|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What are cathedrals for?
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes, but most posters here are Anglicans.
Anglican diocesan bishops enter "their" cathedrals in fear and trembling, after due supplication to the Dean. Some of them barely appear once a month in the cathedrals. A few even less. Some of the bishops don't even live in the same city as their cathedral. Durham and Canterbury seem to visit their cathedrals as rarely, and with much the same wary formality, as the Queen visits Parliament.
And we pew-sitters rarely have dealings with the diocesan bishops. We are confirmed and licensed and preached at and exhorted by the suffragans - who do indeed wander about from parish to parish, occasionally taking refuge in dingy offices in tastefully converted small Georgeian terraces, just out of sight of the Cathedral.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Cathedrals however, are intimately linked with bishops. In the Catholic tradition, bishops are physically associated with a territory, and a physical building, in which one finds a throne (the cathedra) upon which the bishop sits, symbolizing the authority of one bishop over that territory.
The Church of England has a major problem with this. The fact is that although a Cathedral is supposed to be the seat of the Bishop, in reality, the freehold of the Dean means that the Bishop has very little say in the running of the Cathedral, the services it holds, or even its ethos etc. Bishops are visitors which means they do not have some sort of ultimate sanction but the Dean and chapter are all-powerful. An opportunity was lost in the 1990s when the Howe reforms to Cathedrals were passing through General Synod. One of the proposals made the Bishop the chair of the cathedral's council - bishops and cathedrals both opposed this. I however think that Bishops should provide leadership in the Cathedrals because only then is their leadership in the diocese truly grounded in the local church.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
but many many non-Christians I know have been to cathedrals to visit and never once considered Jesus.
I must have walked past thousand of "Jesus saves" posters put up outside churches in my life. I have been inside precisely none of those churches... but I have visited many cathedrals.
Cathedrals, to me, are ALL about evangelism, they are great big statements in stone of a people's faith in God. Millions of people every year volutarily visit them, often paying for the privelege. Isn't that fantastic evangelism?
So what if many of them never stop to consider God, I bet some of them do, and down the centuries cathedrals must have influenced the faith of countless thousands.
Most people take no notice of street preachers, tract pushers or student Christian Unions, all more standard "evangelistic" practices. Perhaps we should abandon them as being ineffective.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I however think that Bishops should provide leadership in the Cathedrals because only then is their leadership in the diocese truly grounded in the local church.
We could make suffragans the priests in charge of whichever parishes in their area have an interregnum. That'd speed things up.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I however think that Bishops should provide leadership in the Cathedrals because only then is their leadership in the diocese truly grounded in the local church.
We could make suffragans the priests in charge of whichever parishes in their area have an interregnum. That'd speed things up.
Or better still do that to Archdeacons and abolish suffragans altogether.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Spawn,
we could start the SSAD - the Society for the Sequestration of Archdeacons.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
I concur with all above who marvel at the wonders of the Gothic arch. Our church is housed in a building with rather dumpy Norman arches, and has its own story to tell. However they do cost an arm and a leg to keep maintained and I think the problem with all these buildings is: are we actually being good stewards with our money when we could employ say another full time christian worker or feed and school a few hundred people in Africa with the money we spend maintaining them. We try to do both but struggle to find the balance
What springs to mind is the jar of expensive ungent lavished on Jesus' feet. Was it necessary, practical? Did it help the poor or gather more disciples? No. It was a statement of love in extravagance.
I think cathedrals are a tool for evangelism. Not in isolation, of course, but joined with the witness of thoughtful Christians. As people have mentioned, the unchurched visit cathedrals all the time. People who will run speedily from earnest proselytizers, I known to be seduced by a combination of beautiful surroundings, a quiet word of friendship, and time. Evangelism is not one-size-fits-all.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Spawn,
we could start the SSAD - the Society for the Sequestration of Archdeacons.
Or SSADASS - the Society for the Sequestration of Archdeacons and Abolution of SuffraganS
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Your posts are full of statements that cathedrals don't reach people; people aren't touched or moved by cathedrals, etc. And, yes, that's 'in your opinion' and 'in your experience' which is fair enough. But as this and the other thread clearly shows your opinion is just one of many, and your experience is, at least, limited in this area, as your own comments admit. If you want people to share your anxiety with CofE spending on Cathedral build you need to come up with something with a bit of substance and persuasion to it.
All you've managed so far, in essence, is 'cathedrals (about which I know very little) don't do the job I think they should be doing, so why shouldn't we get rid of them?'
I guess I'm irritated because I get the impression you really only want to complain about something you personally don't understand, and are not prepared to put up a cogent argument to justify your view.
Anselmina,
Just to let you know. I am not an Anglican now. But I used to work for a large Anglican church within a stone's throw of a cathedral. I went to a university in which a cathedral was a university building. I now help to run a church plant within a stone's throw of 2 cathedrals (which probably gives away where it is), and before we set up I did actually do quite a bit of looking in to what they did in the area.
At my university, the cathedral held poorly attended inaccessible services, for the benefit ISTM for the choir and a few fellows only. This was while students, young people, the homeless and the old flocked to two evangelical churches across the road.
At least some of the money given by members of those churches went towards the upkeep of the white elephant in the pretty cloister.
When I worked for a church, the nearest thing the cathedral did to an evangelistic event was to have J John speaking on the 10 commandments, which quite frankly I would rather chew my arm off than take a non-Christian to hear.
At least one of the cathedrals I work near now sponges off the government agency I work for for the upkeep of its poor design, holds 8 services in a week, which according to its own report 250 people attend altogether, and, by the record of the collection they give something like 25p each to its upkeep. I have been to services in the other, and it was very beautiful choral music, but the speaker made no mention of Jesus.
I hope and pray this is not the case for every cathedral in the country, but my experience of cathedrals is that they are very beautiful and historic centres for culture. Nothing more.
In fact, nearly all my friends at university went to visit the cathedral at some point, and none ever had the response of considering the person of Jesus, and his claim on their life.
I am glad that there are those who are helped by the ministry of cathedrals. I have been encouraged to find out about them on this thread. But while "I don't like them" is not an argument for their closing "A very small minority of people are helped by them" is not a good enough argument, IMO, for keeping them open when the C of E is obviously in such financial dire straits.
At Christmas I received the one and only correspondence I have ever had from my parish church. It made no mention of God, and asked for money (not knowing anything about me) for the church roof.
If this is the case, and, ISTM cathedral style worship does very little, if anything to bring committed Christians into the church, then I have no problem selling the cathedrals to museum hood, and the congregation meeting in a school hall, so that all the non-Christians in my street don't have to get a one off begging letter from our church that makes no effort to share the Gospel.
You will note in my OP, I was asking for reasons why I shouldn't take this view. I want to be convinced. But, as I have said " a few of us like pretty stained glass and choral music under gothic arches" is not good enough. Some people have told encouraging stories about how the ministry of cathedrals has helped bring them to Christ. I am glad. But my question is still - is this model of ministry, which, compared to so many other models seems numerically insignificant, one that the church should be subsidising considering its manifest failure to reach today's culture, and its obviously over stretched resources?
