as well as to RC and Orthodox services.
I'm not talking about visiting other people's services now and again but people who seem to 'belong' to several congregations at one and the same time - and I suppose I'm using the term 'belong' somewhat loosely here, but I'm implying more than simply visiting another church a few times a year.
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I was amused when I saw a friend resident in a nursing home had joined a second church. Each church visits the nursing home once a month, by belonging to two churches he gets invited to two worship gatherings a month instead of just one.
It seems to me that anyone conducting worship services in a nursing home should invite anyone who wants to come.
I've seen several sides to this. In one sense anyone who walks in or sitting near the room entrance before starting time is invited to join, but also churches are there not to evangelise but to serve members who can't get to regular church, and don't want to be accused of "sheep stealing" by actively inviting people not previously part of that denomination.
Also, any gathering is more work for the staff, they have to wheel people to the gathering (and bring their medications), so staff aren't going to advertise broadly, they take the list of names the church brings and wheel in those people only.
And unfortunately church culture has a strong tradition that a person can be part of only one church, so people feel they are supposed to stay away from a gathering of a different church.
Do we really intend to teach people its better to not worship than join a different group's event? I think its fine to say you should have a primary church, but not fine to say you should never be involved in a secondary church too. But some families protest if grandma is attending a different church instead of staying isolated in her room.
Lots of societal issues.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Then we run up against the hoary old issue (a Dead Horse one?) of open or closed communion and so on.
Tangent:// I know of at least one Baptist Church which would like to offer Open Communion but their building's Trust Deed stipulates Closed. If they went ahead and did what they wanted to, they could be subject to legal challenge. Amazingly, they'd need to promote a private Act of Parliament to get this changed!!! //: Tangent ends, stable door bolted.
Solution is dead easy. Close the church as is and reopen with a new Constitution.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
whilst I don't have much difficulty with the idea of people attending more than one type of church, the idea of someone being a 'member' of more than one does rankle with me to some extent.
...
It's one thing... to attend a mid-week communion service close to where they work. But if someone were volunteering their time and energies across multiple congregations I would question whether they were diluting effort that might be assigned more effectively in one or two places.
I expect the widespread use of phone numbers not listed in any public directory might be a driver for some to join a second church. If you want to be part of a weekly Bible study but your church offers none, you may need to get into the directory to be called when it's cancelled this week.
As to the idea it's wrong to be involved in more than one church, is it also wrong to be involved in civic activities? Is helping at a charity food pantry OK but not a church's food pantry? Why? (One mainstream clergy is annoyed some members volunteer at the public library.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not talking about visiting other people's services now and again but people who seem to 'belong' to several congregations at one and the same time - and I suppose I'm using the term 'belong' somewhat loosely here, but I'm implying more than simply visiting another church a few times a year.
It depends what you mean by "belong." A lot of people feel they belong if they turn up or even if they say they belong but never attend (the CofE model for example).
I wonder whether belonging is really more than attendance and what level of commitment/belief has to be there for you to be considered as "belonging?" Can you "belong" without affirming the key elements of the group?
Some may say "belong" others might prefer the term "connected to" (loosely or otherwise)
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I remember reading a well-known Baptist theologian saying that, when he was a child, it was quite specifically the Baptist chapel that his family belonged to, even though they never went! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
More seriously, I think there is great virtue in committing oneself to a particular congregation rather than "church-hopping" (which doesn't rule out the attendance at an "ethnic" congregation on some Sunday afternoons or of a church close to one's office at weekday lunchtimes). I believe that Christians are supposed to be part of a "community" or "fellowship" in which they can serve and worship.
[ 05. September 2016, 15:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that was the sort of thing I had in mind, Baptist Trainfan.
@ExclamationMark - in practice though, even with what you describe as 'the CofE model', most Anglican parishes I know - of whatever stripe - draw some kind of distinction between regulars and those who only attend at Christmas and Easter, if at all.
The same seems to apply with the Orthodox and RCs. The Orthodox seem to use the term 'the faithful' to apply to those who regularly attend services or work out their faith in a more visible or committed kind of way.
So, wherever we look we see some kind of spoken or unspoken measures of 'commitment' and engagement.
@Belle Ringer - I didn't say it was 'wrong' to attend more than one church, still less to support both a civic 'food pantry' or a church-run one at one and the same time ...
