|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Bridges and new congregations
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
/Tangent alert/ quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
My experience in BUGB/BUW churches is that the open/closed communion question has evolved from limited to open, although not uniformly, since each congregation is able to set its own policy.
While I think that is generally true, some congregations which meet in older buildings are in fact legally constrained by their Trust Deeds which stipulate "closed Communion". (This is not "Church law" but the law of the land).
There are three options open to them:
- act illegally and hope no-one notices or mounts a challenge; BUGB would not recommend this!
- move out of the building - the Trust Deeds apply to it and not the congregation;
- seek an Act of Parliament to get the Trust Deed changed - expensive.
Sounds silly but it's true! (I was on the Working Party that studied and revised Baptist Trust Deeds some years ago).
/Tangent ends/
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
Whilst not hankering for a return to the days of 'if you haven't been dunked, don't even ask', I do think that the open table has made people take the ordinance a lot less seriously than in the past.
Do you think this is the price to be paid for building bridges to the community?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan
I am afraid option 1 is normal course, unless there is a legal challenge. You have heard about the congregation that in 1972 voted to come into the URC and then found out that it was Baptist in its Trust Deeds!
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
No, I didn't know about that - but I can believe it!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
Whilst not hankering for a return to the days of 'if you haven't been dunked, don't even ask', I do think that the open table has made people take the ordinance a lot less seriously than in the past.
I see your point, but even an Open Table can be "fenced" by the person leading the service.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think this is the price to be paid for building bridges to the community?
I wonder whether there is an implication of superiority where only an elect may receive communion. If we're to take Jesus seriously and include marginalised people, how can there be a place for actually marginalising some?
Do priests who preside over 'closed' communion vet everyone regularly, to make sure their standards haven't slipped and that they are worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ?
I personally prefer the idea of an open table in which each individual takes responsibility for his own decision when participating. I don't think it is taken any less seriously where it is made available to all who have been baptised. It's an important bridge imv.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you think this is the price to be paid for building bridges to the community?
I wonder whether there is an implication of superiority where only an elect may receive communion. If we're to take Jesus seriously and include marginalised people, how can there be a place for actually marginalising some?
Do priests who preside over 'closed' communion vet everyone regularly, to make sure their standards haven't slipped and that they are worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ?
It is normally couched in the language of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 and it is seen that there is a risk to people taking communion without being properly prepared coming under judgement. In other words it is an act of Spiritual Health and Safety.
Not priest personally but if you talking a full closed communion then you have Communion Season and elders as part of it do the examination. My home congregation still keeps the visits though they are now pastoral and no one would ever be barred from communion at one.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Do priests who preside over 'closed' communion vet everyone regularly, to make sure their standards haven't slipped and that they are worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ?
Does the RCC do 'vetting'? There seems to be an assumption that any unknown person who presents themselves for Communion is RC. But with a mass of smaller Protestant denominations with competing theologies it's less easy to assume that an unknown visitor shares the same theological perspective.
The strictest churches do tend to vet their own members carefully. They have particular standards of faith and behaviour for those who want to belong, so they have to maintain those standards carefully. Perhaps this desire to control internal conditions is one reason why these churches tend not to have Communion very often; it's a space of theological conflict and autonomy, and they want to minimise those things.
As a visitor to churches, it's obviously less stressful for me if I can just take Communion without anyone paying too much attention. But this kind of attitude only works in the mainstream churches, where the barriers for participation and theological uniformity are low. I wouldn't have such expectations elsewhere.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think those are good points, SvitlanaV2.
I suspect that were you or I or any other non-RC to roll up at an RC church where we weren't known on Sunday then we'd be admitted to receive with no questions asked ...
I wouldn't do that though, as it wouldn't be fair on them.
I don't think that the practice of closed communion in either the RC or Orthodox Churches is intended to be a comment on the spiritual state of non-RCs or Orthodox - so Raptor Eye's comment about whether those who preside in such Churches take care to examine themselves is a bit of an irrelevance ...
