|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Church Growth (latest instalment)
|
Pia
Shipmate
# 17277
|
Posted
Just a couple of thoughts on cathedrals. [Disclaimer: I attend my local cathedral as my 'home church' so am not entirely objective.]
First of all, not all cathedrals are in tourist cities or tourist attractions in their own right. I'm sure it's true that the congregations at Wells or Canterbury or wherever are boosted by 'passing trade', but that's certainly not true everywhere.
And secondly, re. anonymity, I think it's important that for some (nervous returners, as I was a few years ago) that very anonymity can be as effective in getting people through the door and encouraging them to come back as bouncy castles or doughnuts and coffee or any other welcoming technique. The trick - and where there has been real growth my sense is that this must be happening - is to help people to move (in their own time, within their own comfort zone) from a desire for anonymity to a desire to belong. For me this happened over the course of a year or so. For others it may be quicker or take longer. But there must be a path towards belonging, towards involvement, towards commitment. For myself, I found a welcome that overcame my nervousness and enabled me initially to feel known and accepted, then to feel part of things, and gradually actively to take a part in things. It helped that my (hitherto unchurched) daughter also found a welcome that was warm and encouraging enough for her to ask of her own accord to be baptised.
So it seems to me that anonymity may be just a way in, different from but similar in effect to messy church or cafe church or whatever, but it's vital that a church which aspires to grow (not in order to tick the numbers box on some form or other but in order to bring people to God) engage not only with what brings people through the door but what makes them stay - not as spectators but as participants.
Posts: 151 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
There is a dangerous parallel between church and business in the language you are using here, I think.
At a fundamental level, I think, it is God who is in charge of the church (or the individual church), not we who belong (whatever that means).
There is a life of movements, including birth, growth, expansion and death. I don't think there is any reason to believe that any given church congregation is immune from death.
[...] Success is something only to be ascribed to God. We are called to be obedient, not successful.
[...] I think there is a convergence within the charismatic and/or evangelical middle which means that there is a large number of Christians who think this is the 'correct' way to do church - possibly influenced by New Wine, various church planting movements, GOD tv and whatnot. As far as I'm concerned, there is actually a reduction in 'choice' of church types with many churches converging upon this from different directions.
Regarding obedience to God, the Bible does say that sharing the Good News is one of our duties. God may or may not bless the work with fruitfulness, but if we don't do it then we'll never get the chance to see, will we?
God will bless whom he wishes, as you say. He blesses churches of all kinds, as the above report claims, but the blessings aren't always the same. The churches that evangelise may be blessed by growth (whether in absolute terms or in relation to the whole), but other churches are blessed in other ways.
I hope you (or your churchgoing family members) manage to find a suitable church. You could try the Methodists, as they're less likely to be charismatic evangelicals. Or you could find a CofE church that offers a traditional Evensong service.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding obedience to God, the Bible does say that sharing the Good News is one of our duties. God may or may not bless the work with fruitfulness, but if we don't do it then we'll never get the chance to see, will we?
I don't accept that adding new members to a congregation is a duty nor is it a blessing. Hence I can't answer this.
quote:
God will bless whom he wishes, as you say. He blesses churches of all kinds, as the above report claims, but the blessings aren't always the same. The churches that evangelise may be blessed by growth (whether in absolute terms or in relation to the whole), but other churches are blessed in other ways.
Again, you are using blessing language which I do not accept.
quote:
I hope you (or your churchgoing family members) manage to find a suitable church. You could try the Methodists, as they're less likely to be charismatic evangelicals. Or you could find a CofE church that offers a traditional Evensong service.
Thank you for your goodwill, but with respect you don't know what you are talking about (because you've obviously got a very flimsy understanding of the theology I hold and the problems I have with church).
[ 10. February 2014, 20:51: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
pydseybare
Forgive me. When you said that God was 'in charge of the church' and that 'success is something only to be ascribed to God' I thought you were referring to God as the author of blessings. Clearly not.
You're quite right: I have no idea what your theology is. Of course, the average church won't have much clue either.
[ 10. February 2014, 21:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
pydseybare
Forgive me. When you said that God was 'in charge of the church' and that 'success is something only to be ascribed to God' I thought you were referring to God as the author of blessings. Clearly not.
