|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Bridges and new congregations
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Difficult to generalise, SvitlanaV2.
I s'pose, though, that most churches and denominations do tend to major on their distinctives ... whatever it is that gives their group/tradition its particular flavour.
In the 'newer' outfits this tends to be done on the hoof and in response to changing developments.
I do have a bee in my bonnet about Trinitarian formularies and so on - and I did so long before I encountered the Orthodox - but also partly in response to that because Andrew Walker the sociologist - a Pentecostal turned Orthodox - suggested in his definitive study of the UK 'restorationist' movement (of which I was a part) that we were 'nominally Trinitarian'.
That stung. I was indignant at first, but when I listened to prayers and preaching in more depth I realised he had a point ...
So, yes, peculiar as it may sound, even though I'm not Orthodox I do tend to draw on the Orthodox as a touchstone of Orthodoxy and orthodoxy to some extent ... the clue is in the title!
People have commented on that here.
I would agree with you that these issues tend to remain 'unpacked' within the traditional Protestant denominations - but equally, I would say that the resources and discussions were and are there if people go looking for them ...
Anglican vicars have sometimes - not in a patronising way - expressed surprise at my level of interest in these things ... and some have even seen it as a sign of a 'calling' or 'vocation' ...
I s'pose I'm naturally interested in this stuff but would also add that as someone who has been involved in an 'on the hoof' type outfit - and I'm not saying that's all bad - you do have to quickly find some kind of ballast or mainstay to avoid being 'blown around by every wind of doctrine' and the latest charismatic fad ... whatever it might be.
It's been observed by church historians that the Baptists, for instance, back in the 17th and 18th centuries developed quite a scholarly approach - almost independently of the other groups and 'denominations' (the 18th century is pre-denominational in the modern sense) - they had to because they found themselves pulled hither and yon by all manner of innovations and heresies/potential heresies ...
And few of these were new, either. You read about Christmas Evans - the one-eyed Welsh Baptist preacher - and his battles with Socinians and Sabellians and what-not and you could be reading about some of the controversies that beset the early Church Fathers ...
So, in the circles in which I've moved, theological debate was very much part of the furniture - albeit, looking back, within a fairly narrow paradigm.
I suspect my experience has been very different to yours in that respect - not that I'm disputing the reality of your experience.
--------------------
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
Sorry to double-post ... I hadn't heard that Wesley story ...
Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me.
In Dostoyevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov' there's a passing allusion to a very off kilter 'take' on the Holy Spirit by one of the monks at Fr Zossima's monastery ...
So it just shows ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do have a bee in my bonnet about Trinitarian formularies and so on - and I did so long before I encountered the Orthodox - but also partly in response to that because Andrew Walker the sociologist - a Pentecostal turned Orthodox - suggested in his definitive study of the UK 'restorationist' movement (of which I was a part) that we were 'nominally Trinitarian'.
That stung. I was indignant at first, but when I listened to prayers and preaching in more depth I realised he had a point ...
I can't now remember what Walker wrote (yes, I've read the book!) However Tom Smail back in the 70s said that while many Christians are not fully Trinitarian because ignore the Holy Spirit, many Charismatic Christians tend to downplay God the Father instead.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, and Smail's point was thoroughly Orthodox too ... I know several Orthodox who read his book 'The Forgotten Father' and thought it was tremendous.
I haven't explained myself very well.
Walker's beef, as I understand it from his subsequent reflections and writings, isn't that charismatic ignored the Holy Spirit - far from it - but because of a somewhat limited theological vocabulary/frame of reference - if I can put it that way - they had a tendency to treat and regard the Holy Spirit of God rather like some kind of impersonal 'faith force'.
I think Walker would be the first to acknowledge that this didn't apply right across the board and that the tendency is more apparent in some circles rather than others. To this day, I would maintain that he went too far in suggesting that the 'restorationists' were 'nominally Trinitarian' - at a leadership level and an 'informed' level I would say that this was definitely not the case but that we were equally as Trinitarian as any Trinitarians you might mention ...