They are all meant to examine themselves. The fact that he or I wouldn't be admitted to communion at either an RC or Orthodox Church isn't a way of them saying that they are 'better' Christians than we are - simply that they are ordered and affiliated in what they believe to be the right way and we aren't ...
It's not meant to be a value judgement on the state of our souls nor the validity of our faith.
Most RCs and Orthodox I know would fully accept that there are Methodists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Baptists or whatever else who might be 'better Christians' than they are - it's only that we are not fully affiliated with them in an organisational, institutional or theological sense.
To be honest, I find their view far more understandable than that of diddy little Protestant groups and congregations who practise a closed-table approach ...
That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think those are good points, SvitlanaV2.
I suspect that were you or I or any other non-RC to roll up at an RC church where we weren't known on Sunday then we'd be admitted to receive with no questions asked ...
I wouldn't do that though, as it wouldn't be fair on them.
I don't think that the practice of closed communion in either the RC or Orthodox Churches is intended to be a comment on the spiritual state of non-RCs or Orthodox - so Raptor Eye's comment about whether those who preside in such Churches take care to examine themselves is a bit of an irrelevance ...
They are all meant to examine themselves. The fact that he or I wouldn't be admitted to communion at either an RC or Orthodox Church isn't a way of them saying that they are 'better' Christians than we are - simply that they are ordered and affiliated in what they believe to be the right way and we aren't ...
It's not meant to be a value judgement on the state of our souls nor the validity of our faith.
Most RCs and Orthodox I know would fully accept that there are Methodists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Baptists or whatever else who might be 'better Christians' than they are - it's only that we are not fully affiliated with them in an organisational, institutional or theological sense.
To be honest, I find their view far more understandable than that of diddy little Protestant groups and congregations who practise a closed-table approach ...
That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Yes, I agree with all of this. If you turn up as a non-RC at an RC church where you are not known, you would be able to receive with no questions asked - usually anyway. Nobody does a test to see if you're actually RC! Given my own Eucharistic theology, I could consider myself to have the 'right' to receive from an unknowing priest, but that's not a right I want. It's about community and identity, not RCs thinking they are better Christians or even that it's about non-RCs going to Hell.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed ...
Having said all that, though, I can understand certain Protestant congregations - in Baptist or URC circles, say - wanting to reserve or restrict communion to people deemed to be serious enough about their faith - however that is assessed ...
What I don't quite 'get' is why they might want to restrict communion purely to members of their own outfit ... rather than, say, to visitors from other Protestant traditions or denominations.
I s'pose it does betoken a stronger ecclesiology than tends to exist across Protestantism in general ...
I think it's wrong to suggest - as some do - that Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular - don't have an ecclesiology ... but generally speaking it is a fairly 'weak' one.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Hostly tippet ON
Please recall - the question of 'open' vs 'closed' Communion is a Dead Horse. I appreciate that it relates to what is offered to visitors when they are welcomed so is related to the topic. However, the current tangent is going into the Closed Communion issue full-scale. I would suggest that anyone wishing to pursue it further should start a thread down there...
Your cooperation is as ever appreciated!
Hostly tippet OFF
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
TBH, I'm not terribly fussed about what different churches do about Communion, and I'm not convinced that open v. closed Communion is a big issue when it comes to community bridge-building. I've never seen it mentioned in any of the texts I've read about local evangelism or community engagement. I don't know how Fresh Expressions leaders deal with it.
[ 16. February 2014, 23:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) My bad for leading the topic astray, sorry hosts.
I agree, Svitlana, it's unlikely to be an issue with total newcomers. The barriers there are perhaps more likely to do with religious language and/or erroneous perceptions of religion. It would be interesting to hear more from those 'on the front line'.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
It pisses me off that at my own wedding I was not allowed to receive communion in a RC church. On the other hand, my father in law was able to take communion at our church when he came to the baptism of our baby.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
It pisses me off that at my own wedding I was not allowed to receive communion in a RC church. On the other hand, my father in law was able to take communion at our church when he came to the baptism of our baby.
Surely non-Catholics are not able to marry in an RC church anyway? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Judging from Trouty's post, Watson, I would deduce that Mrs Trouty is a Catholic and Trouty is not. Hence the bit about the father in law receiving at the Baptism.