I'm not sure how to answer that. You appear to be linking two things which in my mind are not linked - God is in charge of the church (whether it lives, survives or dies), that he alone is responsible for bringing people in. Things that are commonly described as blessings are not blessings. And our responsibilities are to be obedient rather than to be blessed.
quote:
You're quite right: I have no idea what your theology is. Of course, the average church won't have much clue either.
That doesn't bother me in the slightest.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Pia
I was, well, touched by this:
The trick - and where there has been real growth my sense is that this must be happening - is to help people to move (in their own time, within their own comfort zone) from a desire for anonymity to a desire to belong
Brave move - glad it's panned out well for you and yours.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pia:
Just a couple of thoughts on cathedrals. [Disclaimer: I attend my local cathedral as my 'home church' so am not entirely objective.]
First of all, not all cathedrals are in tourist cities or tourist attractions in their own right. I'm sure it's true that the congregations at Wells or Canterbury or wherever are boosted by 'passing trade', but that's certainly not true everywhere.
And secondly, re. anonymity, I think it's important that for some (nervous returners, as I was a few years ago) that very anonymity can be as effective in getting people through the door and encouraging them to come back as bouncy castles or doughnuts and coffee or any other welcoming technique. The trick - and where there has been real growth my sense is that this must be happening - is to help people to move (in their own time, within their own comfort zone) from a desire for anonymity to a desire to belong. For me this happened over the course of a year or so. For others it may be quicker or take longer. But there must be a path towards belonging, towards involvement, towards commitment. For myself, I found a welcome that overcame my nervousness and enabled me initially to feel known and accepted, then to feel part of things, and gradually actively to take a part in things. It helped that my (hitherto unchurched) daughter also found a welcome that was warm and encouraging enough for her to ask of her own accord to be baptised.
So it seems to me that anonymity may be just a way in, different from but similar in effect to messy church or cafe church or whatever, but it's vital that a church which aspires to grow (not in order to tick the numbers box on some form or other but in order to bring people to God) engage not only with what brings people through the door but what makes them stay - not as spectators but as participants.
Yes- spot on. And, yes, it is extraordinarily tricky-- to get the timing just right-- to know when to "be friendly" and when to allow space. But I think this is key to much of what we're discussing.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pia
Shipmate
# 17277
|
Posted
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My aim now is to try, in a small way, to help replicate my experience for others.
Posts: 151 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Following on from my earlier comments, here is an old thread that discusses the issue I raised concerning cathedrals and the value of anonymity.
It may be of some use in this discussion.
[ 10. February 2014, 21:24: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I think I'd respect them more if it wasn't...
--------------------
"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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
pydseybare
Would you say that 'Church growth' is an unsuitable topic for church communities to be interested in, and that reports such as the one mentioned in the OP shouldn't be produced? After all, what's the point of even thinking about it if it's all entirely up to God? Should churches deliberately try not to influence their surrounding communities in any theological way?
quote:
You're quite right: I have no idea what your theology is. Of course, the average church won't have much clue either.
quote:
That doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I want to de-personalise the above comment, and ask why someone might go to the trouble of church hunting if they weren't bothered 'in the slightest' about discovering any commonality (or mutual understanding) between themselves and the churches they were looking at. I find myself wondering whether churches should completely give up on any attempts to be intelligible or meaningful to the people who might visit them, and also whether individuals should ensure that theology is disregarded when looking for a church to attend.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
pydseybare
Would you say that 'Church growth' is an unsuitable topic for church communities to be interested in, and that reports such as the one mentioned in the OP shouldn't be produced? After all, what's the point of even thinking about it if it's all entirely up to God? Should churches deliberately try not to influence their surrounding communities in any theological way?
I'm not interested in telling people that they shouldn't be doing research. In fact, I think the report is quite interesting.
My problem is with the focus, which you appear to be encouraging, which sees church as a commercial production, with success measured by the number of converts. I don't believe that is the message of Jesus Christ.
I think we influence our communities most by being authentic and obedient.
quote:
I want to de-personalise the above comment, and ask why someone might go to the trouble of church hunting if they weren't bothered 'in the slightest' about discovering any commonality (or mutual understanding) between themselves and the churches they were looking at.
I can't answer this. As I said, it is complicated.
quote:
I find myself wondering whether churches should completely give up on any attempts to be intelligible or meaningful to the people who might visit them, and also whether individuals should ensure that theology is disregarded when looking for a church to attend.