I'm not seeing 'right' or 'wrong' as the issue in this case - it's entirely up to people what they do and to their individual consciences what they do in this kind of context - provided it doesn't do any harm to anyone else or to themselves.
Ideally - and this is an ideal that might not always work for everyone of course, I would go along with Baptist Trainfan in suggesting that - where possible - we should 'belong' (however we define that) to one main or particular context whilst remaining free or able to dip in and out of others if that's helpful or feasible.
What wouldn't do anyone any good would be if all churches contained rolling-stones and individuals who were circulating round the whole time going hither and yon and not getting anything done.
I don't have an issue with RainbowGirl's 'serial volunteering' but from my own experience - as I've said - of someone involved with lots of different activities - it can be possible to spread oneself far too thinly.
--------------------
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 Baptist Trainfan:
I believe that Christians are supposed to be part of a "community" or "fellowship" in which they can serve and worship.
Yes, community should be part of church 'membership'. I think some of the corner cases above came down to the need some people may have of services that were not offered by their own church (counselling of some kind being the obvious example).
Fortunately it seems that some churches are well aware of this and this has led to inclusive kinds of co-operation of most churches in a given area - though this is by no means the rule.
In fact; in the case of churches aimed at particular ethnicities, I've seen plenty of cases where people ewho attended both a 'regular' and 'ethnic' church served as fairly useful bridges between different communities of Christians.
[ 05. September 2016, 16:13: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's an interesting point in terms of the ethnicity issue, Chris Stiles.
I'm wondering whether the same can apply to people acting as 'bridges' between different Christian traditions too - but that might be a rather naive hope or thought ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
On a slightly tangential point. I recognise that Christians of particular (minority) ethnicities may well feel the need to worship together from time to time, especially if they can do so in their first language. This applies as much to (say) Swiss or Danish as it does to (say) Cantonese Chinese or Brazilians; it also applies to folk who may only short-term residents (e.g. contract workers, members of Forces or Diplomatic Corps).
Nevertheless I also believe (videGalatians 3:28) that churches should be "melting-pots" in which diversity can and should be celebrated. This is especially true in divided communities where they can not only be a wonderful witness to Christ but be a catalyst in breaking down divisions and creating a sense of oneness.
If occasionally meeting together in language/cultural groups helps Christians from various backgrounds to normally worship and serve in "ordinary" and "mixed" local churches, then this must be a Good Thing.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
I find this thread interesting as at the moment I am church shopping. There is no local Episcopal church in my area and as my driving is now limited I need to find a new church home. My choices are limited. Only the local Roman Catholic church offers a liturgical service which very much appeals to me. I feel at home there but theology is not mine. The other churches while warm and friendly are hymn sandwich services. They do offer some outreach opportunities which appeal to me. So an ideal would be do outreach and Bible study with one church and Sunday worship with the Catholic church. Or attend midweek mass and Sunday service with another. I do not yet know what I will be doing. True Middle of the roader here.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can understand that, Graven Image.
Where I am, I find myself able to applaud and to some extent support our evangelical Anglican parish in its outreach activities but find it increasingly hard to actually sit through the services.
Not that I've got any big problem with evangelicalism per se - at least not in its more 'reflective' forms ...
But I dunno - it's just not where I'm 'at' these days. I find the liberal-catholic Anglican parish more conducive in terms of liturgical style and so on but find the theology somewhat 'thin' and insipid - 'What do they actually believe?!'
I don't mind the occasional hymn-sandwich but - no disrespect to anyone here intended - I find standard non-conformist style services (URC/Methodist) to be singularly uninspiring as a regular diet. They feel like a lecture with songs. I do like a good non-conformist style sermon, though.
But that's me sliding into consumerism, perhaps ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Ideally a church offers a community of mutual caring. Truth is, many or perhaps most don't. Maybe back in olden days when the church community was the neighborhood community too?
People commonly report (to books about dropping out of church) that no matter how active they were, the minute they dropped out of project work they become invisible, as if churches and members see people only as sources of money and labor, not as people.
One friend who worked several years as unpaid church secretary, husband got long term sick, she gave a month's notice of need to quit to take care of him, was scolded by clergy for abandoning her "duty" to the church, no one from that church ever asked after his (or her) wellbeing. Where's the community in that?