That said, I do believe that there is an often very subtle sloppiness in charismatic praxis that can have the very opposite effect to what it purports ... ie rather than magnifying the work and person of God the Holy Spirit it undermines all that ... it becomes far too Christocentric if anything ... both the Father and the Spirit are sidelined in deference to 'my mate Jesus' ...
At least, that's the impression one could easily get.
Sticking my neck out, I'd suggest that this was an endemic tendency now across charismatic-dom as a whole.
But this is a tangent. The mileage does vary, of course.
In relation to the bridge-building thing, I think it is something we do need to be wary of. I've seen plenty of evangelical converts as well as long-standing Anglican church-goers who have a fuzzy appreciation of these things at best.
I think they are important.
--------------------
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 would hasten to add, though, that the Holy Spirit is deferential, if we can put it that way, and His ministry is to magnify Christ ...
But I think we do need a fully-orbed understanding of the Trinity and I would strongly maintain that liturgy serves a valuable role in retaining and strengthening that.
As I've said before, one would have to be pretty dim to attend Orthodox services in English and not realise that these people believed that Jesus is God and that they had a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead.
I don't think we can guarantee that in today's lively evangelical charismatic churches for all the protestations to the contrary.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
No, and dare I say that the Cross often seems to have got a bit lost somewhere along the way!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Intriguingly, I once knew a liberal URC minister - 'with a smidgeon of Pentecostalism' as he put it - who had even more of an issue with these tendencies than me. He felt that the evangelical charismatics were way out of kilter on a proper understanding of the Godhead and wouldn't even have worship songs and choruses from that stable in his church - despite his wife's protestations - because he felt that they undermined sound doctrine ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Below the Lansker
Shipmate
# 17297
|
Posted
I think I would probably agree with him, up to a point. In my limited experience, even in charismatic fellowships where serious attempts are made to rein in the whackier manifestations and keep within the canons of universally acknowledged Trinitarian doctrine, if you scratch below the surface and talk to people about what they think is happening when they are worshipping, you get some weird and wonderful ideas. One dear lady I knew told me that the reason they sang worship songs repeatedly was because our songs are an offering to Jesus, and singing them only once was like bringing in a dish of food, and only allowing Him to sniff it and not tuck in. Some would argue that "worship songs" arise from a basic misconception of what worship is - but that's probably more than enough material for another thread.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Below the Lansker,
To be fair, though, I doubt that most churchgoers in 'ordinary' churches would be able to give a theologically impressive reason for their churches' musical procedures either. I'm trying to imagine an elderly Methodist lady trying to explain the theological significance of the hymn sandwich!
But this thread is about building bridges, and we've been talking about which churches don't do this with sufficient theological depth. Which churches do, though? We've had mention of the theological precision of the Orthodox churches, which are apparently growing. My impression is that they, along with the Charismatics, tend to attract people who are already practising Christians. Perhaps the Orthodox need to get on the Fresh Expressions bandwagon to deliver new ways of being church but with a rigorous and consistent theology.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps the Orthodox need to get on the Fresh Expressions bandwagon to deliver new ways of being church but with a rigorous and consistent theology.
I'm sorry SvitlanaV2, but
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
To adapt a well-known Biblical saying - John 14:9 '... Have I been with you all this time and yet you have not known me, Philip?'
Have you been posting here so long now, SvitlanaV2, among the Orthodox and you have not known them?
The idea of the Orthodox doing anything Fresh is a complete hoot ... That's part of the point. That they don't (apparently) change ...
'Change? Change? Is outrage ...'
More seriously, though, you will find some pockets of innovation and those priests I know in real life don't all do all things 'by the book' ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
On the thing about the Methodist old lady and theological justification for the hymn-sandwich ... I can see what you're saying but I don't think you are comparing like with like. This hypothetical hymn-singer mightn't have a reason for the practice, but they're also unlikely - unlike the example in Below The Lansker's post - to concoct a quirky or flaky explanation either ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The idea of the Orthodox doing anything Fresh is a complete hoot ... That's part of the point. That they don't (apparently) change ...