And the catalyst for all of this, was the thread discussing the Dean of a cathedral who has decided to use the space for a growing Gospel ministry, and is being rounded on, on all sides, for such a move. This makes no sense to me.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ce
Shipmate
# 1957
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Or SSADASS - the Society for the Sequestration of Archdeacons and Abolution of SuffraganS
Oh no, we need to keep one or the other, anything that can provoke the occasional bowel-loosening in an incumbent is a "Good Thing".
ce
[edited in quote bold]
[ 11. May 2004, 04:48: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
ce
Posts: 376 | From: Middlesex, U.K. | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
There's good envangelical churches within a stones throw of cathedrals and there's absolutely terrible ones too.
That arguement doesn't really wash.
Some good. Some bad.....
Your experience says Cathedrals = Bad.
My experience says Cathedrals = Good.
Churches....parish churches....chapels...worship centres........are generally speaking for people who decide to investigate God between 9-11am on a Sunday morning. (There's the odd one opening on a Sunday evening, if you're lucky.)
Let's suppose, just for the sheer hell of it, that I don't get around to thinking about God on a Sunday. What then?
What if Granny is dying on a Tuesday...or I have a crisis on a Saturday...or if I'm out shopping and think "hey. A church. I'll pop in".
It would be flippin' hard to do in most of your (evangelical) town centre churches these days........
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
When I worked for a church, the nearest thing the cathedral did to an evangelistic event was to have J John speaking on the 10 commandments, which quite frankly I would rather chew my arm off than take a non-Christian to hear.
Are you objecting to him or the topic?
He's been very good when I've heard him. Probably exactly the sort of preacher I'd want youngish non-Christians to hear.
Woudl you rather he preached on fluffy bunnies?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
I can't really articulate what I want to say here very well, and really it's just a case of agreeing with most of what has been said.
I come at this from both sides of the fence, as it were, as I worship at an independent church but work for the anglican church, within the system of controls relating to the care of church buildings, and with particular reference to cathedrals.
I could wax lyrical for hours on how fantastic cathedrals (and in fact pretty much any ancient church buildings) are and how I, for one, have a palpable sense of the prayer and worship which has gone on for hundreds or a thousand years there when I walk into one.
I'll spare you that but I do think that, and I think this point has been well made already, that Leprechaun's point falls down on the question of economics - it's not the cathedrals which are a huge drain on the resources of the church, it's fantastic little places like this and others like it.
For many people, whether we like it or not, cathedrals and historic church buildings are what they think of when we say 'church'. My church meets in a converted cinema, but that's not the place people will go when they want a quiet place to be and think and listen. It's not the place they'll go after something like September 11th when they want to do something, even if they don't know what that something is. They'll go to the nice pointy building two doors down.
There are churches meeting in schools and halls and peoples' homes everywhere, and good for them, but if you handed the cathedrals or historic church buildings over to the National Trust, most people would not know where the churches were any more. They would think there were no churches. And so we would be taking away an important witness to the historic faith of our towns and cities.
I'll shut up now.
b
[eta: I cross-posted with loads of people here... i'd better read their comments now!]
[ 10. May 2004, 18:08: Message edited by: birdie. ]
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luna
Shipmate
# 2002
|
Posted
"Evangelism" scares me. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) I like to walk in, look around, take my time to get comfortable - too often when visiting a church I feel like I'm being assaulted. So cathedrals are perfect for me.
A cathedral is one of the few things that convinces me that Christianity is to be taken seriously. Matter matters - if Christ deigned to take on humanity, surely he is concerned with the way that the body interacts with the world. We're not pure spirit. I think that worship, wherever it happens, should engage as many senses as possible so as to fully acquaint one with the beauty and glory of God. It seems to me that cathedrals, even the neglected ones, do this quite while.
Twanging guitars and PowerPoint sermons ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) - some people love them, but they have always mystified me and I avoid them like the plague. Services with icons and incense are my cup of tea but aren't for everybody and can often be hard to find in English. If I were to set foot in a church again, I would go somewhere like Ely cathedral, which I visited last year. It's open and welcoming all day long and astoundingly beautiful. I'll never forget hearing the strains of the choir practicing while I stood in the nave. The general sanctity and peace I experienced during a few hours in a stone "edifice" far outweigh anything else I have experienced in the last three years.
Art and architecture do leave a lasting impact on people, especially when they are part of a living community.
Luna
--------------------
Well-behaved women rarely make history.
Visit my blog!
Posts: 107 | From: UC Berkeley, California | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amw
Shipmate
# 5777
|
Posted
Luna just said everything I wanted to say!
amw
Posts: 181 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Katherinef
Shipmate
# 5811
|
Posted
Leprechaun said:
quote:
And the catalyst for all of this, was the thread discussing the Dean of a cathedral who has decided to use the space for a growing Gospel ministry, and is being rounded on, on all sides, for such a move. This makes no sense to me.
They weren't rounding on him for moving his service to the cathedral -- they were rounding on him for abolishing the traditional Sunday Evensong in favour of this service, which didn't need to be held in a cathedral.
Leprechaun, your own experience hasn't shown you anything positive about cathedrals and has shown you negative things -- and if that were representative, it would certainly be grounds for abandoning cathedrals to the National Trust. But the point of all the opposing posts on this thread is to offer a counterweight to your own experience -- to show that the situation you describe is not universal.
You say "this model of ministry, which, compared to so many other models seems numerically insignificant" (my emphasis). But this is precisely the question at issue. None of us here has enough information to be able to say either "the majority of cathedrals provide valuable services to the congregation, are the occasion of many conversions, and do not drain the resources of the diocese" or "the majority of cathedrals are empty most days and their upkeep is absurdly out of proportion to the amount of good they do". All we have is competing anecdotes, which are interesting to read but not conclusive.
At least concede that the things others have been saying in support of cathedrals amount to more than "we like them".
--------------------
"First consecrate your muffin..."
(Adeodatus)
Posts: 98 | From: Dublin | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
Primarily the cathedral is the seat of the Bishop as it contains his throne or 'cathedra.' However, a good cathedral acts as a centre of musical and liturgical excellence as well as a place of spirituality, study and hospitality.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Now you're talking!
What other church is offering decent food for hardpressed office workers in their lunch breaks?
You can cram in a recital AND lunch at some of these places.........
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
English Ploughboy.
Ship's tiller
# 4205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LydaRose:
quote:
Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
I concur with all above who marvel at the wonders of the Gothic arch. Our church is housed in a building with rather dumpy Norman arches, and has its own story to tell. However they do cost an arm and a leg to keep maintained and I think the problem with all these buildings is: are we actually being good stewards with our money when we could employ say another full time christian worker or feed and school a few hundred people in Africa with the money we spend maintaining them. We try to do both but struggle to find the balance
What springs to mind is the jar of expensive ungent lavished on Jesus' feet. Was it necessary, practical? Did it help the poor or gather more disciples? No. It was a statement of love in extravagance.
