|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: New ways of being church
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I'm a little hesitant to suggest which languages God doesn't understand...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A few thoughts ...
I think Jengie Jon has highlighted a key point about 19th century non-conformist churches being one-stop shops for one's social life, had people been so inclined. I've read some fascinating stuff about how non-conformist attendance/involvement in Huddersfield declined dramatically from the 1920s as improved transport, the cinema and other leisure alternatives opened up ...
I also think she's touched on something crucial to all churches - regardless of theological stance or churchmanship - and that's the community aspect - the 'sectarian' aspect in sociological terms, if you like - if we can avoid the perjorative connotations of that term for the moment.
I don't know what the answer is but I suspect that 'things both new and old' might go some way towards how we adjust and adapt yet maintain some kind of continuity with what has gone before.
I've often been struck by how my RC and Orthodox friends have a sense of continuity and universality - the Orthodoxen tell me that they could pitch up in Greece, Romania, Australia, Timbuktu or any part of the world and find themselves able to follow the Liturgy - even if they didn't know the language - because they're familiar with its structure and although there are regional and ethnic variations you know what you are going to get - the Little Entrance, the Great Entrance and so on ...
RCs undoubtedly said the same in the days of the Latin Mass - and that was one reason put forward for continuing with it, of course.
Now then, I submit that some sense of on-going prayer/worship - continued in monastic communities and celebrated in the Mass/Liturgy week by week - into which we can dip in and out DOES offer a way that people who might work shifts or have irregular life patterns can avail themselves of the ministrations of the Church.
I've often been struck in France and other continental European countries - and even in some RC churches in city centres in the North West of England - that you can wander into an RC church and find people at private prayer and devotions with their shopping bags or work paraphernalia at their side.
The flip-side, of course, is that this approach can foster nominalism, superstition or what many Protestants would consider a superficial or folk-religion kind of engagement with the faith.
However ... however ... if it is continuity we're after rather than constant innovation and change for the sake of it - then there is much to commend this approach. And it doesn't stop people gathering in house-groups/more informal groups, engaging in Lenten study, going on retreats etc etc.
On the other hand, there is much, of course, to commend the more R/reformed emphasis on the 'gathered church' - for the sense of fellowship and community that it fosters. I don't know what the r/Reformed equivalent could be of the RC retreat house, the monastery and the 'covenant community' or 'base-community' - but there will be sporadic examples around - some of the 'neo-monastic groups' and so forth.
Perhaps some kind of amalgamation/fusion of these two approaches might provide something of an answer?
That's not 'new ways of doing' or 'being' church - it's using what is already here.
On the innovation thing though, I'm not entirely convinced ... sure, things need to adapt - but be careful. In my restorationist house-church days the lead-elder/pastor decided, in his un-wisdom - to suspend Sunday services ('meetings' we called them) in favour of mid-week evening services in different parts of the city on different evenings.
The idea was that we all used our weekends to develop our 'warm contacts' and get to know outsiders etc and then we'd invite them along to the mid-week meetings ...
It didn't work and the experiment folded. Arguably, the church never fully recovered and numbers dipped quite starkly.
--------------------
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
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I'm a little hesitant to suggest which languages God doesn't understand...
I'm pretty sure God understands the language of irony...
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
On the Sunday morning issue, I've heared a fair bit of anecdotal evidence along the lines of "we started a new church plant and were prepared to be radical about when we gathered, but the time that fitted most people (in the "target" group of not-yet-Xtians (or whichever clunky term suits your predjudices)) was in fact Sunday morning". I think shift workers are a real issue ...
I've known church people who've found mid week, Saturday or Sunday afternoon footie for their kids... (YMMV)
quote:
the church must now work to create 'community' that historically existed 'naturally'.
I think a lot of the debates about styles of church and ministry/evangelism etc are underpinned by the question of what does community look like at this point in time and in this geographical/social place?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
On the Sunday morning issue, I've heared a fair bit of anecdotal evidence along the lines of "we started a new church plant and were prepared to be radical about when we gathered, but the time that fitted most people (in the "target" group of not-yet-Xtians (or whichever clunky term suits your predjudices)) was in fact Sunday morning". I think shift workers are a real issue ...
I've known church people who've found mid week, Saturday or Sunday afternoon footie for their kids... (YMMV)
Yes, the fact that Willow Creek meets on a Sunday morning is that it is the time non-Christians are most likely to be willing to turn up, NOT because it's when the church has always met. Indeed the starting point of Willow Creek is that Sunday morning isn't church, it's a shop window to make God accessible to outsiders. The Christians meet to do church at another time. Unfortunately a lot of people have absorbed the idea of making their main service seeker friendly, but without also buying into the idea that 'church' is at another time. The result is that the sheep are on a thin gruel that doesn't really help them grow.
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
quote:
the church must now work to create 'community' that historically existed 'naturally'.
I think a lot of the debates about styles of church and ministry/evangelism etc are underpinned by the question of what does community look like at this point in time and in this geographical/social place?
Good question - but it's a major breakthrough to recognise that there is a problem, that it's one the church CAN address, and therefore WE need to do something about it.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One of the major points of the Reformation was to get "the church" to work in the language of "the people".
For many of our incomers, what we do is "a new way of being church" - but I have to echo the comments about community upthread - we wouldn't be in business if we didn't know each other pretty well.
Except that I doubt if any of your incomers think of it in terms of "new ways of being church" because that turn of phrase is one that does not seem to exist outside of the church. It's as if even when the church is trying to be "with it" it has to invent its own language rather than use the language of "the people".
Just think of saying "news ways of being nightclub", or "new ways of being office", or "new ways of being audience" to realise how silly it can sound.
Don't be daft me ol time zone - ever heard of home working or hot desking? Both "new ways of doing office."
[ 01. December 2012, 07:44: Message edited by: Truman White ]
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
On the Sunday morning issue, I've heared a fair bit of anecdotal evidence along the lines of "we started a new church plant and were prepared to be radical about when we gathered, but the time that fitted most people (in the "target" group of not-yet-Xtians (or whichever clunky term suits your predjudices)) was in fact Sunday morning". I think shift workers are a real issue ...
I've known church people who've found mid week, Saturday or Sunday afternoon footie for their kids... (YMMV)
quote:
the church must now work to create 'community' that historically existed 'naturally'.