'Change? Change? Is outrage ...'
If that's the case, then the Orthodox aren't really relevant here, are they? They may provide a necessary refuge for ex-Pentecostals, but they appear not to provide an answer to the OP's question about offering 'new services for new congregations' aimed at young families, the unchurched, etc.
I'd like to hear a bit about the 'pockets of innovation' you mentioned, though. Truthfully, the only Orthodox church I've ever been inside was when I went to visit my penfriend in Ukraine. I don't even see them that often in the UK.
quote:
On the thing about the Methodist old lady and theological justification for the hymn-sandwich ... I can see what you're saying but I don't think you are comparing like with like. This hypothetical hymn-singer mightn't have a reason for the practice, but they're also unlikely - unlike the example in Below The Lansker's post - to concoct a quirky or flaky explanation either ...
Ah, well the answer to this is for flaky church ladies and gents to be taught to keep their mouths shut and leave the big explanations to those who've had some proper theological edumacation!
Methodists aren't too worried about quirky ideas so long as you keep them very low-key. (In a recent Purg thread about the Eucharist someone said their Methodist minister had confided to them that his congregations 'were practical Unitarians, but were unaware of the fact!' But he obviously wasn't going to lay down the [Trinitarian] law and make this a public issue!)
[ 19. February 2014, 19:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sure that a lot of congregations are unitarians to all practical intents and purposes ...
Doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach Trinitarian doctrine though.
On the Orthodox - they're not particularly visible in the UK even though there are around 300,000 of them here - mostly Cypriots, Eastern Europeans etc etc - not all of whom will be practising ...
There are a small number of English-language medium parishes, mostly among the Russians and with the Antiochians - most of whom were Anglican converts - the 'Angliochians' -
These are the ones I know best but I've met Greeks, Romanians and so on as well.
The convert parishes have grown from a very low base - in percentage terms the growth is quite high but the overall numbers are small.
I'd suggest there's more to it than a refuge for ex-Pentecostals, but there is that element there - particular in the US - which can make for a certain stridency ...
I could say a bit about innovation. Using English is an innovation. Not sticking to every single rubric is another. Priests trimming their beards a bit is another ...
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I could say a bit about innovation. Using English is an innovation. Not sticking to every single rubric is another. Priests trimming their beards a bit is another ...
Woo hoo - now that is cultural engagement!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Leaving aside for now whether change in and of itself is a good idea, but staying with the idea that maybe the church in question has had a visit from Them on High and been discreetly warned that the present situation can continue no longer: That is the situation I am addressing and That is the situation that all so often brings a church to either a Fresh Expression or Another Way of Being Church.
[Although for us it was also people saying "I'm not coming to your church, it's boring." But they will come to something entirely different]
So. That Chat has been had, then it's either change the main service with all the accompanying hoo-hah that entails
Or quietly and with a few others, just start something different, at a different time, maybe in a different place/ maybe not.
Up thread, someone mention that maybe having yet another service could be tough in terms of personel required? My answer is that starting something new is infinitely easier than changing something entrenched.
Another worry was dividing the family of the church by introducing another service?
Are the faithful few who only gather for the 8am communion service any the less part of our churches? Of Course not!
I like the idea of social events providing an opportunity for different congregations to meet and feel more connected and certainly that has been our experience.
One other point is that in a city or even a largish town one can pick and chose one's church service. But in the countryside/ small town it's a tad more difficult and I have great sympathy for Karl and his family's situation.
[ 20. February 2014, 09:03: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Probably useful to explain/or show that the differences between drum v organ; robed v tie; stand v sit; look up v look down are cultural rather than theological.
Might save problems later. May need more than occasional social event. There's nothing lik having an external focus eg helping local charity to make differences seem less important than what unites
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Leaving aside for now whether change in and of itself is a good idea, but staying with the idea that maybe the church in question has had a visit from Them on High and been discreetly warned that the present situation can continue no longer: That is the situation I am addressing and That is the situation that all so often brings a church to either a Fresh Expression or Another Way of Being Church.
