|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lay knowledge of the CofE?
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You say fair enough, but who's going to pay for the vicar to do this?
I hope you don't see this as picking on you - but I think that at least some people would feel that this is why they have a vicar to start with, and as per my previous post I think something is lost when the vicar moves to a more 'executive' role and visitations are carried out by members of the congregation. Which isn't to say that both shouldn't happen.
Oh yes, I'm sure it's an expectation plenty of people have of their vicar / priest / minister. But IMO it's not a healthy expectation, at least not if only the vicar / priest / minister will do, and if a member of the 'pastoral team' visits then it doesn't really count.
In my thinking, we are all ministers and we all have a duty for the care of each others' souls. IMO there shouldn't be anything in the life of the church that only the minister is permitted or expected to do. (I think - throw me some examples if anyone would care to test my absolutism!)
--------------------
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
For some of us, Communion really needs an ordained priest/minister presiding to make it valid. I just could not receive if it was a layperson presiding.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, SCK, that it's all 'IMO' with you ... which is fine, just as long as you don't expect everyone else to share it.
Jade Constable, for instance, and many others would only feel comfortable receiving communion from an ordained clergyperson. What are you going to do about that?
Get over it already.
Some older people expect clergy to visit them in their homes - although almost certainly not catechetical reasons Richard Baxter style ... again, get over it already.
I can see where you're coming from but the suggestions you're making only makes sense with a particular demographic ie. yours.
Not everyone wants a studenty style church that meets in Starbucks.
Get over that already ...
--------------------
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
SCK - I do sympthise with your view and I know many Christians share it. However, if others prefer a different liturgical set-up, and it helps to nourish them spiritually, what is the harm? What would be the point in imposing a rigidly egalitarian view of the priesthood on a church which doesn't have it and doesn't want it? What would be the point of making a vicar stop being the person to take Communion to people if the vicar enjoys it and regards it as their job, and their parishoners are happy with that? Change is good, but only if it's wanted.
While I disagree with AO that set liturgy is a necessity to make church valid, and find such a stance (not AO!) to be a kind of ecclesiastical fascism, I do find your stance (again not you personally) to be a kind of ecclesiastical statist communism. Neither way takes into account individual preferences, and since liturgy/church structure is for us and not for God, that is important.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Missed the edit time limit, but it's also worth pointing out that churches that have no set liturgy and are very egalitarian in terms of structure are often extremely controlling in terms of the congregation's morals, which is rather more damaging IME than having a hierarchy. I also don't see anywhere near that control in churches with a hierarchy, perhaps because the priest/minister has someone to answer to.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Oh yes, I'm sure it's an expectation plenty of people have of their vicar / priest / minister. But IMO it's not a healthy expectation, at least not if only the vicar / priest / minister will do, and if a member of the 'pastoral team' visits then it doesn't really count.
Of course, I'm sure there are occasions where this sort of thing slips into a form of narcissism, which doesn't detract from it's fundamental value. In fact, I'd say that it's even more unhealthy when a vicar/priest/minister starts to feel that this sort of thing is beneath him (it's usually him in this context) and should really be done by members of the pastoral team, whilst he provides 'oversight.
I don't think you have to have a particularly sacramental view of things to believe that part of being called out to serve in this way is dealing with the situations that aren't handled by 'small groups' or whatever.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Gamaliel would you please cool it? Now.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We can go into extremes at both ends, it seems to me.
With all due respect to our Orthodox friends it sometimes comes across as if its 'salvation by liturgy' with them ... although I can certainly understand how Liturgy is part and parcel of the Tradition and constitutes a non-negotiable element of that 'seamless garment', the seamless whole as they would have it ...
The tradition that SCK represents is clearly trying to correct what it sees as an imbalance that has grown up over the years ... minimal lay involvement (as they see it) and an over-emphasis on sacerdotalism ... with church almost becoming a sacrament factory or petrol (gas) station ...
Sure, liturgies and so on can become fairly mechanistic but it all depends on the attitude and intention with which we approach these things.
I don't see any evidence to suggest that the world would automatically become a better place if all the churches shelved their liturgies tomorrow, sacked their priests and minsters, sold off their buildings and started meeting in Starbucks ...
That said, I wouldn't decry meeting in Starbucks or wherever else in and of itself ... but were I to do something like that these days it'd be a supplementary thing rather than the thing itself.
Whatever church or tradition we're talking about, it seems to me that a lot of the work is done by a small number of people ... the keenies and those who have the time.
That would remain the case whether we're meeting in Westminster Abbey, a tin-tabernacle or McDonalds.
It's exactly the same with any voluntarist group ... be it the local scouts, embroidery group, a trades union or the pigeon-fanciers club.
--------------------
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 have cooled it, Eutychus. But thanks for the warning.
I've been out and picked my daughter up from her dance class since I posted hotly and have tried to post in a more measured way since. I'm about to go and do the ironing so that should allow you all some respite.
--------------------
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
Gamaliel, I think you're bringing in to this discussion some points from your own experience and from other discussions we've had. For example, I've barely said anything in this thread about non-traditional meeting places, like Starbucks cafes; what I've said has been focused on people's varying expectations of their minister(s).
Right now, I'm not going to do anything about people like Jade Constable who expect communion to be presided over by an ordained person; well, except have an interesting, challenging and stimulating exchange with a bunch of other people who love talking about theology!
As for what the harm is of people expecting the minister (and the minister him/herself wanting) to visit and take communion to them, rather than having this done by a pastoral team - in one sense, there's no harm at all. Certainly not in the short term.
I suppose I see the harm being in the portrayal and modelling of what I see as a less-than-accurate picture of the church. For me, the church is a community of people who are absolute equals, albeit people with different gifts, struggles, flaws, motivations and desires. So the idea that only one person or a few people can perform certain tasks just doesn't sit right with me; it doesn't fit with my concept of what the church should be like.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Gamaliel, I think you're right that there are quite a few people, particularly of the generation that became adults in the 1940s and 1950s, who do think of the church as a bit like the NHS but for after you're dead in stead of before.
Like the NHS, it appears to be provided by the state. Just as the NHS is staffed by doctors and buses, so it is staffed by assorted clergy. So if you pay your taxes, keep your stamps up to date and are reasonably law abiding, you're entitled to go to heaven, religion free at the point of need. And just as there are some doctors who go on and on about smoking, they hear about some clergy who tell them they ought to take God seriously, but just like smoking, they just hear it as background noise, the sort of thing you'd expect them to say.