I think a lot of the debates about styles of church and ministry/evangelism etc are underpinned by the question of what does community look like at this point in time and in this geographical/social place?
Yeah, but come on Twangist, most of the people who join your church plants are Sunday-morning transfers from other congregations, not non X-Ian's. You want to see incarnatioinal mission, with people meeting on other days if the week because that fits with non x-Ian C21 lifestyle, go have a look at some Fresh Expressions.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've seen church planting done in Baptist and in 'new church' settings and what happens is a fair bit of transfer growth - either from other churches or, most commonly, from churches already within the church-planters' own orbit - but there has always been a small core of unchurched/new Christians that come along at some stage. The question is, would they have done so without the church planting initiative in the first place?
I don't know whether it's any different with Fresh Expressions.
The Willow Creek model looks a bit shallow to me - 'a mile wide and an inch deep' as they say - but in purely pragmatic terms it seems to have worked for them in the context of suburban Chicago. But from what I've read the movement has peaked and there are second and third generation kids dropping out left, right and centre. Some of them are finding their way into more traditional ways of doing church - others aren't go anywhere and simply dropping out ...
--------------------
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
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
I think that JJ touches the core of the issue in this passage:
quote:
So in a sense I want to start people thinking about what it means to belong to the Church in the modern world. What sort of things should we expect of members? What sort of contact is necessary? Can we find ways of keeping in contact when people spend two out of three weekends visiting grandchildren? How do we help people who move to elsewhere to find a place to worship? Do you need to have fellowship with other Christians even when you do not make Sunday worship? Do you need to find ways of supporting regular private devotion?
The destructive part of this analysis lies in the idea of having to have people contact - or at least the same people contact. Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God. But we go there to meet God, not to meet the others. It's a great thing to meet and to share fellowship with the others (indeed it can be the key to growing in holiness, and I am most unlikely to be able to do so without them) but first and foremost it's about meeting with God.
This of course turns ES's paradigm on its head, because REAL Church comes about when the touching-place with God comes about, not when we have fellowship.
Where it works, it seems to me that Emerging Church is no more than contextualising what is already there. When it hasn't worked, it's because it's reimagined Church in the community's image and not in God's.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Well why in that case have church at all, surely we can manage it all quite nicely in our bedrooms on our own. Pay the priest to bless the bread and wine and then get on with it yourself. Sorry can't have that the priest is another person they might just get in the way of our relationship with God.
It is first not "I meet God" but "we meet God. Remember the second commandment in the summary of the Law or John 4:20. The worship of God is never separated from our relationship to each other. The worship of God is allied very closely with fellowship with others. The eucharist is amongst other things both a re-enactment of a meal shared with friends and also a for-enactment of the of the great feast in the Kingdom.
However it is not that I am getting at. I am a creature of flesh, I need hooks to draw me back to communal worship, especially for the times when my pattern of worship has become disturbed and so it itself does not act as well as a draw back. The times when I have moved and so am faced with going to a new church. The times when I have been ill and not able, am I really up to it this week, a lie in sounds so nice and I am not really up to it. That so easily becomes the new habit.
Think of the times when you come back from holiday, you sit down at your work place and things just do not come back as easily as they did before you went away. You spend the first morning trying to make sense not just of what has happened but what you were doing immediately before you left. The patterns have been fallen by being away and you have to find them again before you can really become effective. You do the work because it is your job.
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
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've seen church planting done in Baptist and in 'new church' settings and what happens is a fair bit of transfer growth - either from other churches or, most commonly, from churches already within the church-planters' own orbit - but there has always been a small core of unchurched/new Christians that come along at some stage. The question is, would they have done so without the church planting initiative in the first place?
There's an inviting anticipation and hopefulness in something new. You are joining something that has a pretty much agreed purpose but doesn't come with a load a baggage and in-group/out-group circles.
The trick in an old church is making a program (a new Sunday school class, a new evening event) that really is new, instead of pre-shaped in rigid ways by the old church's expectations of who does what and why so the "new program" is just the same old program again.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God. But we go there to meet God, not to meet the others.
I'd go further than Jengie Jon regarding this comment - we don't need to go anywhere specific to meet with God because he is omnipresent. So whatever the reason for going to church services, it's not exactly to meet with God. But there is something important in the gathering together or else, like Jengie Jon says, let's not bother with the messy stuff of sharing our lives with one another.
I get a bit frustrated by the talk of 'meeting with God' or 'going to worship God'. Isn't the Bible clear that we can meet with God any time, any place, and that our worship of God is to be found in a whole life lived in joyful obedience to him?
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God. But we go there to meet God, not to meet the others.
I'd go further than Jengie Jon regarding this comment - we don't need to go anywhere specific to meet with God because he is omnipresent. So whatever the reason for going to church services, it's not exactly to meet with God. But there is something important in the gathering together or else, like Jengie Jon says, let's not bother with the messy stuff of sharing our lives with one another.
I get a bit frustrated by the talk of 'meeting with God' or 'going to worship God'. Isn't the Bible clear that we can meet with God any time, any place, and that our worship of God is to be found in a whole life lived in joyful obedience to him?
At risk of trading frustrations, I get very frustrated with those who can't absorb what is for me a relatively simple point. For me, and for many other Christians, the bible is not normative. It is informative, even instructive, but it is not normative. Therefore, I don't take part or avoid specific activities, including worship, based simply on the bible. There are other instructive sources: anglican thinking identifies these as reason, tradition and (for some at least, including me), experience.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is first not "I meet God" but "we meet God. Remember the second commandment in the summary of the Law or John 4:20. The worship of God is never separated from our relationship to each other. The worship of God is allied very closely with fellowship with others. The eucharist is amongst other things both a re-enactment of a meal shared with friends and also a for-enactment of the of the great feast in the Kingdom.