Is that how it works in the CofE, then? Interesting. In many other denominations it's the individual congregations who have to recognise that they're facing serious problems, and then find solutions. No authority figure from outside is likely to come in uninvited and give any discreet warnings. That's not their job.
The CofE seems to have more experience than many others of managing multiple congregations, what with early morning Communion, the 'Family Service' and Evensong. At the church where I go to Evensong the church notices are the same for each congregation, and everyone is invited to participate in wider church activities, regardless of whether they attend all the services or just one. If this is the norm in some churches I'm not sure why having one traditional and one contemporary service in others should give rise to anxiety or feelings of division.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Leaving aside for now whether change in and of itself is a good idea, but staying with the idea that maybe the church in question has had a visit from Them on High and been discreetly warned that the present situation can continue no longer: That is the situation I am addressing and That is the situation that all so often brings a church to either a Fresh Expression or Another Way of Being Church.
Is that how it works in the CofE, then? Interesting. In many other denominations it's the individual congregations who have to recognise that they're facing serious problems, and then find solutions. No authority figure from outside is likely to come in uninvited and give any discreet warnings. That's not their job.
The CofE seems to have more experience than many others of managing multiple congregations, what with early morning Communion, the 'Family Service' and Evensong. At the church where I go to Evensong the church notices are the same for each congregation, and everyone is invited to participate in wider church activities, regardless of whether they attend all the services or just one. If this is the norm in some churches I'm not sure why having one traditional and one contemporary service in others should give rise to anxiety or feelings of division.
Generally the churches who object to having traditional and contemporary services tend to have fewer services anyway. The idea of a contemporary service would go down like a lead balloon in my church, but a 10am Sung Eucharist is our only Sunday service (we have a short said Eucharist on a Saturday morning). We are a small congregation though.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]If this is the norm in some churches I'm not sure why having one traditional and one contemporary service in others should give rise to anxiety or feelings of division.
It will give rise to such feelings when one group of people or another sees one service as the real deal and the other one as not the real deal. Alternatively, the same applies when the hierarchy treats them in the same way.
There's been a small but persistent issue with Fresh Expressions being seen as a recruiting ground for "big church." It's proved impossible to shake. Then of course there's an expectancy in some circles that messy church feeds fresh expressions, feeds big church ....
Better to explain what the real expectations are at the beginning IME
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
There's nothing lik having an external focus eg helping local charity to make differences seem less important than what unites
Oh yes, absolutely. Having a clearly shared sense of purpose is an excellent way of fostering greater unity.
Maybe one good approach is for each church in a town or region to focus on one or two service / outreach activities with all the churches recruiting for supporters and volunteers collaboratively. So if my church's focus is on youth work but I'm more interested in helping homeless people, then I can freely - with my church's blessing - get involved in the homeless work that's based at the church across town.
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Probably useful to explain/or show that the differences between drum v organ; robed v tie; stand v sit; look up v look down are cultural rather than theological.
I think there's a theological element behind most if not all of these issues. Without rehashing lengthy discussions on other threads, what sort of music a church uses says something about its attitude towards contemporary culture. Likewise, the dress code of the leaders, speakers and other 'up the front' people says something about the perceived purpose and function of leaders and of the church service itself. So it seems to me...
--------------------
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
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
I know there can be theological support for all these variables and others and it's probably worth spending some time thinking about what you do and what connection it has to the Gospel BUT a waste of time getting different groups to concentrate on what;s wrong with the other mob/s. We all know that in extreme situations those who love and rely on a particular way of action can cope without it eg use of not wine during a war. We all know that our services are not perfect and neither are theirs. for the love of our neighbours what should we do?
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]If this is the norm in some churches I'm not sure why having one traditional and one contemporary service in others should give rise to anxiety or feelings of division.
It will give rise to such feelings when one group of people or another sees one service as the real deal and the other one as not the real deal. Alternatively, the same applies when the hierarchy treats them in the same way.
There's been a small but persistent issue with Fresh Expressions being seen as a recruiting ground for "big church." It's proved impossible to shake. Then of course there's an expectancy in some circles that messy church feeds fresh expressions, feeds big church ....