I also think there are some people who know what the word 'vicarious' means. So they think they're entitled to take that as meaning a 'vicar' is someone who does religion for you - so you don't have to.
The same people think being visited by a member of the parish visiting team in stead of the vicar, is being fobbed off with the practice nurse rather than the proper doctor.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whatever church or tradition we're talking about, it seems to me that a lot of the work is done by a small number of people ... the keenies and those who have the time.
Most denominations have an early (pre-denominational) period in which everyone must put his/her hand to the wheel; there is no point in offering a limited commitment to a new movement when it needs workers more than anything else.
I wasn't contemplating that the CofE should rewind and de-construct itself to this extent, but in response to your statement above I'm wondering if all church movements inevitably have to develop in the direction of multi-tiered levels of involvement, from very high levels to very low levels. After all, in some churches/traditions the average levels of engagement are obviously higher than in others.
By virtue of its vast remit the CofE (among many other denominations, of course) can't really expect or demand high levels of engagement, despite the efforts of individual clergy and lay leaders who may need participants to help them pursue their vision. But conversely, it should be possible for some few Christian groups to expect higher levels of engagement so long as they're willing to remain smaller, less influential, less prestigious, and more focused in their ambitions.
The challenge is that most small groups of Christians eventually lean towards great expansion, influence, recognition and an ever more complex vision of what 'the church' should be doing. This isn't an issue for the likes of the CofE - there's no going back for them. But it should give pause for thought for much newer Christian movements. I don't suppose they do give it much thought, on the whole, barring a few exceptions.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I agree with all of that SvitlanaV2, just as I agree with Enoch and just as I agree with South Coast Kevin too - to an extent ...
I certainly agree that the kind of church as NHS mentality leads to the kind of expectations that Enoch has cogently outlined.
That comes with the territory and is probably inevitable in any situation where you have an established or 'state' church.
Conversely, the kind of gathered/sectarian (in the sociological sense) model that you advocate (and I'm using Starbucks as short-hand not as a literal description necessarily) has its own inherent problems and issues - as well as strengths.
Both exist at one and the same time. Just as in the midst of life we are in death, as the old funeral service has it ... we are alive and thriving but each day that dawns we are one day closer to our own demise.
It's both/and not either/or.
Established churches have their own set of problems - including nominalism - and gathered churches have another set. The problems don't cancel one another out any more than the advantages do. Both co-exist.
Sure, we're approaching a time when the 1940s/50s generation with NHS-style expectations of church will have passed away - God rest their souls.
Once they've all gone then NHS-style churches will have to adapt to survive. Fair enough. I've never said otherwise.
It's not that I'm totally opposed to what you're advocating, simply asking difficult questions.
For someone like Jade Constable and many others, the notion of an ordained clergy - and episcopacy presumably - is of the bene esse of the Church and must continue ...
Sure, they may advocate and anticipate different models, flexibility and so on ... but it's not something they want to do away with? Why not? Because they see the three-fold order of bishops (overseers), priests and deacons having sanction from the earliest times.
Of course, all this developed as the first century of the Christian era morphed into the second and third ... but it is interesting that all extant churches that can trace their ancestry back to those early centuries all practice a similar model when it comes to ministry.
Surely that suggests something?
If you're calling for a New Testament model then I would ask, 'What New Testament model?' There isn't one. The whole thing was in a state of flux and development.
If you started completely from scratch tomorrow you'd end up over several centuries going in a similar direction, I submit ... depending on circumstances and the way things pan out.
I think SvitlanaV2 has nailed it with her comment about newer models of church taking a realistic view of where they're at and what they are likely to achieve. I know I can bang on about my own experience - but it's all I have to go on afterall - but back in the day us restorationist types were convinced that we were going to carry all before us and all the traditional and historic churches would either cave in or come round to our point of view ...
That hasn't happened and was never going to happen.
I have no issue with a group that meets in someone's front-room, shed, garage, hired hall or the local coffee bar or pub ... provided they realise what it is that they're doing and don't get ideas into their heads that the long-term consequences of their actions will be to completely transform the Christian landscape and usher in a new era of peace, love and goodwill for all mankind ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Right now, I'm not going to do anything about people like Jade Constable who expect communion to be presided over by an ordained person; well, except have an interesting, challenging and stimulating exchange with a bunch of other people who love talking about theology!
As for what the harm is of people expecting the minister (and the minister him/herself wanting) to visit and take communion to them, rather than having this done by a pastoral team - in one sense, there's no harm at all. Certainly not in the short term.
I suppose I see the harm being in the portrayal and modelling of what I see as a less-than-accurate picture of the church. For me, the church is a community of people who are absolute equals, albeit people with different gifts, struggles, flaws, motivations and desires. So the idea that only one person or a few people can perform certain tasks just doesn't sit right with me; it doesn't fit with my concept of what the church should be like.
Istm that if we're each following God's calling whatever our ministry, then only those called to preside at the Eucharist should do so. In the C of E, this means those whose vocation has been ascertained and who are ordained as priests, whether or not they are specifically vicars. For the latter, the structure inevitably removes equality as far as leadership power is concerned, but those who are ordained remain as lay people too, recognising that they are equal with everyone before God.
If and when a vicar for whatever reason (insecurity?) takes it upon him/her self to do everything, rather than empowering others with the authority given by the Church and by God to do so, burn-out will follow. We're meant to co-operate in God's service.
--------------------
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
I know it's a different issue but the principle may be related ... but it's clear from the NT that not everyone in the churches back then performed the same functions - 'are all apostles? are all prophets? ...' I Cor. 12:29
And in terms of spiritual gifts - 'do all speak in tongues? do all prophesy? do all work miracles?'
No, they didn't.
So what's the big deal about having a designated person who serves the Eucharist?
It's not saying that they are any better or any more worthy than anyone else any more than the apostle Paul was saying that apostles and prophets and so on were 'better' than anyone else or that those who 'spoke in tongues' were better than whoever it was who did the dishes or took up the collection for widows and orphans etc.
Of course we are 'all one in Christ Jesus' but that doesn't mean that we all perform the same jobs and functions.
As I've said before, I don't feel any less 'empowered' because a vicar or minister serves the communion any more than I felt more 'empowered' when I was able to do the same thing in a different context where lay-presidency (as it were) was part of the context.