Jengie
Sorry - unless you are a multiple personality it is first I. Of course (as I said) the meeting is in the context and the company of a cloud of witnesses. And this is why it doesn't just happen elsewhere, why the Church is essential - because the Church is that cloud of witnesses. Yes, you are a creature of flesh, which means your relationship with God is contingent on your limited nature. Only God fully reconciles the individual with the collective in God's nature as Trinity. It's the same human nature that makes it essential for us to have a sense of place when meeting God. Of course, SCK, God is present everywhere, but you are not, and there are places where God's presence is clearer to you than anywhere else.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose what I was suggesting is that if we somehow ALL had a set pattern like the RCs and the Orthodox (or as the Anglicans used to) - then if we were back from holiday or had just moved to a new town or whatever, then wouldn't we simply slot straight back in as we'd already know what to expect?
Or this is simplistic?
It probably couldn't work now, anyway, because the horse has bolted and the stable door is swinging on its hinges ...
But it strikes me how many RC and Orthodox people seem very comfortable and un-self-conscious in church - and simply dip in and out of it as needs must.
Ok, this could get a bit towards the church as a filling station idea - let's nip to Mass and get some fuel, quick confession, say prayers by rote ... off we go ... Vrooo-oom ...
But it could always be augmented by retreats, weekly fellowship, the odd purge-out such St Patrick's Purgatory or a trip to Mount Athos (if you have the necessary dangly genitalia) or whatever the equivalent might be ...
Part of the problem, it seems to me, with the Protestant world is this constant need to innovate and shift things around all the time. I felt seasick after a few years in the restorationist house-churches because we kept changing things every five minutes and trying ever new and ever increasingly desparate ways to re-invent ourselves or to settle back into what we saw as a religious rut that needed to be avoided at all costs ... whilst all the while feverishly digging an even deeper rut for ourselves ...
There is a balance somewhere, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Yes, the fact that Willow Creek meets on a Sunday morning is that it is the time non-Christians are most likely to be willing to turn up, NOT because it's when the church has always met. Indeed the starting point of Willow Creek is that Sunday morning isn't church, it's a shop window to make God accessible to outsiders. The Christians meet to do church at another time. Unfortunately a lot of people have absorbed the idea of making their main service seeker friendly, but without also buying into the idea that 'church' is at another time. The result is that the sheep are on a thin gruel that doesn't really help them grow.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Yes! Even worse, often the main service is 'thin gruel' without even expecting many 'seekers' to come to it, or without any active publicity to recruit them.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel
High and regular attendance within the Roman Catholic Church was only maintained for longer than Protestantism because of how long it was a grievous sin not to attend mass. Threat of Hell fire kept the attendance up. Not your normal style is it but to rely solely on worship to do it then you have to sink to those levels. As that dropped so did attendances, surprise, surprise.
AberVicar
Not from where I am standing and believe me I have done a lot of thinking about person identity. It seems to me that we only become an I in relationship to a wider community, humans are a communal animals, that is how God made us (Genesis 2:18) therefore I do not believe that you can separate off your relationship to God from that to your other human being. God in the end will hold you responsible and therefore worship brings us as related beings in connection to God. Why do you think Jesus suggested you should first make peace with your brother before you made an offering on the altar?
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
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Not from where I am standing and believe me I have done a lot of thinking about person identity.
Jengie
QED methinks.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Not from where I am standing and believe me I have done a lot of thinking about person identity.
Jengie
QED methinks.
Not QED, because the I, I speak only exists in relationship to others.
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Let me take a bit you quote and let me show you some of the others:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It is first not "I meet God" but "we meet God. Remember the second commandment in the summary of the Law or John 4:20.
Firstly you appear the "I meet God" is a quote from you, then I use some modern liturgist's words because I use the words "Summary of the Law" and finally I also use a biblical reference which I see I got wrong. So those are present within that text.
There is a fourth person I am aware of within the text and you are probably not aware of. An individual who made strong point of just this distinction. I am not naming names, he is a fairly public person within church circles and he was there in a private capacity when he did it.
So you heard one person, but probably picked up on three more. Yet there was a fourth person I was also indirectly quoting. So who is responding me or the other people. If I present them honestly then I am being fair in what I say, but if I twist the words then I am also misrepresenting them.
That is in one brief sentence.
You are assuming that my understanding of "I" is that it is innate. I am highly dubious of that and the evidence suggests that it is a construct of western society and that the western "I" does not exist in other cultures.
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
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
And yet it is uniquely you who put together that string of text. It is uniquely you who offer arguments against the existence of that unique 'you' when engaged in worship.
Let me return to the core of what I said earlier
quote:
Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God.
You notice that I include as a core element in that experience in communion with others. Yet the communion with the other does not erase, eclipse, or define the 'I'. This is what I am trying to say when using the doctrine of the Trinity to demonstrate that in Christian teaching God is the only one able to hold the individual and collective together perfectly (wouldn't the Church be a wonderful place if human beings could do that?).
At the same time, your argument is shot through with reference to the 'I' as a priority - in the example of choosing to visit family on Sundays; in the choice not to attend a church in the place where family is; in the assertion that as a creature of flesh you need stuff to keep you worshipping. I see the validity of all these points, yet they still all begin with the 'I' before progressing to the necessary communion with the 'us'.
One final point
quote:
You do the work because it is your job.
Indeed I do - and because it is my 'job' as well as my life, I do Church sometimes/often just because I have to. If on a Sunday off I can't get to a place where the worship will 'do something for me' I will go where it is possible to go. I like to hope that when I am not having to preach myself I can sit and learn from a good preacher, but if one is not on offer, I still go, and still organise my Sunday around it. And this is because I still need to meet God in communion with (whichever) others.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ... Jengie Jon and Abervicar - have either of you read 'Being as Communion' by John Zizoulas?
It's a very dense Orthodox perspective on this one - it's a long time since I read it and I'm not sure I followed it all, but essentially I took it to mean that we only truly find ourselves in community with the Trinity and with others - so very similar to what Jengie Jon is proposing ... although I would agree with Abervicar that for all her references to community her postings on this issue are - inevitably? - shot through with issues of personal circumstances and preference.
As a Reformed Christian then Jengie Jon is committed to 'semper reformanda' and shuffling things around - which is fair enough to some extent but I do wonder whether we are all re-arranging deck-chairs on the Titanic.
I'd agree with Jengie Jon's point that it was fear of Hell fire that kept the numbers of the RC faithful up for longer than within Protestantism ...
And it's a pertinent point.