At one church old timers said it was warm and cozy, more than one newcomer told me it was cold and rejecting - it was a community church for those who grew up there, not for "outsiders."
I expect many people would put a church that actually is community for them ahead of other interests such as a church in their language or a Bible study. But realistically many churches do not offer community (even while claiming to be "a church family").
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've probably visited the services of almost every conceivable mainstream denomination active here in the UK - with the exception of the Copts, Eastern Catholics (Melkites) and what might be regarded as some of the more fringe elements within Protestantism - such as the Seventh Day Adventists.
If you attended a SDA service you might not find it all that way-out. IME the style is fairly restrained rather than charismatic, and mainstream hymns rather than worship songs are preferred (although a more contemporary worship style is apparently making inroads in some places). Derek Tidball claims Adventism as kind of evangelical Christianity, and there are features of an evangelical subculture that you might recognise. The relationship between Adventists and other evangelicals is complicated, but there's been a growth in ecumenicalism.
Also, at least in terms of numbers and involvement in secular activities such as education the SDA Church is becoming more mainstream. Seventh Day Adventism apparently represents the 'fifth largest Christian communion in the world'.
With regard to this thread, the denomination is obviously useful to those seeking a double church affiliation, because you can worship with the SDAs on Saturday and then find a more normative church to attend on Sunday!
This may not be as ridiculous as it sounds, because the SDA Church is now the largest denomination in Jamaica, and the Caribbean in general is particularly interesting as a region where double church belonging has historically been a feature. It was relatively common for people to go to a mainstream church in the morning, in order to maintain status, and then attend a sectarian worship service in the evening for more spiritual reasons. I don't know to what extent this still goes on, but it's been a significant practice within living memory.
In the UK the barriers between, say, Methodist and black-majority Pentecostal churches were more rigid so such double belonging became less common among Caribbean immigrants.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
There's quite a bit of crossover between the four Anglican churches in downtown Montreal. It doesn't make sense for each parish to replicate all the others' offerings, so it's natural to find oneself making stations over the course of a full liturgical year.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I wasn't intending any 'slight' against SDA's as such. I've known SDA's and have a friend who belongs to a small Adventist congregation which, as far as I know, isn't affiliated to the main SDA body here but does have some kind of loose association with them.
And whilst I've not been to any of their services, my impression is as you describe. I was simply listing them as a group whose services I've not visited and noting that they tend to be regarded bad somewhat 'fringe' - although that has changed to some extent.
I wasn't listing them alongside 'marginal' groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Christadelphians.
The fact that I'd listed them alongside more 'standard' non-conformist grips like the Brethren and Pentecostals surely suggests that I was including them 'within the fold' in some way, problematic though that might be to some extent.
The SDA chap I know here is a good guy but quite fundamentalist and prone to idiosyncratic ideas of one form or other - but no more, perhaps, than some people I've met in Brethren assemblies or Pentecostal churches.
--------------------
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
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
A few years ago I was worshipping at an Anglican Cathedral, participating in a study group run by Methodists and volunteering at a Catholic Primary school.
Now the Cathedral is in ruins ( although there is a Transitional one), I worship at a Presbyterian church and still volunteer at the school.
I am also considering visiting the Quakers as they're now easier to get to on Sundays now.
I don't see any problem with this. I left the Cathedral because it stopped being a safe place for me (before it was damaged in the quakes), and ended up with the Presbys because as soon as I walked in the door I felt at home*. I don't think of myself as Presbyterian, but rather someone who worships at that church and is part of that community. I don't actually find denominational labels very helpful.
I volunteer at the Catholic school because I love working in a school and, having a teaching background, can be of use in a way I enjoy. I could volunteer at a state school, but the Catholic one is close by, has less than 200 pupils and a caring staff.
* Feeling at home there doesn't mean I'm not challenged. My taken-for-granted world view has been challenged more there than any other place I've worshipped, which is part of what I like about the place.
Huia
[ 06. September 2016, 08:43: Message edited by: Huia ]
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RainbowGirl
Apprentice
# 18543
|
Posted
Just to give a bit more explanation to three inner city churches example:
I'm not committed to the Cathedral, I provide manpower for my particular interests (community kitchen and youth work) because I enjoy it and I go to services when I can because it allows me to keep abreast with changes in the diocese. I in turn can take that information and knowledge back into the two churches I am committed too. Volunteering somewhere where I have no position of leadership and am just a general dogsbody keeps me sane and it keeps me humble.