I can understand what you're getting at, certainly. But I no longer find it a big issue.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The challenge is that most small groups of Christians eventually lean towards great expansion, influence, recognition and an ever more complex vision of what 'the church' should be doing. This isn't an issue for the likes of the CofE - there's no going back for them. But it should give pause for thought for much newer Christian movements. I don't suppose they do give it much thought, on the whole, barring a few exceptions.
Yes, and I think it's vital for small churches and movements to decide (deliberately, intentionally) how they want their structure to develop, as and when they discover that their numbers are growing. Do they want to become a more conventional church / movement (my church did this; it started as a group of five people meeting informally to pray, study and seek God, and has gradually become what one might call a 'proper' church) or do they want to try and retain the 'small church' distinctiveness?
I love what Neil Cole has written and is doing about this; he's involved in an organisation supporting networks of churches that want to keep those 'small church' distinctive ways, while nevertheless sharing and learning from the experiences of other Christians. His organisation is very non-prescriptive about what joining up entails and it's all very loose - so hopefully enabling the churches involved to retain the non-institutional ethos and set-up that they hold dear.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Tried to edit my above post but ran out of time...
Sorry Gamaliel, on the different roles and functions point:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know it's a different issue but the principle may be related ... but it's clear from the NT that not everyone in the churches back then performed the same functions - 'are all apostles? are all prophets? ...' I Cor. 12:29
And in terms of spiritual gifts - 'do all speak in tongues? do all prophesy? do all work miracles?'
No, they didn't.
So what's the big deal about having a designated person who serves the Eucharist?
I'm glad this isn't a big deal for you any more; I guess if it was you'd be considering a change of church! I'm not sure there's much I can add to what I've already said, really, but it's just that different gifts and talents is fine with me (well, it's just reality isn't it) but some church roles only being permitted to some people doesn't feel fine to me.
Yes, you give people roles reflecting their skills and interests, but saying there are certain qualifications or processes that someone must go through before they're allowed to carry out a certain role feels to me like a breach of the 'priesthood of all believers' principle (and I know that exact phrase isn't in the Bible!). It says that some people are ontologically different, having been through a certain process (ordination in this case), and I don't think they are.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I love what Neil Cole has written and is doing about this; he's involved in an organisation supporting networks of churches that want to keep those 'small church' distinctive ways, while nevertheless sharing and learning from the experiences of other Christians.
"adjust the leadership paradigm in order to release healthy movemental influence within an established church context. "
I can hear Gamaliel start to steam already ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously though one of the problems with this kind of approach (both Cole and the stuff that Peter Rollins has been involved in), is that it essentially becomes a Christianised form of the mass resistance to mass culture movement du-jour, and ends up appealing to the same constituency (largely monocultural and middle class).
.. and whilst their critique of older church forms as aping previous power structures may be correct to some degree, their own similarities to the structures of their day makes me less able to take them seriously.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm not steaming ...
I don't think that anyone who performs a particular role in a church setting or who is ordained a priest or a minister is ontologically different to anyone else ...
I don't see how this follows from anything I've written here.
In the RC Church, of course, there's the idea that ordination is irreversible and somehow effects a lasting change of some kind ... although I'm not sure they'd argue that it effects an ontological change. I'd imagine it'd be related to the 'change' in the consecrated elements - ie. they remain bread and wine but are also the Body and Blood of Christ ...
But I'm not RC so I can't comment with any authority.
As far as the Orthodox go, I know they would strenuously argue against the idea of ontological change ... and once you are defrocked or stop being a priest that's it ... there's no special aura or anything that is meant to remain.
That said, an online Orthodox contact did send me a link once to a story about an ossuary in a Greek monastery where the skulls of those monks who had also been priests were supposedly demarcated by cross-shaped sutures ...
I'm not sure that this would have official sanction as a belief and in my experience of the Orthodox you'd find as many who would roll their eyes at such a story as those who would champion it.
Anyway ... whatever the ins-and-outs of all of that - and such things don't apply in the Anglican settings where I am now (and I'm not particularly happy where I am but that's another issue and nothing to do with Anglicanism particularly) ... I agree with Chris Stiles's point ...
I can see scope for the kind of low-key, experimental type churches that Coles is advocating but like Chris I can't see them appealing to any other demographic than the one that Coles - and presumably South Coast Kevin - represent.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not averse to people trying to be all emergent or 'New Expressions-ish' or whatever else. Indeed not. Just as long as they realise that what they are proposing is different but not necessarily any better or more likely to be more effective in the longer term than whatever else is already on the table.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
In an earlier post, Curiosity killed.... suggested that in 20-30 years' time all the CofE churches in my vicinity might have closed. Your only comment was that the closures would give me something churchy to get involved in. It was one of your attempts to tease, but I can't see how you can have an effective 'both/and' situation if huge numbers of CofE churches in particular areas are facing closure in the long term, along with reductions in the numbers of clergy.
Should a frail old lady of slender means in 2040 end up with unrealistic pastoral expectations of a church that can barely cope, and that's on the verge of abandoning her community? Ideally not. But if managing decline and retreat is what it means for the CofE to 'adapt to survive' then my generation and younger ought to be prepared for it. Yet there's little sign of any church engagement with this issue, despite Britain's ageing population. This is one subject where developing lay awareness could have real consequences on the ground for ordinary Christians, especially for those who aren't particularly well-off.
As for all churches enjoying different kinds of success, it's probably time to realise that the success that comes from institutional church wealth is gradually coming to an end. Maybe we'll have to see what successes church poverty can come up with.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
FWIW I think that all of us are going to have to get used to less influence, less resources and declining numbers. Even with some of the lively and growing churches numbers have plateau-ed out and I think we've been seeing that for the last 20 years or so and they've not quite acknowledged it yet.
It's the same in the US with the megachurches.
The only groups to be bucking this trend are ethnic-minority led churches in some inner city areas and there's a heavy metropolitan slant coming into play. I think I read somewhere that 60% of so of all church attendees under the age of 25 live in the Greater London area.
So - teasing aside, and yes I was pulling your leg - we do have a very real problem on our hands and it doesn't pay to be flippant about it as I was being.
I've no idea where you'll be in 2040 but I'm unlikely to be around ... unless I live until I'm 79 which is an age which few males in my family have reached.
On the vexed issue of lay involvement. Yes, I can foresee greater levels of lay involvement in the CofE in future but would suggest that there are already plenty of opportunities for lay people to get involved in things in the CofE if they so wish. It might be involvement in a different way to how involvement works out in Methodism, but it's still involvement.