I suppose it depends what those terms mean. But I can't answer your underlying question - namely why I attend church whose basis I fundamentally disagree with - to your satisfaction.
[ 11. February 2014, 07:24: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
My problem is with the focus, which you appear to be encouraging, which sees church as a commercial production, with success measured by the number of converts. I don't believe that is the message of Jesus Christ.
I think we influence our communities most by being authentic and obedient.
This is a thread about church growth. I think church growth is a good thing. It's not the only thing, and it shouldn't occur at the expense of other very important things. (Indeed, I'm well aware that church growth can be problematic in a number of theological and sociological ways.) But in itself it's not a sign that the church has become a 'commercial production'.
Regarding 'being authentic and obedient', for some churches, engaging in evangelism is part of their DNA; it's what they were founded for. In their understanding, that's what God wants them to do. However, I will agree that many denominations have other, stronger callings and should probably focus more closely on those. Every part of the body has a contribution to make
Most denominations do tend to become less evangelistic over time.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
his is a thread about church growth. I think church growth is a good thing. It's not the only thing, and it shouldn't occur at the expense of other very important things. (Indeed, I'm well aware that church growth can be problematic in a number of theological and sociological ways.) But in itself it's not a sign that the church has become a 'commercial production'.
Growth is not associated with God's blessing. See the 7 churches of Revelation.
quote:
Regarding 'being authentic and obedient', for some churches, engaging in evangelism is part of their DNA; it's what they were founded for. In their understanding, that's what God wants them to do. However, I will agree that many denominations have other, stronger callings and should probably focus more closely on those. Every part of the body has a contribution to make
Most denominations do tend to become less evangelistic over time.
I don't believe in this understanding of Christianity and do not accept that evangelism is a 'thing' in the way you are indicating here.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Pydseybear
How do you make sense of the Great Commission (sorry hosts it links to Oremus for NRSV)?
Seriously though I would put more stress on "making disciples" than many and stress the need for people to grow, I can easily see how people get from that to numeric growth.
The question is not whether you believe numeric growth is important but whether you can see why others might.
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Growth is not associated with God's blessing. See the 7 churches of Revelation.
Absolutely, but lack of growth isn't necessarily an indication of blessing either. The command is one of proclamation, and more proclamation will in general lead to more growth than less proclamation.
Just because churches can grow for bad reasons, doesn't mean that good reasons for growth can't exist.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Absolutely, but lack of growth isn't necessarily an indication of blessing either.
That's true. Blessing has nothing to do with church growth or otherwise. Indeed, according to the beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, God's blessings are almost entirely the opposite of those usually announced in church.
quote:
The command is one of proclamation, and more proclamation will in general lead to more growth than less proclamation.
I totally reject this statement. In fact verbal proclamation usually leads to less people living disciplined and authentic Christian lives rather than more.
quote:
Just because churches can grow for bad reasons, doesn't mean that good reasons for growth can't exist.
So tell me, is it better to have a growing church which is all-about-itself or a dying church which is all about discipleship?
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Pydseybear
How do you make sense of the Great Commission (sorry hosts it links to Oremus for NRSV)?
Seriously though I would put more stress on "making disciples" than many and stress the need for people to grow, I can easily see how people get from that to numeric growth.
The question is not whether you believe numeric growth is important but whether you can see why others might.
Jengie
I take it to mean being authentic and being obedient, carry ones cross, denying oneself, walking humbly and doing justly.
The only reason I can see for a focus on numerical growth is an unfamiliarity with the biblical text they claim to hold as scripture. And a (un)healthy dose of self-deception.
[ 11. February 2014, 13:16: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Growth is not associated with God's blessing. See the 7 churches of Revelation.
Oh well, that's straightforward. All we need to do then is keep away from those churches that are growing. That certainly wouldn't be a problem where I live! Most areas have their share of declining or stagnating congregations, even in the kinds of middle class suburbs mentioned in that report.
quote:
I do not accept that evangelism is a 'thing' in the way you are indicating here.
It's true that many people have issues with 'evangelism' as a word or a concept. Maybe you see your definitions and reasons as utterly different from everyone else's. Fair enough. Each to his own, and all that.