I thought one had to give undertakings, though, to bring up the offspring as RCs.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Non Catholics,if they are baptised,are able to marry a Catholic in an RC church.
If neither of the couple are Catholic it would be unusual for them to seek to marry in a Catholic church and indeed why would they want to ? The Catholic church is not there to provide a pretty backdrop to a non religious couple.
On occasions if the non Catholic partner claims to share the eucharist faith of the Catholic partner, though unable to share the fullness of the Catholic faith,they may be admitted to Commun ion.If they don't share the faith what is the point of going to Communion ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed ...
Having said all that, though, I can understand certain Protestant congregations - in Baptist or URC circles, say - wanting to reserve or restrict communion to people deemed to be serious enough about their faith - however that is assessed ...
What I don't quite 'get' is why they might want to restrict communion purely to members of their own outfit ... rather than, say, to visitors from other Protestant traditions or denominations.
I s'pose it does betoken a stronger ecclesiology than tends to exist across Protestantism in general ...
Yes. There is an element in Baptist ecclesiology which stresses the primacy of the local congregation. I have even heard a Baptist friend (for whom I have the greatest respect) say that there is no such thing as the universal church - there will be a universal church at the Parousia, but the idea that it exists at the moment (he said) is an example of over-realised eschatology.
So Communion then becomes the expression of the unity of the local assembly. By this logic visitors should not communicate because they are not part of the local church - they should communicate at their own church where they are "really" part of the body.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, this is the idea of being part of a "covenanted community" together.
And "local" always trumps "universal" in Baptist (or, more correctly, congregationalist) ecclesiology.
[ 17. February 2014, 17:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Re. the lack of welcome in many RC churches,which would be exactly the same in any Orthodox church,it is simply assumed that those who have come to Mass have come to worship God and to participate in the liturgy.
It is absolutely wrong however to say that there is no sense of community.Everyone ( or it is assumed as such ) knows why they are there.They are an integral part of the Catholic community,participating in a communal celebration of the eucharist.No more needs to be said.
Outside of church Catholics,like many other small groups in society do know one another and are usually very much aware of who is Catholic and who is not.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
It pisses me off that at my own wedding I was not allowed to receive communion in a RC church. On the other hand, my father in law was able to take communion at our church when he came to the baptism of our baby.
Surely non-Catholics are not able to marry in an RC church anyway?
Yes they are if the other partner is Catholic. The 'undertaking' to bring up any child/ren as Catholic only applies to the RC partner and is not binding (legally or morally) on the non-Catholic. The days of the non-Catholic signing commitments to allow children to become Catholic are in the past. (No aspersions upon the Catholic Church are meant or implied)
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
[Hint ... Aren't we getting rather off the point of this thread? I suggest that we may be on a trip towards that well-known knacker's yard ...]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Below the Lansker
Shipmate
# 17297
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
Whilst not hankering for a return to the days of 'if you haven't been dunked, don't even ask', I do think that the open table has made people take the ordinance a lot less seriously than in the past.
Do you think this is the price to be paid for building bridges to the community?
Up to a point, I think it is - and moving the debate away from closed/open communion and back to the general question of how much do you lose (if indeed you lose anything at all) by making worship more accessible to those who have never experienced it, it's a question that all churches have to face. We're living in a culture now where Biblical literacy is virtually non-existent outside the church (and often not strikingly brilliant within) and where familiarity with what goes on in Christian worship (of whatever flavour) in society in general has similarly been obliterated. Even here in rural Wales, we can't assume that someone walking into chapel on Sunday will know what to expect, much less feel at home taking part in it. On the other hand, is there any reason why they should? Why should worship be immediately accessible and understandable to someone with no knowledge or experience of the faith - it should perhaps be alien in some way (though not deliberately off-putting or excluding).
Posts: 144 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think that's a good point, Below The Lansker.
I've always maintained here that whatever flavour of church we're talking about people are 'socialised' into it.
Even with the more apparently 'accessible' forms of church this still applies.