Of the other two churches, one is down to just a single Sunday service with ten congregants, whatever I can do there, I do. I'm assisting with steadily expanding the ministry again but realistically there is only so much work available to me and were I to commit solely to it I would find my spiritual life sorely lacking and unless I became the minister there I doubt I could actually do much more than I am already doing. They have a small (three hours per month) youth ministry that I fully participate in, they don't have a community kitchen.
At the third church I am leading the youth ministry, I attend all the weekly services and often two services on Sunday's, the lions share of my free time is spent at this church. All told my commitment would be in the 20-30 hours a week range. They also don't have a community kitchen.
For me it's more of a case of having a lot of hours I'd like to be able to commit to a church, but outside of a Cathedral, not being able to spend that much time at one church. It also allows diversity since I can bring ideas between the churches, and I've also managed to build new connections between the churches that has allowed the growth of new ministries.
All churches belong to the same diocese, the same denomination and the same geographical area. This is the diocese I was baptised and confirmed in, so there is no issue in regards to the Eucharist. I'm part of a community at each one, I know everyone well, and they know me.
I believe I serve God first and foremost, not the particular church building or an arbitrary geographical boundary. At one I guess you could say I'm a consumer, I go to fulfil my own needs, of easy volunteering, learning new forms of ministry and to keep abreast with diocesan news. The other two I go to, to serve God and to take the gifts I receive from Him and use them to the benefit of the church here on earth.
It just seems to me that if we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, why does it matter how many churches you attend, as long as you are making a commitment and giving of your gifts, whatever they may be?
Thinking about it though, I suppose I 'technically' belong to a fourth church, I have full time employment at a completely separate denomination's diocesan office, a girls gotta eat after all. This one is purely self-interest and for a salary, so I wouldn't really say I belong. My work is administration, so belief in the denomination is not necessary.
Posts: 32 | From: Australia | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wasn't intending any 'slight' against SDA's as such.
I was responding in particular to your use of the word 'fringe', which seems ever more problematic a concept, and likely to continue so. Fundamentalism is arguably more 'mainstream' in some of its content than its nemesis liberalism, even though the latter exists more often in historical church settings. We may need new terminology at some point soon.
But to get back on topic, double belonging might in theory be attractive these days because of:
mixed marriages
the rise of ecumenicalism
greater autonomy in spiritual matters rather than loyalty to denomination or priest
the post-modern pick 'n' mix approach to orthodox religion
the inability of individual, hard-pressed but friendly congregations to provide enough programmes and variety for all-comers
the ease of modern travel
evangelical churches appearing to meet certain needs while more moderate churches may meet others
immigration; as others have said, some immigrants may attend certain churches due to cultural familiarity and networks, and attend others in order to maintain a desirable connection to a historical denomination.
These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. No doubt we could also think of reasons as to why double affiliation might be less common than in the past.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wasn't intending any 'slight' against SDA's as such.
I was responding in particular to your use of the word 'fringe', which seems ever more problematic a concept, and likely to continue so.
Well, if you don't want to use the word 'fringe' then you'll have to find another word that accurately describes the difference. IME SDA churches tend have their own variations in terms of ethnicities and beliefs (somme synonymous with small 'o' orthodox, some less so), but whatever their stripe they tend to shy away from any form of co-operation/ecumenicalism with other churches in the area, though individuals are far more flexible. So whether or not their beliefs would consign them to a 'fringe' in theory, in practice their relative exclusivity has the same effect.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure how common this is, but it may be more true of the untrustful ...
What do Shipmates think. Is it common?
I'd like to turn this around a little - in the light of some of the posts in this thread.
I think we are going to have to go beyond anecdote - by it's very nature, this forum will self select for people who are likely to dwell more deeply on their faith.
It seems that most people here are attending multiple churches due to contingent reasons; work, or the need to balance service with community, or service with refreshment.
So if there is a general consumerist trend, then you aren't likely to pick up on it from the experiences of people here.
FWIW the only figures I ever saw (sadly not online in any linkable way) suggested that multiple church attendance was less of an issue than sporadic church attendance. So the person who is in church every other week, is more likely to be doing something else other than church in the off weeks.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