A personal theology is one thing, but it's unreasonable to hope that churches and church reports will give much thought to your distinctive understanding of Christianity, authenticity, obedience and evangelism if they don't know what your understanding is. Until you're willing and able to explain your thinking clearly and simply it won't have much traction. The churches (and Christians such as myself) will continue in the ignorance that you ascribe to them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A personal theology is one thing, but it's unreasonable to hope that churches and church reports will give much thought to your distinctive understanding of Christianity, authenticity, obedience and evangelism if they don't know what your understanding is. Until you're willing and able to explain your thinking clearly and simply it won't have much traction. The churches (and Christians such as myself) will continue in the ignorance that you ascribe to them.
I'm not sure you've been reading what I said. Why on earth would I be interested in 'traction'?
So tell me, do you expect (and would SoF really allow space for) every new person on this website to explain in depth their theology to you? I'm not prepared to spend time writing a pamphlet for your benefit - plenty already exist, try starting with something from George Fox.
The one line version is that I believe 90% of what we understand as Christianity is total garbage.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
... In fact verbal proclamation usually leads to less people living disciplined and authentic Christian lives rather than more. ...
Have you any evidence for that bizarre assertion?
quote:
So tell me, is it better to have a growing church which is all-about-itself or a dying church which is all about discipleship?
Those are neither opposites nor alternatives. If a church is merely increasing bums on seats and not making disciples, it's deluding itself and the diocese if it thinks it is actually growing. And it's difficult to imagine a church dying if it really is making disciples, rather than merely rabbiting on about how discipleship would be a good thing if we had any.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Those are neither opposites nor alternatives. If a church is merely increasing bums on seats and not making disciples, it's deluding itself and the diocese if it thinks it is actually growing. And it's difficult to imagine a church dying if it really is making disciples, rather than merely rabbiting on about how discipleship would be a good thing if we had any.
I refer you to the many examples throughout history of churches who died but were faithful.
Getting people through the door and along to services is not a measure of anything. By using the language of blessing, all that is happening is self-deception.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm not sure you've been reading what I said. Why on earth would I be interested in 'traction'?
Because you've been criticising churches? What's the point of criticising something if you don't give two hoots about it and don't expect anything to change? Isn't life too short?
quote:
So tell me, do you expect (and would SoF really allow space for) every new person on this website to explain in depth their theology to you? I'm not prepared to spend time writing a pamphlet for your benefit - plenty already exist, try starting with something from George Fox.
The one line version is that I believe 90% of what we understand as Christianity is total garbage.
There. That wasn't too hard, was it?
On a previous post you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about. I think it's a bit unfair to accuse someone of ignorance in such a brusque fashion, and then refuse to enlighten them in any way. Again, I don't see the point of that. But on a positive note, at least I now understand your style a little better, and will know how to respond, or not, in future.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Just wondering if we can shift this on a bit. There's stuff in the report about the characteristics of congregations and communities that are growing. Discussions about church growth usually include some stuff about quantity and characteristics and I reckon the report tries to do this since both issues are important.
What to do make about the individual characteristics of the communities mentioned in the report and the way they combine? Do you reckon there are some factors which, combined, are more important to a church growing in numbers and influence than others?
And is there anyone who put some of this research together having a sneaky look at this discussion?
[ 11. February 2014, 15:25: Message edited by: Truman White ]
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I refer you to the many examples throughout history of churches who died but were faithful. ...
Please could you furnish some examples then? I can't off-hand think of examples of churches that died despite being faithful - as distinct from those that were wiped out by invading Turks etc.
Besides, if passing on the faith to those around us and that come after us, is not an important part of being faithful, how so?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Please could you furnish some examples then? I can't off-hand think of examples of churches that died despite being faithful - as distinct from those that were wiped out by invading Turks etc.
I'm sure you can think of a few.
Churches in Iraq. There you go, there is a recent example.
quote:
Besides, if passing on the faith to those around us and that come after us, is not an important part of being faithful, how so?
Again, I think you put a link between faithfulness and numerical growth that is unwarranted.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Churches in Iraq. There you go, there is a recent example.
On what basis are you judging them to be faithful (and in fact more so than is the average elsewhere).
In fact, if churches are people, the church of Iraq still exists - mostly in Syria and Jordan.
[ 11. February 2014, 16:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm sure you can think of a few. ...
But I was asking you. You were the one that made the assertion.