Back in the day it must have taken me a good 6 months or so to acclimatise to what has now become fairly bog-standard evangelical charismatic worship styles ... and I'm not sure I ever fully acclimatised to some extent ... at least, not to the more 'outer reaches' elements of that tradition ...
Sure, a sense of welcome and a sense of community are important - and that applies right across the board. But the idea that there's some kind of join-the-dots or Janet and John easy-primer form of worship and church life that people slot into straight away without any process of acclimatisation is bogus, it seems to me ...
Sure, some forms of church-life are going to be easier for some people to slot into than others - but by the same token what will 'feel' right to some won't to others - at least not immediately.
There's a sense of 'intentionality' and a process of becoming and belonging involved in every instance - irrespective of whether we are waving thuribles around or whether we are singing with guitars or all sitting in a circle in complete silence.
The same principle applies.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Below the Lansker:
Why should worship be immediately accessible and understandable to someone with no knowledge or experience of the faith - it should perhaps be alien in some way (though not deliberately off-putting or excluding).
I'd approach this from the point of view that our task, our commission from God is to make disciples. By which I mean, helping people to become committed followers of Jesus.
Then I'd look at all these questions about incorporating people into church life through that lens; is each aspect of what happens in our church services contributing to people becoming followers of Jesus or is it getting in the way?
So we shouldn't, for example, dilute the self-sacrificial message of the Gospel because that would give people a false impression of what following Jesus means; on the other hand we should make sure the language used in our church practices is understandable by those who are there, otherwise people might well be left confused, frustrated and disengaged.
Obviously it's no simple task to weigh up the disciple-making impact of our church practices, but I think it's a good approach to take...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Below the Lansker
What's interesting is that although almost all churches claim to want to draw new people in, they rarely consider the subtle theological changes - and consequently the ritualistic changes - that the process of expansion brings with it. I think this is a challenge that Christianity has always had to deal with.
While churchleaders hope to socialise outsiders into the ways of the church, the outsiders are also socialising the church into their ways. There often seems to be a process of mutual influence going on. At the denominational level this seems to be especially apparent in the history of Methodism. For example, it was easier to enforce the discipline of the class meetings while the numbers of entrants to the movement were of a manageable number. But as numbers increased rapidly the nature of the meetings changed, and eventually new members began to resent joining the classes at all. Class membership was then made optional, and in many cases it became obsolete. In the short and medium term this leniency obviously helped newcomers to acclimatise more quickly, but in the long term it must have helped to undermine the distinctiveness and the evangelical focus and intensity of the church, which in turn had ominous consequences for church life.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
[/QUOTE]I'd approach this from the point of view that our task, our commission from God is to make disciples. By which I mean, helping people to become committed followers of Jesus.
Then I'd look at all these questions about incorporating people into church life through that lens; is each aspect of what happens in our church services contributing to people becoming followers of Jesus or is it getting in the way?
Obviously it's no simple task to weigh up the disciple-making impact of our church practices, but I think it's a good approach to take... [/QB][/QUOTE]
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, how the heck do we even begin to assess that?
Do we attach a tag to every single activity, everything that happens and score it from 0 to 10 on its disciple-making capacity or potential?
That all sounds terribly mechanistic and completely unachieveable to me ...
How would it work?
Minister/leader greets people at beginning of service: Score 8
Minister/leader explains what's going to happen: Score 9
Person in front of me acts in a distracting way and gets on my nerves: Score - 5
Choir slightly out of tune: Score 3
Worship chorus repeated too many times for my liking: Score 2
Or whatever else?
I mean, as we've already seen on other threads you would undoubtedly give a high negative score to the wearing of vestments, for instance ...
Leader wears vestments: Score - 10
But someone else might give that an 8 or a 9 ... they might believe that it does assist with their discipleship or whatever else ...
I really have to take issue with this ... I can see what you're getting at and I'm not suggesting that things should be sloppy or that we don't take the needs of visitors, newcomers etc etc into account - far from it - but would you put the same exacting standards on yourself in the workplace, down the gym, in the pub ...?