I think cathedrals are a tool for evangelism. Not in isolation, of course, but joined with the witness of thoughtful Christians. As people have mentioned, the unchurched visit cathedrals all the time. People who will run speedily from earnest proselytizers, I known to be seduced by a combination of beautiful surroundings, a quiet word of friendship, and time. Evangelism is not one-size-fits-all.
You can worship the builing rather than what it represents though second poem
[ 10. May 2004, 19:16: Message edited by: English Ploughboy. ]
--------------------
Christmas: celebration of un-created love let loose upon a needy world,
Posts: 386 | From: Sussex and Rwanda | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pulsator Organorum Ineptus
Shipmate
# 2515
|
Posted
What are cathedrals for?
They are for daily witness - for ever. What's wrong with that, please?
Where would be the witness in a building with no clergy, no congregation and no services? What opportunity would such a structure have for evangelism?
Posts: 695 | From: Bronteland | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But while "I don't like them" is not an argument for their closing "A very small minority of people are helped by them" is not a good enough argument, IMO, for keeping them open when the C of E is obviously in such financial dire straits.
[snip]
You will note in my OP, I was asking for reasons why I shouldn't take this view. I want to be convinced. But, as I have said " a few of us like pretty stained glass and choral music under gothic arches" is not good enough. Some people have told encouraging stories about how the ministry of cathedrals has helped bring them to Christ. I am glad. But my question is still - is this model of ministry, which, compared to so many other models seems numerically insignificant, one that the church should be subsidising considering its manifest failure to reach today's culture, and its obviously over stretched resources?
"a very small minority"
"a few of us like..."
Where's your proof that this is so numerically low?
I'm genuinely interested. I think you're wrong, you probably think I'm wrong, so have you got some figures to back this kind of stuff up.
I've heard it said that Cathedral congregations are one of the few parts of the CofE that have grown over the last decade. This may be rubbish, but I've heard it said more than once.
Also, it seems to me that Cathedrals have access to a much greater earning power than your average parish church. Lots of tourists. Possiblity of grants for the upkeep because the buildings are historically important. Use as concert venues. etc. etc. If these places are really a significant drain on resources I'd be very surprised. (I'm willing to be proved wrong though.)
quote:
And the catalyst for all of this, was the thread discussing the Dean of a cathedral who has decided to use the space for a growing Gospel ministry, and is being rounded on, on all sides, for such a move. This makes no sense to me.
No. He was being criticised for chucking out an act of worship which is at the core of the Anglican tradition in favour of introducing a new congregation to the building. (BTW - what is a "Gospel ministry" in this context?) The new congragation does not, one assumes, have to replace Evensong. It's a provocative choice that the dean has made.
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Chill.
If I wasn't involved in this discussion (and therefore not hosting it), you'd get a slap for posting in a smug and derisive manner.
But I am. So you won't.
If you're feeling cocky and you want to argue the toss about someone else's debating style as if it's your business, you can try Hell or the Styx and I'll come back to you there.
quote:
Back to one of the points you made earlier in the thread. You questioned Lep on whether evangelism was the be-all-and-end-all. Apart from being uncomfortable with compartmentalising aspects of the Christian life, it is extremely difficult to make the case that evangelism isn't a first-order priority for the Christian. Of course, there are aspects of worship which are for the 'initiated' but this does not mean that they should not also serve outreach. Churches should never become clubs for the likeminded, but open, welcoming communities dedicated to mission and evangelism.
I think Alan already addressed this point.
Compartmentalisation is precisely the problem.
quote:
What Alan said was this:
And, anyone who tries to seperate the nourishment of believers from action is putting asunder something of value. Put simply, you can't really be an effective evangelist without the support of a church to nourish your spiritual life. You might do good work feeding the poor and healing the sick, but without the church feeding and healing you in worship and teaching can you continue to do that and show the love of Christ?
Saying that since church services in cathedrals don't bring in non-believers, they're superfluous misses the point by a mile.
OF COURSE evangelism is a first-order priority, but without all the other first-order priorities (*cough*dothisinmemoryofme*cough*), it's crippled, and worse, the action of shallow-minded hypocrites.
As a Bible believing evangelical Christian, I have to recognise that without regular worship, teaching, communion and fellowship with believers, my witness is stunted.
Just because hardly anyone ever comes to faith in a church meeting anywhere (and I mean anywhere - cathedral, parish church or New Covenant Church meeting in a school hall like the one one of my lodgers goes to) anymore, it doesn't mean that its superfluous.
[ 10. May 2004, 20:50: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrSponge2U
Ship’s scrub
# 3076
|
Posted
This is an interesting thread.
I don't worship in a cathedral, myself. I grew up smack dab in a church that follows the modern Evangelical mindset that Leprechaun seems to be alluding too, where the focus of the Christian life is not supposed to be on buildings, but on Jesus and evangelising people to make decisions for Jesus. I can certain sympathise with this way of thinking, and it is valuable for many people. However, I also can sympathise with people who believe in the value of cathedrals, of quietness and awe in worship.
Modern society is very fast paced. Many people today tend to have a goal-oriented approach to life, to view everything in light of its economic impact, and don't like to slow down to spend time in contemplation. The modern evangelical model of seeker-sensitive mega-churches has done a good job in reaching these kind of people. However, people who don't have this mindset don't tend to respond to this model of evangelism. This is why we need cathedrals, because they represent something truly "counter-cultural" in this modern age, of the beauty of art, of a symbol of a faith that has been here for centuries, and a sense of mystery that transcends our personal goals, our programs, our "numbers-based" approach to quantifying how successful our churches are.
--------------------
sig? what sig?
Posts: 3558 | From: where two big rivers meet | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
these places are beautiful and should be preserved, while not being particularly useful any more.
I suspect that they seem quite useful to those for whom the Cathedral is their parish church. Or for those who supplement attendance at their own parish church with Cathedral attendance. Or those for whom the Cathedral is the mother church of the diocese, the visual symbol of Christian unity and the practical meeting place of people from around the region.
What are Cathedrals for? For the maintenance of the daily worship of the Church; a house of prayer for all people; to continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers; to proclaim the Glory of God and Salvific Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I spent many years of my life as a member of a cathedral community, and I can assure you that the cathedral was "useful" to me.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I went to a university in which a cathedral was a university building. At my university, the cathedral held poorly attended inaccessible services, for the benefit ISTM for the choir and a few fellows only. This was while students, young people, the homeless and the old flocked to two evangelical churches across the road.
At least some of the money given by members of those churches went towards the upkeep of the white elephant in the pretty cloister.
The only cathedral I know in the UK that could possibly be (mis) understood as having that king of relationship with the University is Christ Church, in Oxford. Which does have two evangelical churches across the road (well, not exactly, but close enough). If my deduction is wrong, what follows should be disregarded.
First, the cathedral has no formal relationship with the university -- Christ Church (the college) has a relationship with Christ Church Cathedral. I know the relationship is odd -- rather like the relationship between the colleges and the university itself.
Second, the cathedral when I was there (yes, yes, a long time ago) regularly drew congregations of 60-70 to weekday Evensong (and almost never were any of those attending "fellows" or choir families). Sunday morning wervices were usually nearly full (it's a small place, so we're talking 200-300) for both 10:00 Sung Mattins and 11:00 Sung eucharist. I was back this past summer, and the same seemed to be true -- except that a substantial congregation now exists with a council and so on separate from the college and the formal strcuture, reflecting the involvement of a large number of people outside the college and university.