But the stable door is open on that one too. We're never going to close it without re-introducing medieval concepts of hell fire and Purgatory and so on ... and I don't see that happening anytime soon either in RC or Protestant settings.
The point I was making wasn't that the RCs, nor the Orthodox nor anyone else has it or had it sussed - far from it. I was simply wondering whether there were models of sustainability and spiritual formation there which we could use and adapt to meet the situation we now face - which is survival and conservation mode.
If you like, the Christian faith in the UK is now in the position that rare species such as the mountain gorillas or the blue whale found themselves in before the likes of Diane Fossey or Greenpeace intervened.
We need strategies to maintain our life and to sustain a modicum of spiritual and numerical growth. We ain't seeing the 'revival' that the charismatics and restorationists were desparately prophesying for years and years ...
If it is true - and I believe it is - that we are seeing people only able (or willing) to attend church say once or twice a month then it strikes me that some kind of seasonal/lectionary approach is the right way to go. Our vicar has chucked out the lectionary and prefers to rely on six-week themed series in non-conformist style.
The difficulty with this - other than the content is pretty naff by and large - is that I only ever hear one or two of the sermons in the series. It presupposes that we are all going to attend every Sunday. We aren't.
If we kept to the lectionary and I was following the same pattern in my personal devotions then I wouldn't be out of synch and could match my own reading with the day's sermon ...
And so on.
I would suggest that a pattern like this, augmented with some kind of study-group or fellowship group or something during the week would be a good way to go. It would be more sustainable, I think - but there might be flaws in the argument - I don't know ...
We are in maintenance and conservation/survival mode. Right across the board - other than among particular ethnic/migrant communities and to some extent among evos/charismatics in some of the larger cities - although that's a revolving door ...
I'm suggesting that some kind of liturgical framework allied with the best aspects of the 'sect' or 'conventicle' - or the base-community or retreat-house if you prefer - would be the best option we have to sustain religious community.
--------------------
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
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... Jengie Jon and Abervicar - have either of you read 'Being as Communion' by John Zizoulas?
Not only have I read it but I attended his lectures on it at the Greogorian in 1983, and it is one of the main influences on the views I am expressing here.
The nature of koinonia (communion) was also the focus of my doctoral studies. Being in communion with others, though, values as well as transforms the individual.
As an example, relevant to today's liturgy, I and no one else shall have to give an account of my life at the Last Judgement. Yet I hope that there will be many to speak up for me, as I hope I will have the chance to speak up for others too.
There is a place for any theology that tries to hold the individual in balance with other individuals in communion. In my view, things go wrong when you either say it's all about me (in which case I might just as well go it alone) or it's all about us (in which case I think you are losing sight of the very elements that make up the 'us')
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - I 'get' that, Abervicar.
I'd agree with that, for what it's worth.
I'm not angling too strongly for responses, necessarily, to my call for some kind of continuing or somehow 'timeless' liturgy into which we can all dip in and out as necessary, augmented by personal prayer/study and participation in communal activities (of whatever kind - study groups/retreats etc) but I would value some feedback on that point from posters on this thread.
The idea of re-inventing the wheel or more 'fluid' forms of church may be all very well and good to some extent - but I s'pose what I'm envisaging is some kind of channel/cable or power-line of continuing liturgical prayer/ministry into which individual 'hubs' or connectors somehow tap into - and with tributaries or branch-lines ...
Goodness knows how this would work in practice - but I do wonder whether a model of this kind would take us away from the purely individualistic ...
![[Confused]](confused.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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I think that JJ touches the core of the issue in this passage:
quote:
So in a sense I want to start people thinking about what it means to belong to the Church in the modern world. What sort of things should we expect of members? What sort of contact is necessary? Can we find ways of keeping in contact when people spend two out of three weekends visiting grandchildren? How do we help people who move to elsewhere to find a place to worship? Do you need to have fellowship with other Christians even when you do not make Sunday worship? Do you need to find ways of supporting regular private devotion?
The destructive part of this analysis lies in the idea of having to have people contact - or at least the same people contact. Surely the constant in all forms of Church is that I, in communion with others, meet God. But we go there to meet God, not to meet the others. It's a great thing to meet and to share fellowship with the others (indeed it can be the key to growing in holiness, and I am most unlikely to be able to do so without them) but first and foremost it's about meeting with God.
This of course turns ES's paradigm on its head, because REAL Church comes about when the touching-place with God comes about, not when we have fellowship.
Where it works, it seems to me that Emerging Church is no more than contextualising what is already there. When it hasn't worked, it's because it's reimagined Church in the community's image and not in God's.
But we won't build real fellowship without making the effort to spend time with the same people on a regular basis. Real fellowship develops out of a sense of trust, and that is slow to build up. Our modern, mobile, atomised societies make this very hard to achieve - unlike more traditional societies where it is almost inevitable. Therefore for our churches to be places where people will 'exhort one another DAILY', where they will 'confess their sins to one another', where the members will truly be 'brothers and sisters', requires a priority on relationship making that is very counter-cultural. Of course for it to be truly 'the church' and not just another social club then there must be the reality of God in the midst. But it is a laughably dangerous belief that a service where everyone rushes off afterwards in any way constitutes 'fellowship' - yet many churches do base their church life on that: just because of the magic stuff at the front, it must be for real. If the members of a family aren't talking to each other, then it's a deeply dysfunctional family. Yet that's the reality of what calls itself the church, the family of God, in much of the West.
We have a problem.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But we won't build real fellowship without making the effort to spend time with the same people on a regular basis. Real fellowship develops out of a sense of trust, and that is slow to build up. Our modern, mobile, atomised societies make this very hard to achieve - unlike more traditional societies where it is almost inevitable. Therefore for our churches to be places where people will 'exhort one another DAILY', where they will 'confess their sins to one another', where the members will truly be 'brothers and sisters', requires a priority on relationship making that is very counter-cultural. Of course for it to be truly 'the church' and not just another social club then there must be the reality of God in the midst. But it is a laughably dangerous belief that a service where everyone rushes off afterwards in any way constitutes 'fellowship' - yet many churches do base their church life on that: just because of the magic stuff at the front, it must be for real. If the members of a family aren't talking to each other, then it's a deeply dysfunctional family. Yet that's the reality of what calls itself the church, the family of God, in much of the West.