Failed to smile at the person behind the counter, thereby giving a negative impression of Christians : Score - 4
Told a work colleague that I'd been to church on Sunday: Score 7
Invited work colleague to church: Score 10
Laughed at an off-colour joke: Score - 6
And so on ...
I mean, c'mon ... get real my friend.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think SvitlanaV2 has raised an interesting point on the intensity thing - and its one of the reasons why monasticism developed within the historic Churches. People could go off to monasteries or to hermitages and so on if they wanted to become more 'intense' ...
It seems to me that all 'enthusiastic' forms of church life ultimately have to lower their standards as it were ... it happened with the early Methodists as their church developed ... it happened with the restorationist house-churches as they became less 'out there' ...
As sure as eggs are eggs it happens everywhere as an inevitable sociological process.
Which may mean that we always need 'outriders' and pioneers who cut some new territory and who then settle down ...
My mum-in-law notices that her fresh new little plantings tend to grow and spread more quickly than her hardy perennials ... so the same principle may apply to Fresh Expressions and so on.
However, I s'pose whatever stage we're at in the sociological life-cycle we should always be looking to build new bridges as well as maintaining existing ones.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How would [weighing up the disciple-making impact of our church practices] work?
How does any organisation or group of people assess the impact of anything that can't easily be quantified? I'm not a sociologist or anything like that, but I know enough to say it can be done to some extent. Surveys, observations, case study reviews, before-and-after reports; things like that. Any sociologist Shipmates will no doubt be able to give far more detail than I can, but it surely is possible.
I infer from your response to my suggestion that you think it's pointless to even try...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
My former church tried a "seekers'" service -- more informal, more of a narrated liturgy, more back-and-forth discussion with the worshippers, more huggy-bunny music -- for a few months, back when that sort of thing was a newer idea, and it never took off...it attracted almost none of the younger families/teens/occasional droppers-in it was aimed at, so the only people who wound up attending most Sundays were our frequent fliers, the sort of people who attend EVERY church function, even though it meant that they wound up attending both worship services on Sunday. In retrospect it was a solution for something that wasn't actually a problem, since our regular Sunday attendance numbers were healthy and growing.
Fast-forward a couple of years later: Our church, citing increasing difficulty in keeping a Sunday School going despite a good population of children, decided to "kill" traditional Sunday School, opting instead for a kind of homeschool Sunday School curriculum to be overseen by parents, with occasional group activities. This grew into a monthly Saturday afternoon kids' activity event at a local daycare center whose owners go to our church: The kids enjoyed their own Christian-formation activities while the adults got to hang out for chat and refreshments elsewhere in the building, and then everyone got together for a short but complete worship service at the end of the afternoon. This actually gained some traction in the community with parents who were not typical Sunday-morning churchgoers.
The question remains, though, of how to move new people from the "junior church" to the main congregation. The other day I was reading an online essay by someone bemoaning the fact that the age apartheid practiced by many churches has resulted in new generations of Christians for whom church=happy-happy-fun-time-church-camp, who can't/won't integrate into the larger church community.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How would [weighing up the disciple-making impact of our church practices] work?
How does any organisation or group of people assess the impact of anything that can't easily be quantified? I'm not a sociologist or anything like that, but I know enough to say it can be done to some extent. Surveys, observations, case study reviews, before-and-after reports; things like that. Any sociologist Shipmates will no doubt be able to give far more detail than I can, but it surely is possible.
There have been many studies that analyse the kinds of churches that grow in terms of making new disciples, why they grow, who they attract, where they tend to be based, the kinds of leadership they have, etc. Some of the material is academic, and some is designed to be of practical use to churches.
I suppose some people feel that poring over such material is too calculating, not sufficiently spiritual. But to be fair, the authors themselves sometimes say there's no ready-made formula for making disciples, no quick fix. The Holy Spirit moves where it will, invigorating the churches that it chooses.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The question remains, though, of how to move new people from the "junior church" to the main congregation. The other day I was reading an online essay by someone bemoaning the fact that the age apartheid practiced by many churches has resulted in new generations of Christians for whom church=happy-happy-fun-time-church-camp, who can't/won't integrate into the larger church community.
Two thoughts on this.