Third, no-one could deny the good works done by St. Aldate's and St. Ebbe's. However, you need to know that I and many who were there at the same time ran from them both like the plague, and many students still do. Frankly, I am surprised to hear that either has a ministry among the poor and elderly -- the student focus was so strong that I always wondered who attended out of term -- because neither seemed to be a "town" church at all. Not denying what you say, just surprised that it has grown up -- certainly there used to be nothing of that sort.
Fourth, I doubt very much that a penny given by the good folk of St. Aldate's and St. Ebbe's goes to support the cathedral -- and certainly not its choir and services -- or indeed the bulk of its staff. Between endowments, the giving of its own congregation, donations from visitors and appeals, I guess not much is needed from the diocese. For example, I do know that the organ rebuild of a couple of years ago was paid for by an appeal to old members of the college.
Now just to make my position clear, way back when I did attend Christ Church (the college) and sometimes attended services in the cathedral apart from those done by the college (whose chapel it is). But it certainly was not then, and would not be today, my choice as a place to worship regularly, anymore than the two places across the road would be.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
If it wasn't for the Cathedral here, I probably wouldn't be a regular churchgoer.
It provides me with a beautiful setting for well-ordered modern and traditional liturgy, sermons which do not insult my intellect, superb music from a variety of visiting choirs as well as the 'professionals', and a large and friendly congregation who will, if I prefer it, leave me to my own devices.....
....and it's open and available for use all day, every day, no matter what - and even in the depths of winter, there's always someone in there, praying, meditating, just looking around and enjoying the peace. At times, there may indeed be a lot of apparently empty space, but that space is full of God......
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Chill.
If I wasn't involved in this discussion (and therefore not hosting it), you'd get a slap for posting in a smug and derisive manner.
But I am. So you won't.
Maybe it's good that you're not the host on this one, because it was hardly derisive and no smugger than your original.
quote:
Just because hardly anyone ever comes to faith in a church meeting anywhere (and I mean anywhere - cathedral, parish church or New Covenant Church meeting in a school hall like the one one of my lodgers goes to) anymore, it doesn't mean that its superfluous.
Churches in which hardly anyone comes to faith - die. I am not suggesting that people have to come to faith in a church meeting - although in my experience many people do - but the related activities of that church have to draw people into faith. Churches have to be open and supportive of non-believers, fringe believers or new believers - not just for the cognoscenti. Most Cathedrals are not doing that terribly well. They will cease to be places of Christian worship unless they get their act together. However I don't agree with Lep that the Church should hand them over. They are too valuable in terms of spiritual presence, memory, heritage and excellence to make them museums without a fight.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Churches in which hardly anyone comes to faith - die. I am not suggesting that people have to come to faith in a church meeting - although in my experience many people do - but the related activities of that church have to draw people into faith. Churches have to be open and supportive of non-believers, fringe believers or new believers - not just for the cognoscenti. Most Cathedrals are not doing that terribly well.
Genuine question - any proof of this? As I said further up the thread. I've heard it said on more than one occaision that cathedrals are one of the few places where congregations have grown over the last 10 years. This may be rubbish, but I'm sure that if any one has access to the figures to discredit or back up the statement you will have, Spawn.
quote:
They will cease to be places of Christian worship unless they get their act together.
What would "getting their act together" entail?
IME they're generally better attended than your average parish church. Again, no stats so I may be wrong.
quote:
However I don't agree with Lep that the Church should hand them over. They are too valuable in terms of spiritual presence, memory, heritage and excellence to make them museums without a fight.
Well, we agree on that.
Also, I'm interested you say they're valuable in monetary terms. That would discount one of Lep's objections. Any stats available to back that one up?
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
quote:
Originally posted by LydaRose:
quote:
Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
I concur with all above who marvel at the wonders of the Gothic arch. Our church is housed in a building with rather dumpy Norman arches, and has its own story to tell. However they do cost an arm and a leg to keep maintained and I think the problem with all these buildings is: are we actually being good stewards with our money when we could employ say another full time christian worker or feed and school a few hundred people in Africa with the money we spend maintaining them. We try to do both but struggle to find the balance
What springs to mind is the jar of expensive ungent lavished on Jesus' feet. Was it necessary, practical? Did it help the poor or gather more disciples? No. It was a statement of love in extravagance.
I think cathedrals are a tool for evangelism. Not in isolation, of course, but joined with the witness of thoughtful Christians. As people have mentioned, the unchurched visit cathedrals all the time. People who will run speedily from earnest proselytizers, I known to be seduced by a combination of beautiful surroundings, a quiet word of friendship, and time. Evangelism is not one-size-fits-all.
You can worship the builing rather than what it represents though second poem
Yeah, and I've known people who worship the rules and regs of the Bible without any evidence that I could see of the Spirit working in them- people with malicious spirits who drain the joy out of study and worship. And I knew a guy who was a hard drug dealer who was a pillar of his Bible church. And I've known people to go up to evangelical altar calls estatically only to drift away within weeks or months.
But obviously overwhelmingly evangelical churches give much support to their people old and new. But out of all the people proselytized by evangelicals many do decide, no. And of all the people who visit a cathedral, many- maybe most, will not inquire further about this thing called Christianity. Some may even consciously decide to reject the message while admiring the trappings. It happens.
So it just goes to show that conversion is not a simple matter because human beings are complex and conflicted.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Boopy
Shipmate
# 4738
|
Posted
I'm a Baptist,but love to visit my local cathedral when I can. It always seems very busy yet calm, full of people yet spacious, and steeped in the presence of God. I can light a candle, think, muse, or help my children with the 'family quiz' which is a history-and-religion trail round the cathedral - they loved it last time. There's a refectory and bookshop staffed by friendy volunteers, and ever-changing exhibitions by local community groups. I never come away unrefreshed and think the cathedral is doing a great job being welcoming and interesting for a large number of diverse people. Don't knock it!
Cathedrals are places of public sacred space in the way that small churches are not. They fulfil a different function from one's local church very often and can offer new perspectives or times of refreshment. And just because their services may not be overtly evangelistic does not mean they are not a witness. There's such a thing as an implicit message, and a place for reserved unspoken evangelism. I think cathedrals do a lot of that.
Posts: 1170 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And you can say "utter rubbish" all you like - but is your friend that you took with you to Kings a Christian today? And if so is it REALLY because of his impression of God from that building rather than an encounter with the living Lord Jesus?
If you don't look at King's College Chapel and have an encounter with the ever-living Lord Jesus in all his wonder and majesty then I have nothing but pity for you.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
Genuine question - any proof of this? As I said further up the thread. I've heard it said on more than one occaision that cathedrals are one of the few places where congregations have grown over the last 10 years. This may be rubbish, but I'm sure that if any one has access to the figures to discredit or back up the statement you will have, Spawn.