The situation of the Christians in Iraq is dreadful. It is particularly bad that a major contributory cause of this situation is a military campaign set in motion by people who claim to be Christian. Fortunately, as yet, it is too soon to say whether the church in Iraq will die. I hope it does not.
If it does however, it will not die for being faithful. It will die from being wiped out or driven elsewhere by hostile enemies - as in my analogy of 'invading Turks'
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If it does however, it will not die for being faithful. It will die from being wiped out or driven elsewhere by hostile enemies - as in my analogy of 'invading Turks'
Excuse me. I didn't say that they would die out for being faithful, I said that they died out despite being faithful.
You and others appear to be engaged in constantly moving the goalposts. I said that I didn't believe growth was a worthy goal and that obedience was more important - and that faithful churches can die.
Whether the church dies because of 'invading Turks' or anything else is besides the point that I'm making.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Persevering to the end in the face of outside pressures. Why what criteria would you use to say that they're not faithful?
You can persevere in all manners of belief without necessarily being faithful. I'm not sure to what extent having to emigrate constitutes 'persevering to the end' either.
My own acquaintance with Iraqi Christianity - seems to suggest that it's much like Christianity everywhere, with multiple fissiparous strands (various Orthodox and Syrian Strands, some Catholic and fewer Protestant groups) with the normal problems of syncretism, struggles with orthodoxy etc.
Your argument sounds like some variant on a 'no true scotsman' one.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You can persevere in all manners of belief without necessarily being faithful. I'm not sure to what extent having to emigrate constitutes 'persevering to the end' either.
A lot of them died, having been directly targetted by militants. And I think the suggestion that those who emigrated did not perserve in faith is pretty offensive.
quote:
My own acquaintance with Iraqi Christianity - seems to suggest that it's much like Christianity everywhere, with multiple fissiparous strands (various Orthodox and Syrian Strands, some Catholic and fewer Protestant groups) with the normal problems of syncretism, struggles with orthodoxy etc.
Your argument sounds like some variant on a 'no true scotsman' one.
I'm not sure you understand the
no true scotsman fallacy. Perhaps you can explain how it applies in this case.
But again, you're using a measure of Orthodoxy that I do not share. Orthopraxy is far more important to me than Orthodoxy.
[ 11. February 2014, 16:42: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
What to do make about the individual characteristics of the communities mentioned in the report and the way they combine? Do you reckon there are some factors which, combined, are more important to a church growing in numbers and influence than others?
I found it encouraging that several of the seven 'ingredients strongly associated with growth in churches of any size, place or context' (page 8 of the report) are things which I consider important. It suggests I'm not way off beam with my thinking!
In particular, I'm thinking of 'willingness to self-reflect, to change and adapt according to context', 'involvement of lay members', and 'being intentional in nurturing disciples'. I've long been convinced that reflection on and adaptation of how we 'do' church is vital for us to share the gospel in a relevant way, and this report gives some support to that view.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Orthopraxy by whose standards, though, pydseybare?
Surely it should be both/and rather than either/or?
Who determines what constitutes orthopraxy in this case?
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying - that faithfulness and obedience trumps 'growth' and that growth in and of itself isn't necessarily a sign of anything significant. Totally agree.
But then, the general thrust of this thread appears to take the need for church growth (or maintenance at least) for granted.
Sure, the churches could become extinct here as anywhere else - and North Africa is generally given as the paradigm example of a region that was once largely Christian which is now otherwise ... due to Islamic invasion.
I've heard the churches 'blamed' for this - infighting, unfaithfulness ... even, by some extreme Anabaptist types - for neglecting the rigorous approach of the Donatists and accepting a more wishy-washy and compromised Catholic approach ...
I really don't see what's to be gained from that kind of speculation, to be honest. Why do we have to find 'reasons' and apportion 'blame'?
It happened. Whilst we might be able to find reasons and lessons from it, we don't gain much by pointing the finger at this, that or the other person, party or tradition involved. I'd take a similar view of the Great Schism too, good and bad on both sides - it's what we do know that's important and how we seek to heal divisions ...
Meanwhile, whilst I have some sympathy with what you appear to be trying to say - I also agree with Truman White's point that things could move on so that - whatever our views of 'growth' as being desirable or otherwise - we consider the factors and characteristics of the congregations/settings involved and how they apply ...
Does that makes sense?