1. The "Fresh Expressions" folk would say that the folk don't need to be moved to the "main congregation" but can be a "proper" congregation in their own right. That assertion of course opens a whole can of worms, to do with things like "grown up" approaches to the Faith, or with fragmentation of a church which is supposed to draw varied people together. I don't really agree with their thesis, but I mention it.
2. The theologian Pete Ward, in his (now quite old) book "Growing Up Evangelical", suggests that yesterday's "young people's meeting" styles turn into today's "church" styles as the leaders grow older. At least in a British context, his argument seems convincing; it might not be so true in your different ecclesiological and cultural context.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose some people feel that poring over such material is too calculating, not sufficiently spiritual.
So God isn't interested in sociology? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
To be fair, the success of Willow Creek in Chicago was due to its originators doing a very careful sociological study of their "target area" and discovering what would "work" there. Other churches failed to realise this, or weren't prepared to do that homework. They thought that "Seeker Services" per. se. were the key to church growth, not recognising that such services had been developed within a specific cultural milieu.
So these good folk put on Seeker Services and were disappointed when they didn't deliver the spiritual goods. But it was their own fault for having tried to make shortcuts and put their trust in "techniques".
[ 18. February 2014, 15:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Yes, I think I read about that problem somewhere.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
We have a Fresh Expressions thingy in our Deanery, led by a Mission Priest, but not really attached to any one in particular of our parishes. The idea AIUI is to provide an alternative to 'regular' church, whilst still being recognisably part of the C of E (the Bishop requires any Communion service to use an authorised Eucharistic prayer, which seems reasonable to me). I understand that a mixed group of 20-25 people meets at present twice a month (on a Sunday afternoon), hopefully to be increased to three times a month in the near future. It is possible that the group may be able to acquire a High Street base for weekday evangelistic/pastoral use.
As you may have gathered, I don't really know much about this venture (it really is quite low-key, and still in the early stages), but ISTM like a Good Thing. Quite how it relates - or might in the future relate - to the existing parishes round about, I know not, but all those parishes (a) are aware of it, and therefore (b) can support it in prayer.
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Holy Spirit is 'he', not 'it', SvitlanaV2. God is always personal ...
Even if we may not like the gender specific language ...
@South Coast Kevin - I am being hyperbolical again. I'm not saying we shouldn't try but I think we would be barking up the wrong tree by trying to work out the discipleship value or 'quotient' of our Sunday services.
In my experience, the discipleship tends to happen elsewhere and in the warp and woof of normal everyday life - the church services feed into that but aren't ends in themselves ...
Now, where have I heard that before ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Forgive me, but I think you are in danger of becoming far more mechanistic than anything that you would consider 'scripted' in the way that the more liturgical churches are.
It all sounds very anal and rather knife-edge to me. 'I won't hand the hymn book to that person in that particular way lest it undermine the discipleship factor ...'
Sure, I'm using daft examples but I'm doing so hyperbolically. I could use less hyperbolic ones.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I'm using daft examples but I'm doing so hyperbolically. I could use less hyperbolic ones.
Please do use less daft examples because to me what you're saying sounds like 'Let's just do things as we currently do them, without giving a moment's thought as to the impact that might be having on our efforts to (a) welcome in newcomers, and (b) encourage greater commitment to Jesus in our existing members'.
But you're not really saying that, are you? You do think it's important to welcome in newcomers and encourage greater commitment to Jesus, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To be fair, the success of Willow Creek in Chicago was due to its originators doing a very careful sociological study of their "target area" and discovering what would "work" there. Other churches failed to realise this, or weren't prepared to do that homework. They thought that "Seeker Services" per. se. were the key to church growth, not recognising that such services had been developed within a specific cultural milieu.
Furthermore, Willow Creek Community Church gradually realised that their approach wasn't actually producing committed followers of Christ, even though it was getting more bums on seats. And this despite the 'careful sociological study of their "target area" '! See here.