I don't have time to look up the statistics now, but yes the folks at the Church House statistics office have been getting excited about the slightly greater numbers attending Cathedral services. As far as I know there's been no in-depth analysis of what this amounts to.
quote:
What would "getting their act together" entail?
IME they're generally better attended than your average parish church. Again, no stats so I may be wrong.
On one level doing better at what they do now. Further to this, using the kudos they have as Cathedrals to do the ministry of city-centre churches better than anyone else. By that I mean the entre they have into all aspects of civic, business life. They ought to be burgeoning at the seams for lunchtime services. They ought to be packed to the rafters at lectures on ethics, principles in business etc. They ought to be making a huge difference to the community in terms of mission and charitable activity. They ought to be centres of religious education (some of them are already) for schools. They also ought to be powerful centres for drawing the diocese together. I don't think overall they score very highly. Many American Cathedrals without the same grand history do a great deal better.
[this next point is addressed to Lep] Their best practice is already very impressive. I know people who've been very touched by occasional services for the victims of road deaths, or services which have been held to celebrate Golden Wedding Anniversaries. They have prime opportunity to get non-churchgoers back into church, or young people into church for the first time and very often they're using their position to do just that. It's just that they can do more.
quote:
Also, I'm interested you say they're valuable in monetary terms. That would discount one of Lep's objections. Any stats available to back that one up?
No I wasn't making the point in monetary terms. If we were starting from scratch in purely monetary terms we wouldn't build cathedrals.
But this value, again to Lep, is one of the vital reasons for keeping Cathedrals for witness to the nation. What would the Church be saying by handing over Cathedrals let alone our beautiful parish churches. We would be saying Christianity has retreated, we're no longer in the public square engaging with everyone. It would be a scandal worldwide if we refused our duty of service to the nation to maintain its heritage. We would be reneging on our witness to this country.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I would like to interject that the diocese/people of the Anglican Cathedral in Montreal solved some of the problem of paying for maintenance by having the building jacked up so that a complete shopping mall could be inserted underneath, connected to the Metro system and other shopping/business complexes by a rabbit-warren of tunnels (approrpiate to the Arctic nature of Montreal) Thus Mammon literally as well as monetarily supports the church. This means there is a quiet place with a worshipful atmosphere with direct access from shoppers' heaven.
In other words, outreach potential as well as active worship, all paid for by the "teeming, er, thousands"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't have time to look up the statistics now, but yes the folks at the Church House statistics office have been getting excited about the slightly greater numbers attending Cathedral services. As far as I know there's been no in-depth analysis of what this amounts to.
You seem quite dismissive of something that seems to be a Good Thing. Any reason for that?
quote:
On one level doing better at what they do now.
...
[snipped list of ways in which cathedrals can improve on what they're doing]
...
So, in line with most other churches, they should do what they do, but do it better. No argument from me there. We can all do better.
quote:
No I wasn't making the point in monetary terms. If we were starting from scratch in purely monetary terms we wouldn't build cathedrals.
So you weren't. I've just reread your post. Bizarrely I think I read "memory" as "money". Must be the gin.
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Cathedrals were built ad majoram gloriam dei 'to the greater glory of God' (I think I've got my Latin correct) and therefore it seems to me getting rid of them actually says something theological and not something I think that we ought to be saying. Maybe we wouldn't chose to build them now for monetary reasons but is that because we've lost the sense of doing things ADMG* and become utilitarian in our approach? Do we side too much with Judas when he questions the extravagance of the woman pouring ointment over Jesu's feet?
God was at work in those who built the cathedrals and continues to be at work today in and through them. The Cathedrals I know have a number of services a week (many more than 8 - although that's more than most churches). My parents have chosen to go to their local Cathedral rather than their very evangelical parish church for various reasons and it has a thriving congregation and Sunday School etc. Also, I've been to some amazing diocesan services at Cathedrals. In Liverpool, there is the biennial procession of witness at Pentecost between the Cathedrals.
Lep, you wonder about the value of the money spent on Cathedrals, I worry about value the money spent on the recent large scale mission at this university. I'm not sure how many converts they got and I fear that at least as many were pushed further away. Friends of mine have admitted to being scared of the CU and if Christianity means being like them not wanting to know. Different things attract different people, can we at least agree on that?
*Why does my brain remember the initials in the order ADMG but remember the words in the order that would give AMGD?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Thank you for the reply, Leprechaun. FWIW, in earlier years, I have sat in some Cathedrals and heard piss-poor preaching and had a good laugh at the preacher, wondering why he couldn't have preached the gospel 'properly'. My only contact with Cathedral ministry then was the occasional visit as a tourist, and the odd (very odd to me!) service. So I do have some sympathy with your view, honestly!
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Just to let you know. I am not an Anglican now. But I used to work for a large Anglican church within a stone's throw of a cathedral. I went to a university in which a cathedral was a university building. I now help to run a church plant within a stone's throw of 2 cathedrals (which probably gives away where it is), and before we set up I did actually do quite a bit of looking in to what they did in the area.
At my university, the cathedral held poorly attended inaccessible services, for the benefit ISTM for the choir and a few fellows only. This was while students, young people, the homeless and the old flocked to two evangelical churches across the road.
At least some of the money given by members of those churches went towards the upkeep of the white elephant in the pretty cloister.
So because, in your opinion and maybe also in truth, a cathedral you know of isn't working up to capacity, this means all cathedral communities should disband? Anecdotal evidence is always interesting and usually proves a point, but in this case it only proves the point that in your opinion one cathedral isn't doing the job you think it should be doing. No doubt there are others. Do they cancel the effective ones out?
I'm impressed, btw - and while we're into anecdotes - that the two evangelical churches attracted the homeless and the old. In one particular Cathedral city I know, the homeless went to the Cathedral - not usually for worship it has to be said but for the boilers, which they would lie beside, during the day, all the time the Cathedral was open. Also, cadging food off the cathedral staff. The most 'successful' evangelical church in the city, otoh, a very lively place was peopled conspicuously by the young, professional and well-off. But I don't think any the worse of that church, nevertheless !
quote:
When I worked for a church, the nearest thing the cathedral did to an evangelistic event was to have J John speaking on the 10 commandments, which quite frankly I would rather chew my arm off than take a non-Christian to hear.
I don't know how I can keep repeating what I and others have said already without sending people to sleep but: 'evangelistic events' aren't the be-all and end-all of evangelism within the church. If one knows nothing about the pastoral mission and ministry of a specific congregation, making any comment about how effective their witness is to Christ carries little weight.
quote:
One of the cathedrals I work near now sponges off the government agency I work for for the upkeep of its poor design, holds 8 services in a week, which according to its own report 250 people attend altogether, and, by the record of the collection they give something like 25p each to its upkeep. I have been to services in the other, and it was very beautiful choral music, but the speaker made no mention of Jesus.
I hope and pray this is not the case for every cathedral in the country,
You no longer have to hope and pray, Leprechaun. You can read this thread and see for a fact it isn't the case. I don't want to be rude, but are you reading and believing what people are posting here? Or maybe you think people are inventing their replies just to annoy you and be contradictory?
quote:
but my experience of cathedrals is that they are very beautiful and historic centres for culture. Nothing more.