--------------------
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
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Orthopraxy by whose standards, though, pydseybare?
Surely it should be both/and rather than either/or?
Who determines what constitutes orthopraxy in this case?
Laying the cards on the table, the only orthopraxy that matters to me is loving our neighbour and serving them sacrificially. I know for a fact that many of the Iraqi churches were orthoprax in that sense.
quote:
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying - that faithfulness and obedience trumps 'growth' and that growth in and of itself isn't necessarily a sign of anything significant. Totally agree.
But then, the general thrust of this thread appears to take the need for church growth (or maintenance at least) for granted.
Sure, the churches could become extinct here as anywhere else - and North Africa is generally given as the paradigm example of a region that was once largely Christian which is now otherwise ... due to Islamic invasion.
I've heard the churches 'blamed' for this - infighting, unfaithfulness ... even, by some extreme Anabaptist types - for neglecting the rigorous approach of the Donatists and accepting a more wishy-washy and compromised Catholic approach ...
I really don't see what's to be gained from that kind of speculation, to be honest. Why do we have to find 'reasons' and apportion 'blame'?
It happened. Whilst we might be able to find reasons and lessons from it, we don't gain much by pointing the finger at this, that or the other person, party or tradition involved. I'd take a similar view of the Great Schism too, good and bad on both sides - it's what we do know that's important and how we seek to heal divisions ...
Meanwhile, whilst I have some sympathy with what you appear to be trying to say - I also agree with Truman White's point that things could move on so that - whatever our views of 'growth' as being desirable or otherwise - we consider the factors and characteristics of the congregations/settings involved and how they apply ...
Does that makes sense?
Yes, but unfortunately I don't have time to reply to your other points here at the moment.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough, I think we'd all agree with orthopraxy of that kind and I'm sure you're right that many Iraqi Christians were - and are - practising that.
'Obedience is better than sacrifice,' and so on ...
I don't see anyone here claiming that loving one's neighbour and self-sacrifice and so on is optional and up for grabs though ...
So I don't see how a concern for church growth and a concern for orthopraxy are mutually exclusive - unless one wants to see growth at all and any costs - never mind the quality, feel the width ...
But I don't see anyone here advocating that ...
--------------------
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
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Just returning to these points:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, the churches could become extinct here as anywhere else - and North Africa is generally given as the paradigm example of a region that was once largely Christian which is now otherwise ... due to Islamic invasion.
I've heard the churches 'blamed' for this - infighting, unfaithfulness ... even, by some extreme Anabaptist types - for neglecting the rigorous approach of the Donatists and accepting a more wishy-washy and compromised Catholic approach ...
I don't accept this. As I said, I do not consider numerical growth to be related to God's blessing (or lack of), hence I don't think it is helpful to blame anyone. Bad churches survive, good ones die. Neither way should be taken as a sign of anything, in my view.
quote:
I really don't see what's to be gained from that kind of speculation, to be honest. Why do we have to find 'reasons' and apportion 'blame'?
I think we're just into forms of self-deception and one-upmanship. We like to believe that God really loves little old me and is judging nasty old you for your crappy theology. I'm convinced it doesn't work like that.
quote:
It happened. Whilst we might be able to find reasons and lessons from it, we don't gain much by pointing the finger at this, that or the other person, party or tradition involved. I'd take a similar view of the Great Schism too, good and bad on both sides - it's what we do know that's important and how we seek to heal divisions ...
I don't really have an opinion on that. I'd probably disagree fundamentally with those on both sides of the debate.
quote:
Meanwhile, whilst I have some sympathy with what you appear to be trying to say - I also agree with Truman White's point that things could move on so that - whatever our views of 'growth' as being desirable or otherwise - we consider the factors and characteristics of the congregations/settings involved and how they apply ...
Does that makes sense?
I think that is only possible if you subscribe to the idea that numerical growth is a sign of something divine and/or good (and/or blessing). If you don't, then it is really a mechanistic human measure of human achievement which seems to discount the divine altogether.
Fundamentally I believe that there might well be great worth in an expensive church operation (whatever that might mean) in an area which does not experience growth, and might even result in closure. In that circumstance, some might see that as a failure - or a validation of what is 'known to work'. But my view is that might have been exactly what God wanted to happen at that time in that place. Human measures of these things are therefore next to useless.