I'm not remotely suggesting that trying to work out how best to promote greater discipleship within our particular societal / cultural context is an easy thing. But I think it's vital we take on the task, else we'll be failing to incarnate the good news of Jesus in a form which our neighbours will find attractive.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin
I am both a statistician and doing a PhD in something that is somewhere around Sociology/anthropology of religion, well actually into the anthropological approach to Congregational Studies.
The answer would take me deep into measurement theory and also into sociology. Basically to measure something like that you need to have it adequately theorised and secondly you need to have indicators that can be measured that are related to it.
Right to give you some idea, I did some work many years ago on network business. In a discussion one day we discovered an indicator that was very useful because it warned us before the network got busy that it was likely to. So what was the indicator? When the carpark by the office filled up for the day. The earlier this occurred the busier the network was likely to be.
On any given day given the following information I would suspect we could make a very good prediction of how busy the network would be:
- Day of Week
- Week of Academic Year (work is an University). This is not the same as actual day of the year and as Easter moves and therefore the Easter holiday actual day can be unreliable.
- State of schools (Schools on holiday mean that parents have to make arrangement for children, this often involves working at home or taking leave)
- how busy the network was yesterday (if yesterday was busy then today is also likely to be busy)
- Time the car park filled up this morning
- weather (rainy days the carpark fills quicker)
The reason I have not done this is that actually on the day statistics are not much use. We need to be able to predict six months in advance.
Jengie
[ 18. February 2014, 17:02: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Holy Spirit is 'he', not 'it', SvitlanaV2. God is always personal ...
Even if we may not like the gender specific language ...
I'm sure we shouldn't be too 'anal' about it!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose some people feel that poring over such material is too calculating, not sufficiently spiritual.
So God isn't interested in sociology?
To be fair, the success of Willow Creek in Chicago was due to its originators doing a very careful sociological study of their "target area" and discovering what would "work" there. Other churches failed to realise this, or weren't prepared to do that homework. They thought that "Seeker Services" per. se. were the key to church growth, not recognising that such services had been developed within a specific cultural milieu.
So these good folk put on Seeker Services and were disappointed when they didn't deliver the spiritual goods. But it was their own fault for having tried to make shortcuts and put their trust in "techniques".
Bear in mind too that Willow Creek Church is in an area of rapid population increase. The local community is also pretty homogenous with 95% of people having a college education. In UK terms its very large area akin to middle class suburbia.
Most of us in the UK won't have those traits in our communities so the Willow Creek model has to be adapted if it is to work at all.
Willow Creek have also recognised the problems that their seeker sensitive approach caused: for years many on the outside saw them as miles wide but fractions of inches deep - they now recognise that for themselves. I don't see the church in Acts 5: 12 - 16 being at all seeker sensitive in that same way, yet they grew.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Gamaliel - 'they' is an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun, although we do have Scripture saying 'the Spirit blows where it wills'.....
/end tangent
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Holy Spirit is 'he', not 'it', SvitlanaV2. God is always personal ...
Even if we may not like the gender specific language ...
I'm sure we shouldn't be too 'anal' about it!
Given that it concerns the distinctive and principle doctrine of the Christianity, the Trinity, we should watch our language.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Referring to the Holy Spirit blowing where it wishes is clearly an incomplete reference to wind as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, as for example in John 3:8. Wind is of course inanimate, as are most of the things to which the Holy Spirit is compared. Nevertheless, for those who think I'm making a tragic theological and/or linguistic error, 'it' can be used in reference to some animate things (namely babies and animals - and Jesus, after all, is compared to a lamb.)
It's a tangent with relevant wider implications, because as I said above, when we attempt to build bridges with all kinds of people, newcomers and those who've been in the church for 80-odd years, we end up with a variety of theological (mis?)understandings, linguistic appropriations and personal perspectives on the significance of various religious rituals. Tolerant churches rarely even try to create uniformity in the mesh of make-do theologies that struggle inside the brains of everyone who comes near. People who are welcomed in with love and kindness may be willing to unite around Christian liturgies and rituals, but how they give meaning to those things is another matter entirely.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The answer would take me deep into measurement theory and also into sociology. Basically to measure something like that you need to have it adequately theorised and secondly you need to have indicators that can be measured that are related to it.