Better to explain what the real expectations are at the beginning IME
Are these problems more likely to occur when FE worship takes places in the church property rather than elsewhere? Maybe if the new church gathering takes place in a pub, for example, it's easier for 'traditional' church members to see its adherents as a separate congregation rather than as a group of people whom they can eventually absorb.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Have you seen any pub worship that actually works as a fresh expression? I've seen a couple of attempts and both brought in existing or lapsed Christians, but wasn't attracting new people.
One was the Apple Cart when they did story telling in a pub in Whitechapel. The Sunday evening I went I reckoned everyone else in the upstairs room had been to church elsewhere that morning.
The second was the Beer and Bible initiative, which started in 2011 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Bible and has completely fizzled out now. That was an attempt to set up bible studies in pubs to attract a different group of people, and again only served as another bible study for church goers.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I can't answer the question, but the accusation that new forms of church don't attract the unchurched but simply pick up Christians, whether practising or lapsed, is a fairly common one. However, surely holding on to and attracting back the people who've already experienced the benefits of church life is no bad thing. If the churches can't inspire these folk how are they going to reach the unchurched?
I've read that another problem with some (not all) of these alternative satellite congregations is that they never develop any financial responsibility. They expect to be funded indefinitely by their traditional parent congregation, even though they might be quite judgmental of traditional/inherited ways of being church. Perhaps a lack of adequate financial planning contributes to the failure of many church plants. But church plants are vulnerable and have a relatively high failure rate. I don't suppose FEs etc. are immune to that.
Regarding the Beer and Bible initiative, it's a shame it couldn't have reinvented and relaunched itself in some way. I wonder what the organisers would do differently if they had the chance to start again.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Sorry, my words didn't come out right. I came across as saying that Them As On High come in and Have A Chat. Indeed it could and often is felt as precisely that. However, i think the term is something like 'facilitating an ongoing and fully participating discussion'.
And obviously no one in any authority in the C/E would wade on in and threaten to close down, it doesn't work like that and i apologise for giving that impression.
But in the life cycle of a church,there sometimes comes a time when a discussion is had about how to take matters on.
Indeed can it be business as usual any longer and is closure the preferable option? Or the only option visable to a struggling congregation?
Or are there Really only those two options available?
Might there be a third way forward?
Can a struggling church congregation be encouraged to take a brave step and maybe consider possibly changing the way things are maybe done?
Either all in together
Or
At a totally different time
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
This still strikes me as a very CofE process. The tradition I know best is British Methodism. I've never heard of a Methodist circuit superintendent offering leadership regarding new forms of church in their circuit, though I'm sure some do. FEs generally seem to be generated at congregational level.
From a Methodist POV it must be problematic if a whole church wants to switch to an alternative format. Methodist reliance on local preachers from different congregations means you have to get a whole raft of outsiders on board, not just your own congregation and/or the minister. Local preachers are trained to produce a traditional Methodist worship service, so anything new could be challenging for them. If anyone knows of a circuit that breaks the mould please tell me where it is!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The reality, of course, is that none of these initiatives - whether in pubs or in church buildings are attracting newcomers or the unchurched in any large numbers. They are having some success, certainly - but I can't think of any group that is having much of an impact in terms of numbers on the unchurched millions ...
Sure, there are new converts around in places but even the lively, evangelical charismatic congregations tend to rely on transfer growth.
There are likely to be more converts around in those settings than in more traditional or less outreachy ones but in my experience the number and percentage of converts has never been as high as people in these kind of churches claim.
They do tend to be higher than elsewhere though, in relative terms.
As for Beer and Bible. I like both. But I'm not sure I'd want to combine them at one and the same time. I can't see how the organisers expected it to appeal to new audience either.
If people are going out for a pint, they're going out for a pint. Why would they expect there to be 'religion' attached?
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It could be that some of these initiatives are useful for building bridges between congregations and denominations, if they're attracting existing church-goers.