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2, I think we in the Church of England are going to have to move much more towards a model of the Church as a mutually supportive community, able to draw on specific gifts and resources as it needs them. The 'chaplaincy' role of the clergy will look very different.
At the moment in many places the underlying model has a strong flavour of subscribers to a service (without always, unfortunately, a realistic idea of the cost of that service). Essentially the institutional mindset of the local church is comparable to the bus passenger or the cinema-goer. The 'vicar' tends to be cast in the role of projectionist or driver.
The idea of being participants in a joint enterprise, rather than recipients of a service will be difficult change for us to make. Clergy will find it hard to let go more and more of the direction of local congregations. Congregations will find it hard to adapt to the idea that they are the church, and that when 'the vicar' is there no longer, it does not mean that the church has abandoned the place.
It will also be a new thing for good and for ill that the 'buck stops here' element of the clergy person 'in charge' is likely to become much rarer across the country.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Even with some of the lively and growing churches numbers have plateau-ed out and I think we've been seeing that for the last 20 years or so and they've not quite acknowledged it yet.
Actually I suspect things aren't that bleak depending on where you come from - as you say, in many ways church numbers have plateaued out (and also see the Pew Study which seems to show that Europe might be the outlier in terms of rising secularism), what this means is that some parts of the church (mainly the older mainlines) will see significant decline, whilst other churches stay more or less where they are. So, those megachurches may not be so delusional after all. From where they are sitting, the local picture is probably one of steadyish growth.
quote:
The only groups to be bucking this trend are ethnic-minority led churches in some inner city areas and there's a heavy metropolitan slant coming into play. I think I read somewhere that 60% of so of all church attendees under the age of 25 live in the Greater London area.
Actually, it's these kind of churches which I think raise significant issues for SCK's picture of a church like those described by Viola, Cole and others.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I’m using a bit of rare web access at this time of year to do, hopefully, a bit of clearing of the air. After my first post on this thread I suffered unexpected interruptions to my access for about a week, and came back to find myself being called ‘smug’, and insinuating comments about my failure to come back and defend my post, from people who didn’t seem to be engaging with the issues. I admit I allowed myself to get a bit nettled by this and my response was, I agree, not ideal – but in slight mitigation I don’t think many others would be happy at such a situation.
I’m sorry if I come over as ‘smug’ and ‘patronising’; but I don’t intend that, from my perspective I’m just trying to get things right. I probably have over-reacted a bit from a past when unrecognised Asperger’s had made me cripplingly shy. Can we now put that aspect of things behind us, please?
I pretty much stand by the substance of my original post; that basically the CoE is a very disparate and contradictory organisation, even compared to most other denominations, and that must pose significant problems to coherent ‘lay knowledge’ of the church. Unfortunately the major unifying factor in the CoE is its historical background as England’s national religion ‘established by law’, which is also just about the most questionable aspect of the body in terms of New Testament teaching. I feel I am far from alone in thinking that makes the whole enterprise dubious….
Matters arising; again mainly for clarification ….
Gamaliel, strangely I had noticed that Anabaptists are human and have problems and temptations, often considerable! In some ways that’s my point; if we can have such problems simply in trying to follow the NT, why add the extra unnecessary complications, confusions and temptations of establishment and/or related church-and-state entanglements which are clearly disobedient to the NT teaching? Remember that ‘Christian states’ are a problem to atheists/agnostics and both a problem and a very bad example to those of other religions, especially currently to fundamentalist Islam, not just an internal problem for Christians.
Is Northern Ireland really as simple as ‘2 + 2’? If only! My suggestion that the ‘Christian country’ idea is very relevant is somewhat confirmed by pretty explicit statements from those involved. The relevance of/to Anglicanism lies in firstly that the mainland UK is a formally ‘Protestant’ country due to its established Anglican CoE and slightly different Church of Scotland; as I said, that’s why the Loyalists/Unionists are ‘loyal’ and want to be ‘united’ to us. Secondly our politicians can’t much help NI if they aren’t willing to challenge on the mainland that major idea which also underlies the NI problems – other solutions are just fudge. Just by existing, Anglican establishment is a major part of the NI issue even if most mainland Anglicans are unfortunately unaware or in denial about it.
CS Lewis ‘not an evangelical’ – I don’t think I said he was, and I’m not a rabid ‘fundamentalist’ myself anyway (actually by modern standards nor were most of the original writers of ‘The Fundamentals’!). Lewis clearly did take seriously the Bible and the basic nature of Christianity as a supernatural faith – see for example the title essay of the collection ‘Fernseed and Elephants’. Many who are broadly evangelical admire him. Oh – and he was appalled by the misconduct of ‘Christendom’….
Jade Constable; the relevance of the bishop who criticised Wesley is that he was confused in the way I described, thinking that having a ‘Christian country’ somehow made everybody automatically ‘Christian’ and meant there was no need to preach the gospel to them. I can point to many others now as well as then who suffer such confusion, including some very worrying right-wingers who seek to play the ‘Christian country’ card against their Islamic bętes-noirs, threatening us with NI-style troubles only ‘Christian’/Muslim rather than Protestant/Catholic.
I agree that disentangling church and state is quite complex – however it’s already been done twice in the UK, in Ireland and Wales, so it can’t be that bad either, surely?
Jade also said that she doesn’t accept the authority of the NT over church structures. If all she means is that the NT is open-ended and we can adopt other practices besides those actually stated in the NT, I’d probably agree. But I’d also say there’s a difference between legitimate extension and deliberate contradiction, and all ‘Christian state’ theories seem to be the latter, with Anglican establishment in theory an extreme case even if the practice these days is rather soggy!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Actually it has been done at least three times in the UK.The 'slightly different' Church of Scotland is not established,although it is recognised as the 'National' church.The State cannot interfere with the ideas,teachings and administration of the Church of Scotland.'Establishment' is simply not a topic of conversation in that part of the UK which is Scotland.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks, Forthview. I must admit that I'm not sure of the exact status of the Church of Scotland, whence my use of that phrase 'slightly different'. I did know that it wasn't 'established' in exactly the same sense as the CoE, but it still seems to come within the general idea of a state religion?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Steven Langton, I'm glad you're back and it's good to 'see' you again.
For the record, I'm not in favour of Establishment. I've made that clear several times already.
Also, I'm not against Anabaptists either. I've made that clear too. I was very happily involved with a Baptist church for 6 years and Baptists are among my favourite brand of non-conformist ...