Okay, so in your experience God can't be seen in the faith, lives and work of a Cathedral community. So you only manage to see the building without becoming conscious of the rest of the ice-berg beneath the 'tip'. So maybe in time your experience will widen to include other people's experiences, such as the ones expressed on this thread, as being equally as valid as yours in some way. Particularly those who have told you explicitly why Cathedrals are important and what they're for - just as you asked. (So we should all hope to live so long !)
quote:
In fact, nearly all my friends at university went to visit the cathedral at some point, and none ever had the response of considering the person of Jesus, and his claim on their life.
And I, on the other hand have many, many friends who have been touched by God, who have heard, seen and felt the gospel powerfully witnessed to in Cathedral life and worship. So once again, do your friends' negative experiences cancel out the good God has done through my friends' positive experiences? Does your cathedral anecdote win over my cathedral anecdote?
quote:
I am glad that there are those who are helped by the ministry of cathedrals. I have been encouraged to find out about them on this thread. But while "I don't like them" is not an argument for their closing "A very small minority of people are helped by them" is not a good enough argument,IMO, for keeping them open when the C of E is obviously in such financial dire straits.
By that logic, all churches should then be closed, as a very small minority of people go to church across the country. How big is the population of the town you live in, Lep? Calculate the percentage that attend the church you're involved with - and then, by your own lights, get the 'For Sale' signs out. When are we ever going to get away from these silly number games.
quote:
At Christmas I received the one and only correspondence I have ever had from my parish church. It made no mention of God, and asked for money (not knowing anything about me) for the church roof.
Suitably damning of the local parish church. I'm sure it provided much opportunity for righteous ire and the, no doubt, reluctant condemnation of a group of people you don't know (apart from the Treasurer who was after your money ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ). If you're offended, write and complain. Otherwise, throw it in the bin and move on. But the relevance of that to this thread is what?
quote:
If this is the case, and, ISTM cathedral style worship does very little, if anything to bring committed Christians into the church, then I have no problem selling the cathedrals to museum hood, and the congregation meeting in a school hall, so that all the non-Christians in my street don't have to get a one off begging letter from our church that makes no effort to share the Gospel.
Of course you would have no problem in breaking up entire worshipping communities to satisfy your interesting theology. Perhaps if you could see beyond the building to the people; or beyond the event of worship to the effect on people's lives throughout the week, you would, however. But presently, it seems, you don't know the community involved, you just see some architecture and a worship style that personally does nothing for you.
You're entitled to your belief that the people involved with Cathedrals aren't as good Christians as the ones in the busting at the seams churches of other denominations; you're entitled to believe their music, style of worship, theology etc, are godless and ineffective.
You're even entitled to hold the opinion that they should be worshipping where you think they should be worshipping, singing the music you think they should be singing, and conducting their church business in a way that you personally approve of. Although, entitlement to an opinion is no qualification of that opinion. And to me it just comes across as pure judgementalism based on a lack of knowledge and some bad experiences.
quote:
You will note in my OP, I was asking for reasons why I shouldn't take this view. I want to be convinced.
Then it'll be useful for you to hear that you come across as someone, who far from wanting to be convinced, has got a real problem with how Church of England worshippers manage their finance and fabric, and enable their particular tradition of worship. It really, really seems to matter to you for some reason.
quote:
But, as I have said " a few of us like pretty stained glass and choral music under gothic arches" is not good enough. Some people have told encouraging stories about how the ministry of cathedrals has helped bring them to Christ. I am glad. But my question is still - is this model of ministry, which, compared to so many other models seems numerically insignificant, one that the church should be subsidising considering its manifest failure to reach today's culture, and its obviously over stretched resources?
'Manifest failure'? Oh, you mean according to your ideas of what they should be doing. Again, the Church as a whole (and I would suggest that might just include your own) generally fails to appeal to secularist society if numbers are anything to go by - and I appreciate that for some people statistics are, in fact, everything to go by.
Posters on this thread I think have fairly conclusively proved that there is still a place for Cathedral ministry, where it is effectively done. And intelligently questioning the priority of financial resources on buildings is needful and sensible. For example, I think that cathedrals do need to somehow 'justify' the expense that they are to their people, and other organizations which support them; but I also believe that many, if not most, Cathedrals actually do this.
I don't question your right to be outraged that people who worship in cathedrals are happy to fundraise for the building and upkeep. Or even that you seem to have a problem with how Anglicans worship in cathedrals, or exist as Christian communities focused on the cathedral. All of us approach the thing that is antipathetic to us with a certain uncharitableness, it's only natural.
However, there has been some good apologetic here for why Cathedrals - both community and building - can be, and in many cases are, a good thing. I still haven't seen anything equally as convincing from the other side of the argument. Sorry.
[ 10. May 2004, 23:43: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Cathedrals were built ad majoram gloriam dei 'to the greater glory of God' (I think I've got my Latin correct)
Almost, my dear. Ad majorem gloriam Dei would be more like it. The comparative degree of most adjectives uses what we pendants call the third declension.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Cathedrals were built ad majoram gloriam dei 'to the greater glory of God' (I think I've got my Latin correct)
Almost, my dear. Ad majorem gloriam Dei would be more like it. The comparative degree of most adjectives uses what we pendants call the third declension.
And anyway it's usually ordered "Ad majorem Dei gloriam". So there.
Anselmina, your last post was gloriously to the point.
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Without wishing to be pedantic, just what is Amanda pendant from?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Without wishing to be pedantic, just what is Amanda pendant from?
Depends.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
So posting in the way you actually talk is smug now, is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Just because hardly anyone ever comes to faith in a church meeting anywhere (and I mean anywhere - cathedral, parish church or New Covenant Church meeting in a school hall like the one one of my lodgers goes to) anymore, it doesn't mean that its superfluous.
Churches in which hardly anyone comes to faith - die. I am not suggesting that people have to come to faith in a church meeting - although in my experience many people do - but the related activities of that church have to draw people into faith. Churches have to be open and supportive of non-believers, fringe believers or new believers - not just for the cognoscenti.
I'm not saying that they should be for the cognoscenti, and you're totally failing to get my point here.
I'll put it in short sentences.
1. People do not come to faith in church services much. It's rare and it's getting rarer. Your experience is baffling and totally counter to my experience and the experience of everyone I know (unless you go to one of the few evangelical SuperChurches that are out there - HTB, All Souls Langham Place, etc - which are very much exceptions to the obvious rule. Or your church is a freak).
2. This DOES NOT EQUAL people not coming to faith through churches. Yes, of course they come to faith through churches. People come to faith through the witness of churches and individual Christians, as expressed outside of the service. I'd have thought that you of all people would realise that.
[ 11. May 2004, 07:53: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I'm not saying that they should be for the cognoscenti, and you're totally failing to get my point here.
I'll put it in short sentences.