The question is, without a 'Billy Graham' type of crusade, how are 'the unchurched' going to take the first steps of faith? Was he a bridge of his time, that couldn't be built today? After all, those he reached were already enculturated into the Christian faith through schools etc.
--------------------
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
Yes - the Billy Graham Crusades have to be seen and judged in the context of their time.
We have an increasingly un-Sunday schooled and biblically illiterate population.
Graham was preaching to audiences where there was a basic level of familiarity with the Christian narrative.
I can't see similar initiatives having the same results now.
A Romanian once told me that after the fall of Ceaucescu people flocked to the churches - of all stripes - because they'd been proscribed and persecuted under his and previous regimes. They had an allure and a mystique about them because of that.
His view was that as the economic situation improved and the country stabilised, numbers would drop off remarkably quickly as the forces of consumerism and secularism took hold ...
We are in a post-Christian culture. There's no getting away from that.
The antidote, though, isn't to try to de-traditionalise ourselves and put on clowns, beer and skittles, so-called contemporary worship and so on. The antidote is to hold fast to that which we have received and to find creative outlets for that certainly - but not in a way which compromises the core message.
Christianity has never been culturally acceptable really ... it can, and did, permeate society to an extent where these societies were 'Christianised' but it's always going to be something that's a bit 'foreign' and out-there if you like - because it's not 'of this world' but 'in' the world ...
--------------------
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:
The question is, without a 'Billy Graham' type of crusade, how are 'the unchurched' going to take the first steps of faith? Was he a bridge of his time, that couldn't be built today? After all, those he reached were already enculturated into the Christian faith through schools etc. [/QB]
I think the main way the 'unchurched' will become favourable towards Christianity is by seeing Christians do good things (remarkably good things, above and beyond the 'regular' good that many non-Christians do) and asking us about the motivation behind our goodness. People need to see Christians (a) living as we talk, in a self-giving kind of way, and (b) loving one another in a way that points towards Jesus. As you say, Raptor Eye, we can't rely any more on most people knowing the basics of what Christianity claims about the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The antidote, though, isn't to try to de-traditionalise ourselves and put on clowns, beer and skittles, so-called contemporary worship and so on. The antidote is to hold fast to that which we have received and to find creative outlets for that certainly - but not in a way which compromises the core message.
You see, this sounds awfully like 'Let's carry on pretty much as we have been and hope that things will somehow turn around with people returning to our churches'. I don't buy it. Culture has changed so we need to change how we present the timeless, unchanging message of life in all fullness that Jesus offers. I don't see why such changes necessarily constitute a compromising of the core message of Christianity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every 'de-traditionalising' approach is worthy and helpful. Certainly not! But I think we have to try, and I think we have to ruthlessly examine our traditions and practices to see which are truly vital (I don't think many are) and which are merely transient, probably being useful at some point in the past (or still useful in the present, in certain settings) but no longer serving the purpose of making disciples of all nations.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I think people being Biblically/Christianity illiterate will continue as long as the mainstream churches carry on being culturally illiterate. Welby speaking out against payday lenders and the RCC speaking out against welfare reform are good starts, but the Dead Horses rather overshadow them.
I don't think things will change unless we change.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
There are quite a few churches "out there" which are intelligently engaging with "real-life issues" from a Christian/Biblical perspective ... yet people aren't beating a path to their doors. The growth seems to be in the (pardon me) "simplistic" churches instead.
I grant that the worship in the "thoughtful churches" can be quite traditional and even turgid ... but is it merely that which is turning people away? Or do folk these days prefer an individualistic and escapist religion rather than one which sets their faith in the context of everyday life?
[ 24. February 2014, 16:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There are quite a few churches "out there" which are intelligently engaging with "real-life issues" from a Christian/Biblical perspective ... yet people aren't beating a path to their doors. The growth seems to be in the (pardon me) "simplistic" churches instead.
I grant that the worship in the "thoughtful churches" can be quite traditional and even turgid ... but is it merely that which is turning people away? Or do folk these days prefer an individualistic and escapist religion rather than one which sets their faith in the context of everyday life?