Incidentally, as Baxter's been mentioned a few times, one of the aspects he cites as a success during his Kidderminster years was the fact that there were no Anabaptists or other sectarians muddying the waters ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I can certainly see where Baptists are coming from and have a lot of sympathy. All I'm saying is that they've got different strengths and different issues/problems to Anglicans. If we were comparing Baptists with Methodists, say, then there'd be pros and cons on both sides there too.
I'd be interested in hearing more about which bishop it was who had that conversation with Wesley, by the way.
Probably the famous exchange between a bishop and Wesley was the incident with Bishop Butler of Gloucester, 'Sir, the pretending to special revelations and gifts of the Holy Spirit is an horrid thing, a very horrid thing ...'
Wesley wasn't against episcopacy, of course, he even sought some kind of 'ordination'/laying of hands from a visiting Greek Orthodox Bishop (who may have been bogus, the accounts vary) in order to pass on 'apostolic succession' in some way to his lay-preachers ...
Wesley was a pretty complex character.
So was C S Lewis.
All these things are complicated and can't be reduced to a simple formulae.
Like Christendom. It had its good aspects and its bad aspects. The position has always been mixed.
The reality is, that we're entering post-Christendom and how we adapt to that is the real issue, not the rights and wrongs of Establishment which doesn't really impinge on the ordinary guy or girl in the street.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The reality is, that we're entering post-Christendom and how we adapt to that is the real issue, not the rights and wrongs of Establishment which doesn't really impinge on the ordinary guy or girl in the street.
I kind of disagree that we are post anything to be honest, but then I'm a contrary type. Certainly it seems to me as if there are historical precedents for the drop off in interest in religion - and it could be that the 'West' as it is is very much the outlier in this respect anyway.
What we will see is the end of doing church in a particular way - which relied on large, and mostly hidden, subsidies of various sorts.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... I love what Neil Cole has written and is doing about this; he's involved in an organisation supporting networks of churches that want to keep those 'small church' distinctive ways, while nevertheless sharing and learning from the experiences of other Christians. His organisation is very non-prescriptive about what joining up entails and it's all very loose - so hopefully enabling the churches involved to retain the non-institutional ethos and set-up that they hold dear.
I was about to post this on the Ecclesiantics thread about worship spaces, when I realised what I was going to say wasn't really Ecclesiantics territory.
I know this is a controversial question, but in a place where there are already a large number of churches and congregations, can there ever be any justification for setting up yet another one, irrespective of your personal conviction that you know better than anyone else how it should be done.
One of the pages on that site is entitled 'History' and describes - as evidence of credibility and worth - how CMA had planted 10 churches in Southern California in one year, and since gone on to plant a lot more. I appreciate CMA probably has a different ecclesiology from me. Nevertheless, is Southern California really a place where in the late 1990s, no churches already existed?
Is there any reason why the benefits of CMA's vision should not be made available and used by churches that already exist, without creating yet more divisions?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
One of the pages on that site is entitled 'History' and describes - as evidence of credibility and worth - how CMA had planted 10 churches in Southern California in one year, and since gone on to plant a lot more. I appreciate CMA probably has a different ecclesiology from me. Nevertheless, is Southern California really a place where in the late 1990s, no churches already existed?
Furthermore, it tends to underline the critique I made above - wrt these movements are really Christian versions existing 'mass' 'counter-cultural' movements of the time. To that extent it's hardly surprising that they should have a lot of success in Southern California - where the existing churches are versions of the previous 'mass-cultural' movement.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is there any reason why the benefits of CMA's vision should not be made available and used by churches that already exist, without creating yet more divisions?
In what way do you think the benefits of CMA's vision aren't already available to existing churches? As for whether they're actually used, well that's up to each church / denomination to make its own decision, as with any other matter of practice.
I think, up to a point, people should indeed look at joining existing churches rather than starting new ones. But different 'flavours' of church can reach very different people (setting aside any questions about thinking those lot are doing it so wrongly that I just can't get involved there) so I don't think there's any harm in having churches of many different shapes and sizes.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But different 'flavours' of church can reach very different people (setting aside any questions about thinking those lot are doing it so wrongly that I just can't get involved there) so I don't think there's any harm in having churches of many different shapes and sizes.
Up to point. However, I'd re-iterate Enoch's criticism and intersperse it with my own. That one has managed to attract a few groups of people (most of whom probably will have Christian roots of some kind) into a cultural setting which apes the cultural settings in which they are familiar to, and then layered Christianity over it isn't actually much of an achievement, is it? All you've done is rebranded Christianity with hipster flavour.
In this context Gamaliel's references to 'Christianity in a pub' is actually very apposite. Call it Starbucks Christianity if you prefer.
[ 11. December 2013, 14:11: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd tend to agree with Chris Stiles, but would suggest that all kinds and manner of church expressions are inevitably going to be culturally conditioned.
How can they be otherwise?
I spent six happy years in a Baptist church with a mildly 'emergent' flavour and was fully aware that it tended to appeal to a particular demographic. They were all aware of that too but unclear what to do about it.
It was very much a 'people like us' church, Guardian reading, graduates and professionals with a mildly eco, right-on and 'generous orthodoxy' flavour.
That was fine as far as it went, but it meant that we couldn't possibly relate very well as a church to people/settings that didn't quite map across that.
I remember a conversation with someone there who said that they wanted the services to be 'relevant'.
'Relevant to whom?' I asked. 'Relevant to you? How would what you want here be relevant to an 80 year old working class lady or an 18 year old Afro-Caribbean?'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd tend to agree with Chris Stiles, but would suggest that all kinds and manner of church expressions are inevitably going to be culturally conditioned.
How can they be otherwise?
I spent six happy years in a Baptist church with a mildly 'emergent' flavour and was fully aware that it tended to appeal to a particular demographic. They were all aware of that too but unclear what to do about it.
It was very much a 'people like us' church, Guardian reading, graduates and professionals with a mildly eco, right-on and 'generous orthodoxy' flavour.
That was fine as far as it went, but it meant that we couldn't possibly relate very well as a church to people/settings that didn't quite map across that.
I remember a conversation with someone there who said that they wanted the services to be 'relevant'.
'Relevant to whom?' I asked. 'Relevant to you? How would what you want here be relevant to an 80 year old working class lady or an 18 year old Afro-Caribbean?'