I don't think I'm failing to get the point and I can do without being patronised. You were underplaying the evangelistic element in church services and to my mind separating unhelpfully aspects of the Christian life. But on the other hand, I don't think our views are diametrically opposed.
quote:
1. People do not come to faith in church services much. It's rare and it's getting rarer. Your experience is baffling and totally counter to my experience and the experience of everyone I know (unless you go to one of the few evangelical SuperChurches that are out there - HTB, All Souls Langham Place, etc - which are very much exceptions to the obvious rule. Or your church is a freak).
2. This DOES NOT EQUAL people not coming to faith through churches. Yes, of course they come to faith through churches. People come to faith through the witness of churches and individual Christians, as expressed outside of the service. I'd have thought that you of all people would realise that.
Let's agree first of all that becoming a disciple of Christ isn't necessarily about a Damascus experience, but is more normally a process of change and acceptance and being accepted. You and I can probably also agree that the overwhelming experience of conversion these days is that of belonging before believing in Jesus and following him. This is true of a number of people close to me and some of those have had powerful spiritual experiences which were lifechanging in Church. This happened for the people I am talking about more normally in charismatic worship, but in one case when they were being confirmed and in two other cases through attending Cathedral evensong (one of whom felt called also to ministry at the same time).
I happen to think that churches of every complexion should revisit their prejudices against bringing out an evangelistic element in their church services. Charismatic churches have helpfully pioneered times of ministry during and at the end of services for people to be prayed with and for and have hands laid on them for healing. Many evangelical churches, mainly of the non-conformist variety these days still invite people to make decisions during services. There is nothing wrong with these practices, in fact, any church with a fringe should be explicitly inviting people in a non-pressurised way into an encounter with Jesus through preaching and the sacraments.
[ 11. May 2004, 08:29: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Anselmina,
Phew - epic!
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
In one particular Cathedral city I know, the homeless went to the Cathedral - not usually for worship it has to be said but for the boilers, which they would lie beside, during the day, all the time the Cathedral was open. Also, cadging food off the cathedral staff. The most 'successful' evangelical church in the city, otoh, a very lively place was peopled conspicuously by the young, professional and well-off. But I don't think any the worse of that church, nevertheless !
I really am glad to hear that is the case. Nevertheless, a very expensive, and not exactly user friendly homeless shelter?
quote:
I don't know how I can keep repeating what I and others have said already without sending people to sleep but: 'evangelistic events' aren't the be-all and end-all of evangelism within the church. If one knows nothing about the pastoral mission and ministry of a specific congregation, making any comment about how effective their witness is to Christ carries little weight.
But Anselmina, they are something, if not everything. If the only attempt a church makes at "proclamation" out reach are tokenistic, when as many have said here, non-Christians flock through the door on a day by day basis and hear nothing from the guides about Jesus, the cross or trusting him, then is it not fair to question what this enormous edifice is for? The fact is for 90% of visitors to the cathedral, it was a museum, and the building staff seemed to think it was ok that having all these people in the building and not telling them about Jesus, as long as money was being raised for the next roof reconstruction or whatever. You have told me this is merely anecdotal evidence, but I do like culture, I like cathedrals. I go and sit in the one near my house regularly. But none I have ever been to seem to be doing any job effectively of spreading the message of Jesus, and I could just as easily go and sit in it if it was a museum. Except then it would be free.
quote:
So maybe in time your experience will widen to include other people's experiences, such as the ones expressed on this thread, as being equally as valid as yours in some way. Particularly those who have told you explicitly why Cathedrals are important and what they're for - just as you asked. (So we should all hope to live so long !)
Anselmina, I HAVE read and considered what people have said about cathedrals here. I understand what they are SUPPOSED to be for. I even see that, on some rare occasions they do what they are designed to do. Praise God. My point is that they are a very expensive precious way of doing it, aimed at, ISTM an ever decreasing class of people who are interested in architecture, art and choral music. I am not saying they should all be bulldozed. I am not even saying that their congregations should be disbanded and sent to easier to run churches. I am saying I see no reason why the church should continue to use its vastly overstretched resources to fund the interests of a small group of people who are largely already Christians. Now, you have suggested that cathedrals do make a financial case for themselves. That is certainly not true of the ones I have lived near, or indeed the one my agency has just given 30 million pounds to. If that is not the case, then there needs to be some reason more than "some people find it helpful", or "the church has a responsibility to protect heritage" when the are a million more cost effective ways of the church fulfilling its many ministries.
That's where the rubber hits the road with this:
quote:
Calculate the percentage that attend the church you're involved with - and then, by your own lights, get the 'For Sale' signs out. When are we ever going to get away from these silly number games.
If something is very expensive, and fails to pay for itself, then other models of it functioning have to be considered. So if my church was costing more to run than it could collect, I would close it down. The Charity Commissioners would probably do it for me in fact.
Hence my comment about my parish church - if the C of E is so short of money that it needs to compromise its witness by asking people who have no church connection for money, then it needs to save money somewhere. Cathedrals may be a place where it can do that. (and, as I have said, I am ready to stand corrected).
quote:
Then it'll be useful for you to hear that you come across as someone, who far from wanting to be convinced, has got a real problem with how Church of England worshippers manage their finance and fabric, and enable their particular tradition of worship. It really, really seems to matter to you for some reason.
It matters to me that people's impression of "the church" is of a national cultural centre/begging bowl. It matters to me very much.
quote:
for example, I think that cathedrals do need to somehow 'justify' the expense that they are to their people, and other organizations which support them; but I also believe that many, if not most, Cathedrals actually do this.
If this is true, that most Cathedrals are making an effort to reach out to their community AND are not a financial drain on the church as a whole, and as such are an effective ministry model, then I have absolutely no problem with them. This was the case to be made that I was looking for. But is there any HARD evidence, apart from, as Spawn says, a small growth in attendance?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think I'm failing to get the point and I can do without being patronised.
You don't patronise me, I don't patronise you back. If you ask to be patronised, you get patronised. You want to argue about my attitude further or give me more attitude, you know where the Hell board is.
quote:
Let's agree first of all that becoming a disciple of Christ isn't necessarily about a Damascus experience, but is more normally a process of change and acceptance and being accepted.
With you there.
Although, FWIW, I had a Damascus experience. In an Indian restaurant.
quote:
You and I can probably also agree that the overwhelming experience of conversion these days is that of belonging before believing in Jesus and following him.
Yep. And this is why things like Alpha (and the various strategies that have sprung up in its wake) are so valuable.
No matter what people might think of the actual Alpha course (in the one I helped lead, people spent most of the time going, "but it's not that simple"), the style is dead right. People belong first, they are heard, they are discoursed with.
This is a Good Thing. But you have to belong first. Gone are the days where you could expect people to walk in and understand what the hell it was about. Even the basic stuff - like the very act of standing up and singing together - is alien to most normal people under the age of 40.
quote:
I happen to think that churches of every complexion should revisit their prejudices against bringing out an evangelistic element in their church services.
Problem is, I go to an evangelical Baptist church where we have regular "friends" services. They don't work. See my comment above. They still maintain the basic assumptions of a church service - we sing, people pray, there's a sermon.
But then, if these things weren't there, would it be a church service? The leaders of my church say no.
The fact is, it doesn't matter what the style of worship is, people who aren't "churched" don't get it. To most people, a charismatic praisefest is just as confusing and alien as a Non-Communicating High Mass.