The problem is that people can get what 'thoughtful churches' provide outside of the church, without having to think about the God stuff. People seem to prefer the latter, on the whole. And I would say that yes, an individualistic and escapist religion is more attractive.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
It's always interesting asking the very people who do not go to church...why that is so.
And humbling to listen to the answers.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
It's always interesting asking the very people who do not go to church...why that is so.
And humbling to listen to the answers.
Are you in a position to share some? I mean, we all have our ideas what the answers are, but it'd be nice to actually hear.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
i Always want to know why people do...or do not....go to church! And y'know, folk usually want to share thier opions/ views/ reasons/ excuses as well.
From the last year alone, in no special order and (in case anyone knows me IRL, no they're not all from round here either):
"I stopped being told when to stand up and sit down when i left school"
"Bloody Sermons...haven't got a clue what they're on about"
"I hate singing"
"My children got tutted at last time we went to a church"
"The priest told a mother to take her baby out, he was only wimpering and wasn't disturbiung anyone. I'm not taking my children to church if that might happen"
"My daughter's arm was tugged by an old lady i don't even know. I'm not going back"
"Went once, bored to tears, not coming back"
"Sunday Morning? Get Real!" (Get a lot of these)
"You are joking" ( .......get a lot of those)
Usually though it's "Hahah, you serious? Not my kind of thing is it?"
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i Always want to know why people do...or do not....go to church! And y'know, folk usually want to share thier opions/ views/ reasons/ excuses as well.
From the last year alone, in no special order and (in case anyone knows me IRL, no they're not all from round here either):
"I stopped being told when to stand up and sit down when i left school"
"Bloody Sermons...haven't got a clue what they're on about"
"I hate singing"
"My children got tutted at last time we went to a church"
"The priest told a mother to take her baby out, he was only wimpering and wasn't disturbiung anyone. I'm not taking my children to church if that might happen"
"My daughter's arm was tugged by an old lady i don't even know. I'm not going back"
"Went once, bored to tears, not coming back"
"Sunday Morning? Get Real!" (Get a lot of these)
"You are joking" ( .......get a lot of those)
Usually though it's "Hahah, you serious? Not my kind of thing is it?"
Very useful. We're far from perfect at my gaff, but that list looks like the sort of thing we're trying to avoid. Even the last.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Hmm, funnily enough none of those reasons are explicitly of the 'I don't believe in God' kind. It makes me wonder if there are a significant group of people who have some belief in God / Jesus but aren't part of a church community for other reasons. Reasons that we could address through things like Fresh Expressions...
EDIT - Crossposted with Karl. Likewise with my church!
[ 27. February 2014, 12:16: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Nice one, Kevin!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Just picking a few points at random from Ethne Alba's list......
Don't tut-tut at children, don't touch other people (or their children) unless you know that it is acceptable, don't tell people to remove their children, don't order people when to stand or sit (though you could gently suggest e.g. 'you might like to sit or kneel for the prayers'), and do seriously consider the possibility of services at times other than Sunday morning!
(We have a young Dad + 2 small boys considering coming to our place, for whom Sunday afternoon might well be a better time......).
Ian J.
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Our service is 12 for 12:30 (seriously; if we ever admitted it was 12:30 half of them'd turn up at 1) followed by themed bring and share lunch. Service lasts about half an hour and generally has a range of AV to reinforce the theme which will include items aimed at various age ranges. Complaints from Backsliderlets about going, being bored etc. have now dried up.
We don't sing. Well, you can join in the recorded Sanctus and the regular communion music if you like, and some do. Only thing I'd change would use the Collect for the day rather than an extempore opening prayer. Not a fan of extempore prayer.
BF - Sunday Morning football perchance?
[ 27. February 2014, 12:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Karl - in this case, no (Dad is divorced/separated, so it's access timings!).
Point taken, though, and I am convinced that there is a case for a Sunday lunch-time/afternoon 'family service' (IYSWIM) in this town........
I have to say I like the sound of your church....