Yep, see this a lot in emerging/new expressions projects from mainline Protestant denominations, and also with SCM (there is a significant degree of crossover!). If it is at times not very relevant to this working-class Anglo-Catholic who does at least know the 'language', its relevancy to even more outsider groups (not sure that is the correctly grammatical arrangement) is rather suspect. The same, of course, happens with most parts of the CoE, although less so with evangelicals IME.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd tend to agree with Chris Stiles, but would suggest that all kinds and manner of church expressions are inevitably going to be culturally conditioned.
To an extent, yes. Though I'd argue that you are likely to have a much broader appeal by being part of the previous 'mass culture' rather than the new 'critique' which ends up really being a form of niche marketing that isn't actually an argument for anything in particular.
As I said before, go to the inner cities and see which churches recent immigrants, who are both cash and time poor, prefer to attend for their spiritual solace.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the vexed issue of lay involvement. Yes, I can foresee greater levels of lay involvement in the CofE in future but would suggest that there are already plenty of opportunities for lay people to get involved in things in the CofE if they so wish.
Churches always have lots of jobs for people to do, certainly. But I would have thought that how the CofE 'adapts to survive', as you put it, would be of real relevance to the average churchgoer. They're more likely to be affected by such 'adaptations' than anyone else, surely? However, I think you've hinted at why this isn't necessarily the case; many of those currently in the church aren't young enough for it to feel like a personal issue for them. And perhaps interest is also limited if many CofE churchgoers simply aren't in the social or psychological position of needing to rely on the church very much (although they may expect the vicar to visit if they fall ill).
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The only groups to be bucking this [downward] trend are ethnic-minority led churches in some inner city areas and there's a heavy metropolitan slant coming into play. I think I read somewhere that 60% of so of all church attendees under the age of 25 live in the Greater London area.
Actually, it's these kind of churches which I think raise significant issues for SCK's picture of a church like those described by Viola, Cole and others.
I haven't read Cole, but Viola doesn't claim that institutional churches are useless. His problem is with some of the issues raised by institutionalisation - issues that affect both large and small churches, and presumably both growing and declining churches.
In the UK it must be tempting for fans (like me?) to see Viola's ideas as offering a solution to church decline, but he doesn't actually talk about church growth or decline very much. He's does admit that the type of church he proposes takes a lot of work and engagement from everyone. This would increase growth to the extent that churches with high expectations tend to be more attractive than churches without. But his model would also reduce numbers, because it doesn't have much room for attenders who don't want to give too much to church life.
Regarding the institutional BME (black minority ethnic) churches in the UK, for Viola these would now in their essentials be like all other institutional churches, with the same weaknesses. I assume that he'd acknowledge cultural differences regarding spirituality, group cohesion, the role of religion in migrant communities, the impact of secularisation and rates of transmission to the 2nd generation, etc., but would also claim that these churches lost something important when they transitioned away from being house churches, which is how many of them started off. (He'd probably also say that if they'd had an effective theology of organic church they wouldn't have felt the need to institutionalise.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I haven't read Cole, but Viola doesn't claim that institutional churches are useless. His problem is with some of the issues raised by institutionalisation - issues that affect both large and small churches, and presumably both growing and declining churches.
It's hard for me to take Viola seriously, as his actual data is very vague, and the two studies I saw that tried to actually get figures and talk to the examples he used found that none of those churches were in existence in anything like the same way (or usually at all)
quote:
but would also claim that these churches lost something important when they transitioned away from being house churches, which is how many of them started off.
Starting a house church with the intention of it remaining a house church involves a completely different dynamic to starting a house church with the intention that it grows into a congregational church
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It's hard for me to take Viola seriously, as his actual data is very vague, and the two studies I saw that tried to actually get figures and talk to the examples he used found that none of those churches were in existence in anything like the same way (or usually at all)
True, AFAIK he doesn't attempt to do a scientific study of the number, type and success of organic churches. That's probably the work of more scholarly and objective observers. But he admits in his blog that organic churches (in the USA) are hard to find.
I think it's unlikely that the precise model Viola outlines could ever be dominant. It requires too much work. It also reduces the diffusive influence and power of the church, an outcome that most Christians would find hard to stomach, even in cultures where Christianity is going through a marginal phase (if we must avoid the use of terms such as 'post-Christian').
In fact, Viola makes it clear at one point that making lots of believers isn't the be-all and end-all for organic church, so he's the opposite of a revivalist who seeks conversions at any cost. If only in this sense perhaps he has a touch of the 'average' CofE layperson about him..... (Maybe there's a unspoken shared Calvinism there?)
quote:
Starting a house church with the intention of it remaining a house church involves a completely different dynamic to starting a house church with the intention that it grows into a congregational church
I'm sure this is true. As I implied in the last sentence of my post, Viola would no doubt argue that these churches missed out by not starting out with a theology that valorised house church worship. But since most house churches (including BME churches) of the past have come to life as part of (or affiliated to) established denominations it would be hard for them to set out such principles and risk creating tensions early on. The most they could do was benefit unintentionally from some of the advantages of house church worship without the full organic church experience. I think their institutional churches still refer to this fairly recent experience. A founding myth, some might call it.
BTW, do you have the details for the two studies you mentioned?
[ 12. December 2013, 22:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I'm deeply cynical about some of these so called Fresh Expression type activities.
I attended the Apple Cart when they ran a monthly session in a Whitechapel pub - the upstairs room, so you had make an effort to find it. It was described as a way of reaching new people by story telling in a pub. I reckoned everyone there had already been to a church of some flavour that Sunday morning. It was Easter Sunday and the story told had nothing to do with the Resurrection - which seemed like a missed opportunity.
Locally there a Beer and Bible group has run for a couple of years. And although it met in a pub it again met in a separate room and the group was made up of regular church goers. Past tense because it's been suspended for Advent with no intention of resuming.
But there are other things that are hugely ongoing successful - the market day coffee in the church attracts a group of people who see it as "their church". The pram service reaches some people who would not otherwise go near a church and some of those do continue into church. I think if I'd had the time and energy and set up an after school Messy Play group that would have worked too - because it would have continued working with the children from the pram service and maybe picked up a few more along the way.
But after 3 years of running the pram service, and a whole lot more, the last of those begging for someone else to take it on because I was burning out and knew it, after taking a break to recover I can't find any reasons to go back.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The other thing I meant to add was the document I linked to earlier, Transforming Presence, (sorry haven't worked out how to do links on my phone ) is all about lay involvement. As was the consultation document before that. And I am sure if you check any diocese website you'll find a similar process going on. Whether it is being rolled out to the parishes ~ or being heard when it gets there is a different matter.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I think if I'd had the time and energy and set up an after school Messy Play group that would have worked too - because it would have continued working with the children from the pram service and maybe picked up a few more along the way.