We have a problem.
I'm with you here. Some might even argue that because we are made in the image of a God who is a relationship among three persons, we cannot be truly human (fully living out that image) unless we are in community with others.
Interestingly, I've heard the opposite from some people, particularly one in an evangelical college fellowship who debated whether it was worth being in any kind of Christian organization, or whether the socialization distracted from his personal relationship with God.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Do we?
I'm not so convinced.
I'm not saying that fellowship isn't important, but a lot depends on where we're at and what stage we are in life and what 'Stage of Faith' we're at - if Fowler comes into it.
I was in a restorationist house-church for 18 years, as many of you know, I've harped on about it often enough. The depth, intensity and quality of the fellowship was very, very strong ...
And yet it was also highly claustrophobic. You could spend your whole life among Christians and hardly see anyone else other than at work or your relatives. I lost most of my non-Christians friends and had to work hard eventually either to regain them or make new ones.
I know there's a balance - but if people want to dash off immediately after a church service and get on with the rest of their lives, that's up to them.
I'm all for building a sense of church community but it makes me feel uncomfortable when I hear people talking about their 'church family' and so on. I hardly ever socialise with people in my church and rarely attend the social events - although I do support the annual charity quiz and one or two other things.
Perhaps I'm different, I've over-dosed on Christian fellowship in the past and now feel the need to do other things. I'm not really interested in what goes on at house-groups and so on. If people want to go to them, fine, just don't expect me to go along and listen to their drivel about what God is supposed to have said to them this week ... or their half-arsed grasp of Bible stories and so on.
The thing I've found with some churches is that the apparent closeness of the fellowship is a veneer. The relationships there aren't as strong as people imagine. As soon as they leave or no longer feel part of the 'programme' the close fellowship miraculously evaporates.
Sure, there'll be strong and enduring friendships and that's great - but why should we see church as a one-stop shop for all these things? Why not have other friends as well?
I can see the thing about 'exhorting one another daily' - but how does that work out in practice? Are you saying that Christians should see each other every single day? That might be fine for a base-community or a monastery or something - or fair enough if you happen to bump into some from church and have a natter with them over a coffee or something ...
I'd suggest that there is something as potentially dysfunctional about a church where everyone is living in one another's pockets all the time as there is about one where people don't know each other and simply clear off home after the service.
It depends on a whole range of factors and circumstances.
If I look at my wedding photos I'll see loads and loads of people from the church I belonged to back then - few of whom I'm in meaningful contact with. The level of fellowship was great - and I don't have anything as close as that now - but in a lot of ways I'm not sure I need it as much.
I'd be quite interested in having a 'spiritual director' or 'soul-friend' and I might even be happy enough to 'confess my sins' to someone I trusted - such as a priest or minister. But I'm not going around laying bare my soul to everyone at my local church - why should I?
--------------------
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
|
|
Quizmaster
Quick quipper
# 1435
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Repeat after me:
I be church;
You be church;
He/She/It be church;
We be church;
You be church;
They be church.
Now, tell me to which conjugation you belong...
--Tom Clune
Surely only the first person plural works.
--------------------
The more questions I ask the more I ask fewer questions.
OR=========================================
The wise person does not know all the answers, but always asks the right questions.
Posts: 3326 | From: Exeter, Devon | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Backing up a bit ... I think my response to Ender's Shadow was a tad harsh (even for Ender's Shadow ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
However, I'm not entirely convinced that lack of fellowship is an enormous problem across the board. I doubt there are that many churches - irrespective of churchmanship - where people don't know at least some of the others in the pews. You may find that isn't the case in some uber-sacramental settings or in cathedrals etc but generally speaking most church-goers these days are there in a voluntary capacity and chatting to other people, 'fellowshipping' and so on is part and parcel of the whole thing.
If Ender's Shadow wants some intense and full-on fellowship I'm sure he can find some. The mistake he's making is to expect that everyone else wants the same.
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
''New ways of being church'' - my knee jerk response is that this phrase sounds like a charismatic let's get back to basics mantra.
It's the sort of phrase any one from the emerging church might use as well. With their emphasis on ''coffee, candless and couches'' like any new group they have to ask fundamental questions and this is is just such a question.
The house church movement asked this sort of question in the 80s and 90s. Indeed picking up the fellowship thread by ES and Gamaliel, the charismatic movement could be quite radical and there were a number of examples of people living ''in community'' together and this was seen as a new and radical way of ''being church''......until some examples of heavy shepherding cropped up and some brothers were more ''equal'' than other brothers and many radical church communities became acrimonious and some split and split again to form splinter house churches ad infinitum (as protestant sects are wont to do).
There are a lot of disaffected charismatics/ex house church members out there who have earnestly looked at this question; many of them have in fact moved back (or forwards) to the liturgical wing of the church.
Saul the Apostle
[ 04. December 2012, 06:09: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I think there's some throwing the baby out with the bathwater going on here... Of course, churches in which close fellowship is emphasised can go too far and fall into heavy shepherding or at least the Christian ghetto situation, where spending time within the church community is so strongly encouraged that there's little time / energy left to be with non-Christians.
But that doesn't make the principle of close fellowship wrong. Gamaliel, I wholly agree that there's a balance to be found - let's not 'bare my soul to everyone at my local church' but also let's not 'simply clear off home after the service'. I for one am I huge fan of small groups, as they provide a great context in which one can get to know a smaller group of people more deeply (which just can't happen solely at a Sunday service, in my experience).
Without the deepening of relationships, I think it's so easy to drift in one's faith. It's fine when you're feeling motivated and spiritually strong - you read the Bible, pray, and so on in your own time because it's a joy. But when troubles come, or simply your routine gets disrupted and the faith levels dip - without the close group of Christian friends who will from time to time ask me how I'm getting on in the faith (and who won't take 'Yeah, fine' for an answer!) I find I drift away from God alarmingly quickly. I certainly need that small group of people who will encourage and challenge me in my faith, and I'm rather envious of people who can get along fine without such a group!
--------------------
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
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
We have a problem.
We certainly do, though it isn't the same problem you suggest.