When people say "rubbish! People understand the Anglo-Catholic style" or "people find it easier to get into choruses", what they're actually saying is "I can't understand how people don't find my favoured style of worship as easy to comprehend as I do".
The word "relevance" gets bandied about a lot, and often gets a bad press (as people seem to think that those who want "relevant" services want choruses and charismatic worship), but the fact of the matter is that a church service, the Biblically ordained act of meeting together as Christians in communal worship, which is essential to our joint witness because it's where we are fed.
Now I'm not saying that church services shouldn't proclaim Jesus - it's what we do in communion after all - but I'm saying that services which arte for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Problem is, I go to an evangelical Baptist church where we have regular "friends" services. They don't work. See my comment above. They still maintain the basic assumptions of a church service - we sing, people pray, there's a sermon.
Now I'm not saying that church services shouldn't proclaim Jesus - it's what we do in communion after all - but I'm saying that services which arte for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.
Not a rant about cathedrals this time. But I see the type of services you talk about Wood as part of encouraging belonging and believing. So we run an Alpha equivalent at someone's house, food, chat, video, questions, thoughts etc. But we also do "guest services" which do "preach for a response" as such. But they are still about belonging, by saying to people - "this is the way we do things round here, join in if you feel able, don't if you don't". Its just like a normal service, but with more space for people to sit at the back with coffee if they want, and with everything we do being explained. Some people have become Christians in those services, but its been part of a longer process.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
to fund the interests of a small group of people who are largely already Christians.
You don't think the church should be ministering to Christians? Have you read the New Testament?
You've been accused previously on this thread of treating Christianity as a contagious disease: get "saved", go "save" other people. Is Christianity just a ticket to heaven, entirely irrelevant to our earthly life? Apart from your complete dismissal of the many people who have posted here about the place of cathedrals in coming to Christ as part of an "insignificant" minority, you have seem to have completely failed to engage with the fact that "winning converts" is not the only part of the Church's mission.
So, in your view, what is the earthly good of Christianity? (and yes, I mean all those words literally).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
The fact is for 90% of visitors to the cathedral, it was a museum, and the building staff seemed to think it was ok that having all these people in the building and not telling them about Jesus
Leprechaun: I repeat what I and others have said - A cathedral is built to the glory of God. Every leaflet describing a cathedral I have ever seen says this, or something like it, somewhere. There are usually people on the door to hand out such leaflets and welcome people. Mention is also made of how the cathedral has been a pace of worship for X-hundered years. Service times are prominently displayed.
How is this not talking about God?
If every cathedral greeter said "Hello, welcome to Evangelicaltown cathedral. Have you accepted Christ as your personal savoiur?" I would probably walk straight out, I guess most people would never even step inside.
Can you even contemplate that allowing people to see a cathedral for themselves, and come to their own conclusions and ask their own questions if they wish to can be good evangelism?
To my mind this is the best evangelism - allowing people to experience God without forcing it down their throats or insulting their intelligence.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I see the type of services you talk about Wood as part of encouraging belonging and believing.
Believing, perhaps. Belonging, no chance. They still operate on the basic assumption that people are going to "get" the entire concept of a church service.
quote:
But they are still about belonging, by saying to people - "this is the way we do things round here, join in if you feel able, don't if you don't".
Do you really think that's what they say? Really?
It's been ten years since I converted to Christianity, but I still very clearly remember what it was like not to be a Christian. I have friends who have nothing to do with church to keep me on the planet.
What the people I know hear from these things is more along the lines of "join us. Because you want to join us. Because we're not a bunch of weirdoes, oh no," while at the same time singing songs, talking to someone who isn't (apparently) there.
quote:
Its just like a normal service, but with more space for people to sit at the back with coffee if they want, and with everything we do being explained. Some people have become Christians in those services, but its been part of a longer process.
It's that last sentence that gets me - "it's been part of a longer process". Am I right in thinking that what you mean is, they've had to be acclimated to this whole church service thing as part of the process? Or what?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
You don't patronise me, I don't patronise you back. If you ask to be patronised, you get patronised. You want to argue about my attitude further or give me more attitude, you know where the Hell board is.
Wood let's agree to leave this personal crap out of it. I have no intention of calling you to Hell and I don't think anything I've said has indicated that I want to do that.
quote:
The fact is, it doesn't matter what the style of worship is, people who aren't "churched" don't get it. To most people, a charismatic praisefest is just as confusing and alien as a Non-Communicating High Mass.
When people say "rubbish! People understand the Anglo-Catholic style" or "people find it easier to get into choruses", what they're actually saying is "I can't understand how people don't find my favoured style of worship as easy to comprehend as I do".
Your statements are overgeneralised. You seem to be suggesting that overtly evangelistic church services are aimed at recruiting the unchurched. I don't think so, they are aimed at the fringe, at drawing people into deeper commitment, or those who are seeking spiritually. That implies a prior interest and often some kind of familiarity with churchy things. There remain large numbers who've been to church in childhood, or at least had contact. Significant numbers of people dropped out of Sunday School and many more had familiarity with worship as a result of going to a church primary school. On the other hand, I probably agree with you that for the entirely unchurched, a church service is not necessarily going to be the best starting point for the 'process'.
quote:
Now I'm not saying that church services shouldn't proclaim Jesus - it's what we do in communion after all - but I'm saying that services which arte for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.
Again an overgeneralised statement which is patently untrue in the experience of other Christians. This is back to the level of anecdotal experience and whether my anecdote trumps yours. My belief is that there are many ways for people to come to faith and overtly evangelistic church services can be part of the process - and a major part for some people.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
Apart from your complete dismissal of the many people who have posted here about the place of cathedrals in coming to Christ as part of an "insignificant" minority, you have seem to have completely failed to engage with the fact that "winning converts" is not the only part of the Church's mission.
So, in your view, what is the earthly good of Christianity? (and yes, I mean all those words literally).
I never said "insignificant". I said "small, and using a lot of resource". If it is small it doesn't stop it being significant. Neither does it stop it being expensive.
What is the earthly good of Christianity - to glorify God. Which is most effectively (but not exclusively) done through people coming to know and trust Jesus, but also through displays of his character in the life of his people. This, ISTM is primarily to do with love, rather than architecture.
Tell me this. And sorry if you feel you have answered this already, I have re read the thread but can't see it - but what ACTUAL part of the church's mission do cathedrals effectively (rather than as a by-product) contribute to, that could not be done in a better way?
Corpus - I am by no means suggesting that people should be challenged to accept Jesus there and then on the doorstep. But there is imagery and wording all over cathedrals that points to the Gospel (altar, Bibles, pictures of Jesus and apostles ministry) in a much less anodyne way than "this is for the glory of God". I have never yet been on a cathedral tour where this was explained. And the sad fact is, that most of our unchurched nation do not pick it up just by looking.
(I have been on a tour of an historical church where it was all clearly and respectfully explained, and it was excellent -I'd happily pay money out of my own pocket to keep that one going)
[Edited for quote UBB.]
[ 11. May 2004, 10:40: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