But after 3 years of running the pram service, and a whole lot more, the last of those begging for someone else to take it on because I was burning out and knew it, after taking a break to recover I can't find any reasons to go back.
Been there myself.
Well-meaning PCC member: "Wouldn't it be great if we could build on all that wonderful work you're doing going into the local schools. Why don't we set up a Messy Church once a month? Or maybe more often than that! Perhaps we could see if we could run it in the school."
Rest of PCC vigorously nod heads in agreement
Me: Ummmmm. Who exactly is "we"? Who else would be doing all this apart from myself?
Long silence
(It didn't happen)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... I spent six happy years in a Baptist church with a mildly 'emergent' flavour and was fully aware that it tended to appeal to a particular demographic. They were all aware of that too but unclear what to do about it.
It was very much a 'people like us' church, Guardian reading, graduates and professionals with a mildly eco, right-on and 'generous orthodoxy' flavour.
That was fine as far as it went, but it meant that we couldn't possibly relate very well as a church to people/settings that didn't quite map across that.
I remember a conversation with someone there who said that they wanted the services to be 'relevant'.
'Relevant to whom?' I asked. 'Relevant to you? How would what you want here be relevant to an 80 year old working class lady or an 18 year old Afro-Caribbean?'
Aren't a BME church, and a cathedral or similar which homes in on its musical tradition just as much 'people like us' churches?
Is it easier for a church in a place that's fairly homogenous, whether middle class suburbia or a working class council estate to hit the 'people like us' button for its neighbours than for a church where the local community is less homogenous and probably less of a community?
Is it also an issue that some churches are only hitting a part of the community that is 'people not like us' - e.g. the Grauniad Social Class B element in an area that is mainly D and E - and then complaining that hardly anyone comes to church?
Is there also any evidence that small freelance house type churches are managing to reach a 'people like us' that other churches are not reaching? I suspect this is a fantasy and that they appeal most to types of people that are already fairly well represented in existing churches.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I completely agree.
I was happy in that Baptist church because it more or less reflected my own demographic. There were issues I wasn't happy with - any church affiliation of any kind is a compromise to some extent or other - and I was already moving in a more reflective/liturgical kind of direction.
Would I have been happy there had I worn a silver-buttoned blazer and army tie and voted Tory? No, I wouldn't.
I think most 'emergent' and organic style church experimenters are living in cloud-cuckoo land to be quite honest.
--------------------
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
Alternative types of church are mostly set up in well-heeled places, so they're obviously going to attract fairly well-heeled folk. But one of the reasons why I like living where I do is that life, including church life, tends towards the diverse, with different denominations having different mixes too. The most diverse church I know personally is a Baptist church.
My sense is that from now on any sort of church planting (including FEs run by the mainstream churches) in or near large towns and cities will have to involve some serious reflection on demographics at the planning stage. This will have to go beyond simply trying to attract an undifferentiated group of 'young people'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, do you have the details for the two studies you mentioned?
They were studies that failed due to lack of data. I know Dan Edelen was planning on writing on them, but the only reference I can find on his blog is this one:
http://ceruleansanctum.com/2012/01/is-the-organic-house-church-a-myth.html
It is interesting to see what Frank Viola has to say in that comment thread:
" As I’ve stated numerous times eleswhere, what I describe as “authentic organic church” certainly exists, but it’s difficult to find in our day.
..
So numbers don’t mean much to me. As Einstein once said, “everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.”
That said, according to Barna there are 11 million adult Christians who gather as church exclusively in homes in the USA. (I’ve gone on record saying that “house church” and “organic church” are two very different things, in many cases at least.)"
(So essentially he's quoting an 11 million figure which he then - in the next sentence - admits is completely misleading - sounds like a rather heavy hedging of bets there).
Which doesn't do much to dispel Edelen's conclusion, expressed poetically as:
"But like so many tales one hears in the American Church today, it seems like those beautiful stories are happening in some hazy, distant place, almost like Narnia, except even harder to find."
quote:
"Alternative types of church are mostly set up in well-heeled places, so they're obviously going to attract fairly well-heeled folk."
I'd say continuous 'content creation' that they expect is something that requires the time and resources that the well-heeled folk have, and the group therapy atmosphere appeals to their sensibilities.
I remember a discussion online on this topic to which Pete Rollins contributed, he started off by saying that Belfast was a historically deprived area, and then described his congregation by profession - all of them relatively middle class.
I have no doubt that some such groups exist - but it seems to stretch credibility to assume that they are some kind of new church movement.
[ 13. December 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
chris stiles
My expectations of finding a wonderful organic church are low. Realistically, I think that in order to be part of church that runs closely along the lines that Viola suggests then you have to be up for starting it yourself - even in the USA.
Regarding that figure of 11 million, yes, well! I suppose Viola's including churches that came into existence independently of his influence, and which may therefore not match up with his recommendations on every point. Perhaps he feels he has to acknowledge his forerunners in order to affirm the validity of his own work.
I don't think Viola claims to be offering a 'new church movement' in the sense of proposing something that's never been tried before. It's more a case of putting a particular understanding of church under the spotlight, and attempting to support that understanding by appealing to other people's scholarship and to theology. Having said that, were organic churches to become far more visible in the UK they'd probably be treated as a weird newfangled thing. Despite the experiences of many commentators here I doubt that a majority of British Christians (or non-Christians) have had any experience of a house church, let alone an organic house church.
Getting back on topic, sort of, if the CofE intends to 'adapt to survive', as Gamaliel has it, it'll surely have to reflect on a range of examples of church. The fascination with Fresh Expressions suggests that there's an interest in doing so, but perhaps that doesn't go far enough. I.e. have alternative forms of churches always been utterly middle class? History suggests not - and mainstream denominations like the CofE would do well to explore the factors that influence the make-up of churches. The collapse of the parish system and the inevitable closure of many church buildings could lead to lots of hopelessly middle class huddles. Or it might mean something more interesting, if lessons are learnt from the past.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I'd say continuous 'content creation' that they expect is something that requires the time and resources that the well-heeled folk have, and the group therapy atmosphere appeals to their sensibilities.