[ 11. February 2014, 19:30: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Churches in Iraq. There you go, there is a recent example.
On what basis are you judging them to be faithful (and in fact more so than is the average elsewhere).
In fact, if churches are people, the church of Iraq still exists - mostly in Syria and Jordan.
And California, among other places. Xty in Iraq might well follow Xty beyond the Oxus, or that of Carthage. There was a guarantee that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, but nothing was said about particular congregations. Sometimes, as I used to tell auditors in my former RL as a bureaucrat, the numbers are irrelevant.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You can persevere in all manners of belief without necessarily being faithful. I'm not sure to what extent having to emigrate constitutes 'persevering to the end' either.
A lot of them died, having been directly targetted by militants. And I think the suggestion that those who emigrated did not perserve in faith is pretty offensive.
Well, some would find your wholesale dismissal of other churches to be equally offensive - furthermore you specifically stipulated that they had 'persevered to the end' - as a some kind of marker.
That some of them died doesn't necessarily mean that they 'persevered in the faith' does it? People die for all sorts of reasons, and people die whilst holding all sorts of odd beliefs.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course numbers aren't necessarily a guarantee of anything - I'm not suggesting they are.
I completely agree that a church that struggles and eventually ceases to exist (in the temporal realm) is by no means invalidated by that - any more than a thriving church up the road is somehow 'better' or more validated - as it were - in the eyes of God.
Seen from the divine perspective, who knows what efforts and initiatives hold the greater value or otherwise?
All that said, I don't think that it is 'wrong' in and of itself to want churches to flourish and grow. It doesn't mean that we are falling prey to one-up-manship, carnal comparisons and so on.
It can do, but it doesn't necessarily follow. All these things are provisional and everything we do is tainted - we are fallen human beings - so it's unrealistic to expect perfectionism and complete purity of motive and intention ...
Some of the better hagiographies are pretty upfront about the failings and short-comings of various Saints - for instance.
The same applies to collective groups of believers as it does to individuals.
I found the CofE report interesting and thought-provoking - and I agree that if we aren't careful we can get into a rather 'worldly' or carnal numbers game ...
I still maintain that I don't see that happening among our fellow Shipmates here. I might not feel entirely comfortable with some of the language used but I wouldn't accuse Shipmates as diverse as Truman White, South Coast Kevin, SvitlanaV2, Jengie Jon and Chris Stiles of being driven by a 'market-led' approach ...
All of them, in their various ways, seem to be interested in deeper issues rather than a numbers-game. They've said as much and I take them at their word.
--------------------
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
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
I seem to remember some thought provoking stuff from Bob Jackson's "Hope for the Church" (Church House Publishing: London, 2002)
Here are some notes I made, from Chapter 2 "Bums on seats - why they matter":
Jackson responds to some common objections to actively seeking the numerical growth of the church:
1. It's not about the church it's about the kingdom. To concentrate on getting more bums on seats in church is to fail to focus on what Jesus was all about, namely the coming of God's Kingdom (God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven). While the church is not the same as the kingdom it is not irrelevant to the kingdom. The church is a foretaste of the kingdom, a pilot project, a [the main?] agent of the kingdom and therefore to neglect the church in the name of the kingdom is a mistake that is likely to hinder the cause of the kingdom.
2. It's not about quantity, it's about quality. An obsession with numbers is wrong-headed, what counts is the quality of church life and the faithfulness of Christians to Christ. This sets up a false antithesis between quality and quantity. Jackson talks of preventing the demise of the church by offering a better quality product and greater choice. Improve quality and quantity will follow. "Quantity matters and quality is the solution to it." (p19)
3. Small is beautiful. The search for numerical growth overlooks the fact that smaller churches are often more faithful and effective. But a larger church is more likely to have more significant impact on society. And anyway this is a false antithesis: why not work for a church that is both large and faithful?
4. The church is meant to exist for others. The primary calling of the church is to care for others not to market itself, actively seeking numerical growth is to become self-obsessed. But the greatest thing the church can do for others is to introduce them to love of God in Christ which is to be found in the worshipping community of God's people, the church. If the church declines to the point of non-existence how then can it care for others?
This is not to deny that an obsession with numerical growth for its own sake is not dangerous. Making numerical growth our primary focus can lead to a driven church, people being manipulated and the gospel being corrupted. But when put in a proper, broader, more holistic context there are good reasons to give attention to numerical growth.