The problem is that the view of family and communion/fellowship taken in your argument is both too unrealistic and too limited. Family comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes, as do all forms of relationship. When Jesus declares all around him to be his brothers and sisters and mother, he is taking on everything that has love at its heart. And every community that has God's love at its heart - even if only for an hour a week - even if only from time to time - surely shares in some measure that sense of fellowship.
Yet there is more. Gamaliel reminds us of the practice of Catholics and Orthodox, which is based on a far wider view of communion - it is communion with Christ and with all others who are in communion with Christ throughout the world. Whenever we pray we share in that communion, and we are never isolated. Whenever we share in the Eucharist we are sharing in communion not only with believers throughout the world but also with those who have gone before us - the communion of saints.
However dysfunctional families may seem, most of them remain families and are valued for what they are rather than for what some people think they could be.
Think about the best friendships - those where your friend is there for you in the hour of need even if you aren't in contact for months or even years. You can't define REAL Church by some ideal human community, REAL Church is where (sometimes despite ourselves) communion with God takes place.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ABerVicar
Cmmunion with God can take place at home, too. You don't need to brave the cold weather for that.
Some church planter types say that the challenge of evangelism today is that it has to go hand in with relationship, that people want relationship far more than they want truth. This is a sort of postmodern position that probably won't find much agreement here.
I suppose it depends on the kind of people we're talking about. People of a certain age and background, who've made all the friends they need, and have no need of 'support' from other people in the church, might not find much to be gained from the 'church as family' model. But congregations with mostly elderly, female members, or congregations that are trying to meet the needs of young people in a harsh urban environment, probably do need to see themselves in this way to some extent.
This means we need different kinds of churches, which is an obvious thing to say.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
ABerVicar
Cmmunion with God can take place at home, too. You don't need to brave the cold weather for that.
Some church planter types say that the challenge of evangelism today is that it has to go hand in with relationship, that people want relationship far more than they want truth. This is a sort of postmodern position that probably won't find much agreement here.
Of course it can take place at home, yet this is where JJ's and others' arguments come into their own - it doesn't happen in isolation.
I would agree wholeheartedly with the view that evangelism takes place hand in hand with relationship. I just think that the relationship is first with God - and the human relationships take all sorts of shapes and sizes.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And why not? Liturgical types don't go to churches with praise bands, and hands in the air Charevos aren't often found at Solemn Mass. So why should those of us for whom neither does much not seek out the like-minded to find a way that does work for us, just like everyone else does?
I quite like liturgical services with hands in the air. Recently attended the late service at St.Aldates - it was a Eucharist. It was simply being Church, a community of Christians gathered around the table. The question is more how we gather around the table, how deep or tight our orbit is. I am aware however that for some Christians the table is not central, and I have to say I believe them to be wrong - but that would be an ecumenical matter
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I get a bit frustrated by the talk of 'meeting with God' or 'going to worship God'. Isn't the Bible clear that we can meet with God any time, any place, and that our worship of God is to be found in a whole life lived in joyful obedience to him?
Such language is where the Charismatic and Catholic collide. A non-Charismatic friend of my expressed his frustration that Christians desiring prayer waited for 'ministry time' on Sunday rather than inviting their Christian neighbours to come and pray with them in the here and now. The same could be applied to the Mass. If we do claim a particular supernatural encounter with God at the centre of our church life then how we 'orbit' that ongoing event is as much 'being church' as the event itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
''New ways of being church'' - my knee jerk response is that this phrase sounds like a charismatic let's get back to basics mantra.
A member of the congregation recently asked me where Monasticism was in the Bible. I suggested the question is rather where is the non-community life found in the pages of Acts. New Ways of being church are almost inevitably old ways of being church.
As an ordained person I am free to live that early rhythm of daily prayer and Christian contact, as well as reaching out to the spiritual Kuiper belt. Others still yearn for it.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I would agree wholeheartedly with the view that evangelism takes place hand in hand with relationship. I just think that the relationship is first with God - and the human relationships take all sorts of shapes and sizes.
Obviously, the Christian is called to put God first. But in our current missionary landscape, commentators often say that 'belonging comes before believing'. This means that if seekers, new Christians and the Christians on the fringes of church life (and indeed, Christians of long standing whose faith is just weak, for whatever reason) are to give themselves fully to the life of faith and service they may need people they can rely on, and to feel that they're not out of place. Otherwise they may drift away - as so many have.
I agree with you that not everyone needs this sort of thing from a Christian friend. They may need different things, or else be very self-reliant.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Edward green said: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
''New ways of being church'' - my knee jerk response is that this phrase sounds like a charismatic let's get back to basics mantra.
A member of the congregation recently asked me where Monasticism was in the Bible. I suggested the question is rather where is the non-community life found in the pages of Acts. New Ways of being church are almost inevitably old ways of being church.
As an ordained person I am free to live that early rhythm of daily prayer and Christian contact, as well as reaching out to the spiritual Kuiper belt. Others still yearn for it.
Good point Edward. I think my angle was that charismatic groups often seem to ask quite ''radical'' questions initially as they set up, but these questions can be asked by all churches (and indeed perhaps should be).
Charismatic groups will often ask a question as posed in the OP, but then become as moribund and self serving as other wings of the church can be.
In my experience, charismatic groups can become a ''nice little earner'' and there is nepotism, greed, and a total lack of originality, so for me when someone asks a question like: ''new ways of being church'' my bull shit radar gets turned on
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
StA - IME, this has very little to do with Charismaticism.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Not necessarily, Karl, but I can see why Saul has cited it as such as it is often the charismatic churches that are making such a big deal about 'new ways of being church.'
Of course, they haven't cornered the market on that, but it's more common to hear this sort of thing in charismatic churches than those of other traditions.
Backing up a bit ...
@SvitlanaV2 and South Coast Kevin on the relationships thing ...
I don't think anyone here is seriously suggesting that we don't need other people to help sustain and develop our faith. Even if all we do is to interact virtually with people here on these Boards we are having some kind of interaction - for better or worse. Not that I would claim Ship-of-Fools as a kind of 'church' though.
I know people in this town who only ever attended the occasional 8am BCP service at the more liberal Anglican parish and special festival services such as Easter and Christmas. The rest of the time you won't see them anywhere near church. In one instance I know of this is because the woman's husband disapproves and so 8am attendance is the only option available that doesn't irritate him or provoke comment. Sounds bad, but there it is. To be fair to him, he is happy to help out at 'non-religious' things that happen in the parish.