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
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin: Spot on. ISTM that the beef is with Church rather than God, or even Jesus.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am surprised that singing puts so many people off - for me, singing is a big reason to go to church. Even if the hymns aren't much good, there's always singing the Mass.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am surprised that singing puts so many people off - for me, singing is a big reason to go to church. Even if the hymns aren't much good, there's always singing the Mass.
Think about it, though - for how many people is group singing a significant part of their lives? For the UK, I can only think of people who regularly watch live football (some other sports too?) and who attend or perform at live music events. Singing together is not a mainstream activity like maybe it used to be 100 or whatever years ago. So ISTM, anyhow.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
That may well be true, but not necessarily a reason for not singing in worship. Karl's place sings part of the Mass - there are any number of simple congregational settings for this, and then there are Taize/Iona/Margaret Rizza chants (for example) which could be gently introduced if felt appropriate (whilst rigidly eschewing 'Jesus is my Boyfriend', of course!).
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
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
(Generalisation Alert!)
Maybe women find singing altogether in public ok?
Maybe people with a history of singing (personal or cultural) find singing altogether in public easier?
But in my experience, blokes especially find the idea of singing words and a tune that's unfamiliar, while standing in rows, jammed in...to be an experience they'd rather forget fast.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be plenty of men on the ship who will pop along within half an hour and tell us that they love singing.
It's just that the men who are outside our church services Don't.
They find it embarrassing. Or so they say.
That said, if the sung worship (of whatever description, church tradition-wise) is led well and it's authentic, then the 'Oh I'm embarrassed by this' reaction drops right off.
~~acutely NOT wanting this to degenerate into a one style of worship is superior to another style of worship ping pong match~~
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm certainly not suggesting that we never review anything or never change anything. It's just that I've been part of movements and churches that kept reinventing the wheel over and over and over and over ...
You had to have a short memory. Because God apparently kept changing his mind every 5 minutes ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I think South Coast Kevin is on the money about Christians having to do significantly more good deeds than is generally the case or even expected of them to gain any chance of getting a hearing.
I also agree with Baptist Trainfan that - initially at least - it's the churches that offer a rather simplistic theandric and thaumaturgical approach - there, I've not used those two terms on Ship for a while but I feel a lot better now - that are the ones that are growing - or declining less quickly ...
--------------------
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 South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am surprised that singing puts so many people off - for me, singing is a big reason to go to church. Even if the hymns aren't much good, there's always singing the Mass.
Think about it, though - for how many people is group singing a significant part of their lives? For the UK, I can only think of people who regularly watch live football (some other sports too?) and who attend or perform at live music events. Singing together is not a mainstream activity like maybe it used to be 100 or whatever years ago. So ISTM, anyhow.
But that's the whole reason why singing at church is a draw, because you don't get to do it otherwise unless you're in a community choir or the like.
As for men being embarrassed by singing, I think the problem there is with the men and not the church! I think they need to get over themselves, to be honest. It's not about them, it's about God. I am always astonished by the fragility of the male ego!
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But that's the whole reason why singing at church is a draw, because you don't get to do it otherwise unless you're in a community choir or the like.
What if Ethne Alba is right, though, and most people (especially men, perhaps) find corporate singing embarrassing and awkward? Then the opportunity to sing in church is far from a draw, isn't it? Like you, I enjoy singing, but that's not the point!
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As for men being embarrassed by singing, I think the problem there is with the men and not the church! I think they need to get over themselves, to be honest. It's not about them, it's about God. I am always astonished by the fragility of the male ego!
You might well be right about the male ego but, again, I don't think that's the point. If singing together is an essential part of meeting as church then, yes, men will need to get over their awkwardness. But (a) is it really essential, and (b) there might still be ways we can reduce the barrier to people, maybe by including other forms of expressing praise to God, maybe by using contemporary styles of music that people are familiar with.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think both men and women who can't sing are deterred by the idea of going somewhere they are expected to join in. At weddings and funerals more and more are now standing silent. This is surely more honest than pretending.
The 'Jesus is my boyfriend' songs were at least easy to pick up for the non-musical people, and expressive of the love that is supposed to be what Christianity is all about.
Perhaps there is a place for more services that don't include congregational singing.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