Many thanks, JJ; that's interesting. So if we came up with some way of defining levels / amounts of discipleship (not an easy task, I realise) and also some way of measuring the indicators we want to investigate (again, not an easy task!), then it would be feasible to make progress towards working out what activities / patterns / habits produce greater levels of Christian discipleship. Is that right?
Presumably this is something like what Willow Creek Community Church did with their 'Reveal' study, although I've only read a few articles about it and not the full report / book.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Not quite, what I suspect Willow Creek to have done is the following.
- Consult the broad surveys that are done of the population. At least the census. This is to identify the types of people around where they want to plant a church.
- Read the literature on the characteristics of that type of people. What do they expect? What are they into?
- Interviews with key people in the area. What are the social concerns, what sort of things thrive around here?
- Maybe an observational study, actually put people on the ground to observe who is going where and what. This may involve a short survey. What entertainment places are doing well? How do people socialise?
- focus Groups with the target specific topics that you are concerned about.
- Possibly people living in the community without evangelising to observe how it functions.
It is basically mixed methods research with the aim of getting to know what local people do, enjoy, expect etc. This is very different from doing the quantitative work on measuring aspects of church life. The question you are asking determines the approach.
Jengie
[ 19. February 2014, 11:28: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
As ever, God 's ways are not our ways. Growth in discipleship is surely measured by the unmeasurable: the fruit of the spirit.
Perhaps if love, joy, gentleness, faithfulness, self control, peace and patience, kindness and goodness were in abundant evidence, there may be no more barriers to bridge?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Putting my mischievousness to one side ...
Yes, South Coast Kevin, I do believe that we should welcome people and encourage them to become more effective or more consistently effective disciples of Christ - however we may wish to quantify that.
What I was railing at, rather hyperbolically, was a tendency to put undue - and indeed unattainably impossible standards - on whatever does or doesn't go on in a church service context.
I don't believe that church services are 'ends in themselves' as it were but neither do I believe that they are the only 'show-case' we have nor the only arena we have to show what the Christian faith is about nor to develop discipleship.
One of the more serious points I made, amidst the hyperbole, was the comment about discipleship being worked out in the warp and woof of everyday life. As you often remind us - quite rightly - it's a 24/7 thing.
I was teasing SvitlanaV2 too, but would agree with Leo that language is important and you'll find me as Trinitarian as they come. Cut me in two and you'll find Trinitarian formularies running through me like a stick of rock. I can get quite 'anal' about that ... and make no apologies for doing so because I think it's important ...
Equally, yes, I also believe that what you are saying is important but I would prize or value the most in any church setting or tradition is authenticity and a sense of faith being part and parcel of normal everyday life - and you can get a sense of that in any setting - whether highly ritualistic or snake-belly low ...
We can shuffle things about, make amendments, play around with styles and whatever else ... but it's always going to be a lot deeper than that.
It has to be. Heaven help us if it isn't.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Do you think that the clergy should be much more emphatic about the importance of 'right theology'? Because I don't think they are at all. I'm disinclined to be anal about Trinitarian pronouns, (and much else besides) because after a lifetime of churchgoing I've noticed that this sort of thing doesn't appear to lie at the heart of church preaching and teaching as I know it. We have our liturgies, but they're never unpacked. Interested individuals are free to read books and do courses at local theological colleges, but there's always a sense this this sort of thing isn't really necessary for the common person. It was denominational awareness, not theological knowledge, that a local preacher advised me to develop.
To get back on topic, all this explains why I've become more interested in the sociology of religion than in much mainstream theology; it seems more focused on what and how (current and potential) Christians actually believe and how they live their faith than on the theological minutiae that very few Christians expect each other to engage with. Entry into the Kingdom of Heaven appears to rely on something else.
You might say it's secularisation at work; keeping people on board, building bridges with potential newcomers is such hard work that churches are reluctant to emphasise 'details' too much. But in the 18th c. John Wesley was surprised to find a man who'd attended CofE churches for decades yet thought the Holy Spirit was some sort of bone!! Well, maybe it/he/she is, in a manner of speaking.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