If you talk to the clergy at that church they are actually quite warm and positive about some of these people. If they can only ever make the 8am service every now and then, that's fine by them.
The things I'm objecting to aren't the valid sociological points that SvitlanaV2 is making - and yes, I agree that close and intense fellowship can be helpful for young adults in a harsh urban environment, for instance.
Nor are they the points that South Coast Kevin is making about the helpfulness of small groups and so on. I've benefited from small group interaction myself. I'm sure I still could, in the right setting and circumstances.
No - it's the highly judgemental Ender's Shadow attitude that suggests that unless we're meeting up with one another all the time our discipleship is somehow flawed and compromised.
There are all manner of ways in which people interact with church in its various forms - and some people go in for close relationships and others don't.
We have to be wise to that and not issue some kind of blanket solution that we think will cover all the bases - because no such solution exists.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Not necessarily, Karl, but I can see why Saul has cited it as such as it is often the charismatic churches that are making such a big deal about 'new ways of being church.'
Of course, they haven't cornered the market on that, but it's more common to hear this sort of thing in charismatic churches than those of other traditions.
Can't say I've ever come across it, but perhaps the phrase gained currency after I moved away from the charismatic scene in the mid to late 90s. If that's the case then I take StA's point; one of my criticisms of the charismatic churches. as they largely operate, is that they are in fact not that different from the established churches that they sought to provide an alternative to in the first place. It's a cosmetic change compared to the wholesale innovation that I personally think the church is going to need to indulge in order to survive and grow in the future.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I don't want to hijack the thread and discuss charismatic - non charismatic etc. but when I saw the OP I thought of this group.....
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/
This is an outfit supported by (Bishop I think) Graham Cray and it states:
quote:
Fresh Expressions encourages and resources new ways of being church, working with Christians from a broad range of denominations and traditions. The movement has resulted in thousands of new congregations being formed alongside more traditional churches.
I am not citing this as a positive or negative thing (the little I know of it has actually been positive and Graham Cray is I am sure a positive chap). In fact it is a self evident truth that if we don't move forward we move backwards and things like this and another example is ''Messy Church'', have been successful in doing church differently.
My over arching comment here is fine, but let's not see ''new'' as somehow better, there are many ways to come together as church and the 1662 service is as valid as a hanging from the chandeliers pump up the volume charismatic hoe down. They are just well.....different and will attract different sorts of groups.
Saul the Apostle
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
The Fresh Expressions initiative is very careful not to allow itself to be characterised by any particular form or spirituality, In some contexts, a nice quiet 1662 service can indeed be a Fresh (and very welcome) Expression.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE]If that's the case then I take StA's point; one of my criticisms of the charismatic churches. as they largely operate, is that they are in fact not that different from the established churches that they sought to provide an alternative to in the first place. It's a cosmetic change compared to the wholesale innovation that I personally think the church is going to need to indulge in order to survive and grow in the future.
As someone who has been involved in Fresh expressions for some time, I share your cynicism.
What began as fresh and exciting, has rapidly become stale, bland and predictable. It isn't Fresh anymore - it's pretty mainstream when you offer cafe Church, Messy Church, alternative worship etc. within the usual hierarchy or parish set up.
Even the charismatic fresh expressions of house and community churches still follow the old 1970's/80's model "The old churches aren't working: we're young fresh and vibrant: new wine in old winekins - no, new wine in new wineskins." It's all rather passe and it's hard not to be cynical when someone comes to you with what he (it's usually a he btw) says is a new idea. It's hard too not to pick a book off the shelf about Restorationism and ask him to read it to demonstrate that this "new thing" is only "new" to him.
Some personal reflections from practical experience. In 11 years between wood and water - a small area (10 mile radius say) in the SW of England - I saw, on average at least one group a year who told me that God had sent them there to plant a church because the existing ones weren't doing the job. That didn't include the church splits of which they were many of the "me too" charismatic church variety.
None have lasted. The shortest lasted 6 weeks, the longest about 6 years. The damage to existing churches has led to a 30% decline in attendance plus an acceleration of church closures. One or two buck the trend and have grown but they seem a bit more light on their feet to change and relevance. The area is known as a tough area for ministry and many don't last the course. There's high burnout (it was nearly me too) and a lot of moral failure too in the area.
The damage to the witness of the gospel is incalculable.
Going back to Fresh Expressions, it may bring more people into the building but hs it brought more people into church? It's one thing going through a door, it's quite another buying into the values of that community in a way that is alien to so many people (the whole idea of committing to buying in that is).
IMHO the whole thing is just another fad to get people through the doors of a church unless and until the issues of hierarchy and boundaries are resolved.
Fresh Expressions "works" best, IME and observation, where it happens a way away from (but perhaps at arms length contact with) an existing set of church structures and assumptions. Reopen a closed church, meet in a village hall, share bread in someone's home - all develop a new link to God far better IME and IMHO than putting on an arts and crafts fun day or pram service in a church.
When people come to church as a rsult of the latter, they will find the same old, repackaged - and it will all look like a kind of spiritual misselling. It's simply offering the veneer of a new thing to hook you into the system of the old and existing. Cynically, it's hard to escape the opinion that some churches see people as recruits - to do the work and give the money - not all of them value people for who they are.
If Fresh Expressions is seen as church in itself without trying to move people into existing structures, then it's more likely to last, possibly to succeed.
Problem is, from what I see on the ground, most existing churches feel threatened by this approach (Fresh Ex as church in its own right, not with its identity prescribed and proscribed by its parent). Most FeX units end up as clones and wither, instead of being unique and flourishing. FeX can work and work well - but it does work best when autonomy comes early and any control isn't control but support. I don't see many of the historic denominations (and office holders within them) being ready to relinquish such power.