AIUI, the 'content creation' that people like Viola envisage is merely the bringing of what is already going on in people's lives with God. The 'traditional' church service has people planning things in advance (the liturgy and which liturgical service to follow, the sermon, the songs that will be sung, the readings etc.) whereas an organic church meeting will comprise people bringing and sharing with the group what they've got from their interactions with God through the week (Bible passages that have particularly struck them, events of life in which they've felt God's presence etc.).
So, in one sense, I really don't see that a lot of work is demanded of people. Except of course there's a strong expectation that people will have a lively faith in God such that there'll be something (not from everyone every week, but often) that they can bring which will be of encouragement to others in the church.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding that figure of 11 million, yes, well! I suppose Viola's including churches that came into existence independently of his influence, and which may therefore not match up with his recommendations on every point. Perhaps he feels he has to acknowledge his forerunners in order to affirm the validity of his own work.
I'm sorry - but this seems to be somewhat disingenuous. That 11 million figure is the figure for everyone who meets in a house church of any description - as Viola tacitly acknowledges. A lot of these will either be churches in startup mode - or the sort of two/three home-schooling families meet arrangements that you see in the comments. I mean, most of these churches will owe much more to AW Pink than Frank Viola, they'll be the kind of 'traditional' house church that owes more to exclusivity and suspicion than anything else.
... and after many years of banging the drum, Viola himself can only come up with 12 churches that may somewhat follow his model (most of which seem to be in SoCal, surprise!).
In fact, it's not surprising that the model has limitations (ignoring the geographic element for a bit). What happens when you become too big to be organic? At that point you either become a more 'normal' church - or you divide into groups - and that sort of division is rarely successful because it's very hard to constantly breed leaders who have the same vision, drive and gifts that can sustain such groups.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
So, in one sense, I really don't see that a lot of work is demanded of people. Except of course there's a strong expectation that people will have a lively faith in God such that there'll be something (not from everyone every week, but often) that they can bring which will be of encouragement to others in the church.
I really don't see this SCK. You can't sustain an entire service, week after week on this kind of fare. Unless people are putting a significant amount of work into what they share - which is kind of hard to ask for in a deprived area where people have all sorts of other pressures on their lives. I actually have a perfect example of the sort of thing that this devolves into - *even when people have time* - courtesy of this mystery worshipper report:
http://www.shipoffools.com/mystery/1998/026Mystery.html
I've been - for decades - in Pentecostal and Charismatic environments in which testimonies and the like were encouraged (including the obligatory person to whom God 'had given a song'), and those times largely worked because they were in a highly structured (whatever the claims otherwise) service.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think SvitlanaV2 is right and that very few people in the UK have experienced 'house churches' in the organic sense. The 'house church movement' of the 1970s - 1990s-ish didn't remain 'house' based for very long at all - if it ever did.
Some met in people's front rooms initially but not for very long. Indeed, some of the large 'restorationist' streams within the so-called 'house-church movement' never actually met in homes but used hired buildings and halls right from the word go ... although they did meet in homes during the week in what has become standard 'house-group' style.
Meanwhile, I agree with Chris Stiles that evidence for real, live organic churches on the Viola model is hard to come by - and I suspect that holds true for the US as much as the UK.
That said, I'm sure there are some churches around which operate by those models and principles, although I'm not convinced they are anywhere near as new, radical or 'different' as their proponents imagine.
If the traditional church service relies on people planning things in advance then so would a so-called organic church.
Even if, as South Coast Kevin fondly imagines, they'll simply bring along what God has apparently been communicating to them during the week during their own apparently unstructured and spontaneous personal prayer times and so on, then there's still some kind of preparation involved.
To be honest, SCK's recipe for Nirvana sounds like a recipe for pietistic subjectivism of the worst kind to me.
There's enough out-of-context and loopy-doopy mini-expositions of scripture across the evangelical charismatic spectrum as it currently stands without adding to the landslide of dross with even more of the same.
As for situations where people 'felt God's presence' ... well, I'm sure that can happen but for the most part we all have to just knuckle down and get on with things irrespective of whether we consciously sense God's presence or not.
All an organic church of the kind SCK proposes would do would be to gather like-minded people who imagine that their random thoughts, belches and farts have rather more spiritual significance by virtue of being apparently spontaneous than material that is prepared in advance by suitably qualified ministers, clergy, knowledgeable lay-people and so on in the existing settings.
That's not to disenfranchise the laity, far from it. The laity would be far more disenfranchised by a bunch of keenies and idealists who think that their mewlings and pukings have some kind of divine imprimatur rather than the result of too much cheese the night before ...
--------------------
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 chris stiles:
That 11 million figure is the figure for everyone who meets in a house church of any description - as Viola tacitly acknowledges. [...]
... and after many years of banging the drum, Viola himself can only come up with 12 churches that may somewhat follow his model (most of which seem to be in SoCal, surprise!).
It sounds as though he's issued a low-key retraction, of sorts. I doubt that he's aware of every single organic church set-up in the USA and it was certainly unwise of him to confuse the matter with figures without undertaking (or waiting for someone else to undertake) careful research.
quote:
In fact, it's not surprising that the model has limitations (ignoring the geographic element for a bit). What happens when you become too big to be organic? At that point you either become a more 'normal' church - or you divide into groups - and that sort of division is rarely successful because it's very hard to constantly breed leaders who have the same vision, drive and gifts that can sustain such groups.
It must be very hard indeed to maintain the kind of church he describes, and I've implied as much in a thread on church layout in the Eccles forum. As for what to do if a church needs to split - well, there's one of the problems of church growth for you! Lucky are those of us who've never had to worry about that problem, eh?! I don't know if Viola deals with this in 'Finding Organic Church' - SCK will know.
Several years ago I attended a national Methodist workshop on cell church, and the idea is that cells split once they reach a certain size. The British leaders admitted that this was very difficult to achieve, at least in the UK. With Viola's model, every group member is meant to be fully involved rather than focused on one person as a leader, so in theory it shouldn't be a problem for a group to split.
However, I can imagine that if growth is occurring very rapidly then it must be difficult to ensure that each new member fully understands the model, which could create a breakdown of the system if splits are necessary. Ironically, then, an organic group could end up as the victim of its own success. This seems to be true for most churches and church movements, TBH. They gradually lose what made them distinctive because it's very hard to maintain the same standards when large numbers of new people are coming in. It would be interesting to know if this has been an issue with organic churches in the USA.
BTW, I hope you don't mind me asking, but what kind of church are you involved in now? Are you in the CofE?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