Fresh Expressions doesn't have to be that cutting edge either - sometimes (and I've personally been involved in the examples which follow) it's as straightforward as setting up a group after a children's club (20 years on this is a congregation of 100 meeting in a school); sometimes it's reopening a closed church a denomination wishes to close down (15 years on this is an active fellowship of 60 people meeting in a restored building with a part time minister); sometimes it's revitalising a tired and dwindling church with new energy and resources (a small group of people who went to the large baptist church in another village, committed themselves to the familky service at the Anglican Church in their home village. 6 from a home group went to the village church following a request from the vicar to help with music for a service. Now it's a thriving family service with new leadership and new vision - the baptist church was happy to release them to work for God in this way. (Sadly, not all the Anglican hierarchy have been as pleased but that's another story ....)
In essence then, Fresh Expression is at a real crossroads - it's hardly a new way of being or of doing church.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
This.
With the additional comment that further complications often arise when considering who should be paying the costs of the Fresh Expression...
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Those are very interesting and pertinent observations, EE. Sobering too. Thanks for sharing them. You've actually helped to clarify some of my thinking around these issues ... although I'm not sure I've got any answers!
There does seem to be an underlying assumption, though, that the 'old' is somehow wrong or inadequate. I'm sure you're right about aspects of the heirarchy within Anglicanism and some of the other historic churches - although in my experience the restorationist/new church heirarchy ended up being just as - if not more - inflexible.
I've been reading 'Chasing Francis' by Ian Morgan Cron, which is novel (with a theological message) about a burnt-out US megachurch pastor who finds his faith rejuvenated and revolutionised through his encounters with Franciscan spirituality.
He then ends up setting up a new church ...
Whoops ... I've given away the ending.
It's a good read - if a little contrived in places - and touches on a lot of these sort of issues - although in a more US-style consumerist setting.
Elements resonate with me. I like the idea of having a stable core - be it represented by monastic groupings, the 1662 Prayer Book or whatever else - that anchors things whilst we experiment and explore.
I think one of the issues is what we are expecting to connect people into. Is Messy Church, for instance, an end in itself or is it intended to feed people into the non-Messy Church that's going on the rest of the time?
The historic Churches, such as the RCs and the Orthodox - may not be quite as innovative in evangelism and outreach (although I suspect they'll have to become so in the fullness of time) but they do, at least, have a sense of trying to embed people into the eucharistic community as the heart of what they are all about.
I just wonder whether all these pram services and Messy services and what-have-you are going to create a simulcra of fellowship and integration rather than the thing itself. They will remain peripheral. How would a Messy Church look in four or five years time? It'll constantly be changing as kids/families grow out of it and others come in. It might be fun while it lasts and worthwhile in and of itself but where do you take it and where do you take people once they're involved?
They can't stay doing finger-prints and origami for ever, can they?
--------------------
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If Fresh Expressions is seen as church in itself without trying to move people into existing structures, then it's more likely to last, possibly to succeed.
This goes to the heart of the debate: is 'Fresh Expressions' about new churches / congregations, or is it a convenient label to hang on new evangelistic endeavours designed to draw people into involvement with existing structures? The two are very different, but are routinely confused - certainly the statistics for FeX seem to be counting them both, without making any attempt to distinguish them. Both ARE valid - but it's unhealthy to label them with the same name.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If Fresh Expressions is seen as church in itself without trying to move people into existing structures, then it's more likely to last, possibly to succeed.
This goes to the heart of the debate: is 'Fresh Expressions' about new churches / congregations, or is it a convenient label to hang on new evangelistic endeavours designed to draw people into involvement with existing structures? The two are very different, but are routinely confused - certainly the statistics for FeX seem to be counting them both, without making any attempt to distinguish them. Both ARE valid - but it's unhealthy to label them with the same name.
Well, you could do worse than go to the FE website and find out:
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/about/whatis
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/guide/about/whatis
Pretty clear, no?
To which statistics are you referring?
[ 06. December 2012, 09:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If Fresh Expressions is seen as church in itself without trying to move people into existing structures, then it's more likely to last, possibly to succeed.
This goes to the heart of the debate: is 'Fresh Expressions' about new churches / congregations, or is it a convenient label to hang on new evangelistic endeavours designed to draw people into involvement with existing structures? The two are very different, but are routinely confused - certainly the statistics for FeX seem to be counting them both, without making any attempt to distinguish them. Both ARE valid - but it's unhealthy to label them with the same name.
Well, you could do worse than go to the FE website and find out:
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/about/whatis
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/guide/about/whatis
Pretty clear, no?
To which statistics are you referring?
The CofE statistics claim 1000 but I simply don't believe that most of those are anything but routine evangelistic opportunities - such as 'pram services' - being relabelled as 'Fresh Expressions' in order to win the parish kudos. OK - so I'm being cynical here ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Also the FeX website itself muddies the water when it includes: quote:
Exisiting congregation renewal
The renewal of an existing congregation through mission, especially through careful listening to the non-churchgoers the congregation is called to serve. This might involve radically reshaping the provision of all-age worship, for instance, or rethinking a midweek service.
as a part of its definition.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I don't think that muddies the waters at all. If the focus is on the non-, un- and de-churched, and is not merely an exercise in funnelling people into existing "real" church, then it can qualify as a Fresh Expression
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
I have written about Fresh Expressions at length. It is part of Rowan's legacy but has suffered from a degree of mission drift backwards and forwards over the years from its roots in Mission Shaped Church.
FE Practioners range from post-Alt.Worship Anglo-Catholics to New Wine style Charismatics, and it is supported by Methodist, Anglican and Presbyterian (CoS) Churches. The original vision encompassed existing forms of church seeing renewed interest but eventually the focus has become engaging with the un-churched which is a rather difficult group to pin down in many contexts.
FE has some success stories, especially related to church planting in new contexts. However succession has been a huge issue with communities collapsing after the initial pioneer has left. Much like some of the ultra-montain Anglo-Catholic church plants of the past some FE communities have little sense of connection with the body that initially funded and enabled them. This is not the way I see New Frontiers planting churches.
From an Anglican perspective this suggests a lack of confidence in our own body of tradition - not tradition in the sense of sitting in pews, using two brass candlesticks and having flowers every Sunday - but tradition in the sense of what we believe to be uniquely true about Anglicanism.
Which is where I struggle with elements of the Emergent church movement too. In response I tongue in cheek coined the term paleo-emergent to suggest an engagement with trends in culture that is rooted in the ancient - especially for me the early church of the first few centuries. That is how I understand the heart of the Anglican Reformers or of the Wesleyan revival.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