Jackson offers four reasons:
1. Increasing numbers is could in fact be a sign of a healthy church - one that is getting things right, which leads people to wanting to join.
2. To see individuals being reconciled to God is a worthy aim and the number who belong to church is one of the best indicators we have of whether or not this is happening.
3. The more people who belong to the church, the more likely it is to be able to have a positive impact on society.
4. The media and the population at large might take more interest in a healthy growing church than they do in a church that is seen to be in decline.
Notwithstanding the concerns about an unhealthy fixation on numbers, I think the task of disciples is to make disciples, which implies some form of replication.
As the OP report points out, and as we have been reminded, there surely is some worth in considering characteristics of those church communities which actually seem to be growing and perhaps making disciples.
I don't think that to do this is to fall foul to the lastest marketing ploy or corporate leadership spin. I think it's about seeing where the wind is blowing and setting sails!
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Another slant on numbers is to say that, assuming you reckon becoming a Christian is a good idea, a church that people are joining is a blessing to the community from which the new members are drawn.
A missional perspective says numbers are important, not because they are a proxy validation of how many gold starts God wants to give our church, but because people coming to faith changes the character of the ethnic, geographicsl or interest communities they are part of.
When the church grows, it's the world that gets blessed.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Felafool - sorry mate, didn't read your post carefully enough and ended up repeating your point (good point).
On the bit about characteristics of growing churches, was there anything in the report you didn't recognise - or anything missing?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I think it's important to ask why certain churches are growing. To talk about "church growth" in an unqualified way is not a perceptive analysis and interpretation of the statistics.
We've all heard about transfer growth, which, of course, is a zero sum game, and demonstrates some kind of issue relating to doctrine or practice. But even non-zero sum game growth - that wonderful phenomenon of the unchurched becoming churched - should not be interpreted as an unqualified blessing on UK Christianity in general. As I pointed out earlier, cathedral growth may imply some kind of aversion to the kind of Christian practice evident in most other churches.
Statistics can obfuscate as much as reveal the reality on the ground. It all comes down to interpretation. It is quite possible that the phenomenon of hordes of the unchurched (by which I do not necessarily mean 'non-Christians') darkening the doors of cathedrals, for example, is not necessarily saying "we think the Christian Church is great", but rather "we think quite a bit of the Christian Church is dodgy, but we are happy to be part of this kind of churchmanship".
The important questions are:
1. Are we interpreting the data correctly?
2. If so, are we learning the lessons that flow from the data?
The sad truth is that the Christian Church in this country could be in an appalling state in God's eyes, and yet we can manipulate statistics to deafen ourselves to what He is saying. One thinks of the 'successful' church of the Laodiceans...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The sad truth is that the Christian Church in this country could be in an appalling state in God's eyes, and yet we can manipulate statistics to deafen ourselves to what He is saying. One thinks of the 'successful' church of the Laodiceans...
Absolutely - and there has been plenty of debate on the topic in this thread.
We've had discussion on the church growth movement before - I remember a previous thread on Willow Creek - and a lot of the critiques raised in that thread would also fit here.
There's a kind of subtler HTB'isation of evangelicalism that is going on as well, recently commented on here:
http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/the_new_centre_of_british_evangelicalism
Though I'd not be as happy about a lot of those tendencies as the author appears to be.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
While churches must surely be encouraged to faithfully proclaim the Gospel within the community they are set in, the faithfulness of that church's life will be of no consequence if the parish folds and it's building stands empty for five or ten years.
The message that scenario sends to the immediate community is not one of new hope in Christ, but that the C/E is a relic of history and can be ignored.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
@Truman White
quote:
On the bit about characteristics of growing churches, was there anything in the report you didn't recognise - or anything missing?
The bit that caused me to blink was the stuff on team ministries and combined churches...generally they are more likely to decline, it seems, which is worrying since this is the direction the diocese seems to be heading.
I was also interested in the clergy characteristics which may not foster growth - 'empathy' 'persistence' and 'managing'. Sadly these may be qualities which make a good pastor but perhaps not an apostle/ church grower.
I think these two observations are interrelated, and back up the ingredients listed which may lead to growth, particularly leadership, purpose, and reflection & willingness to change.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
While churches must surely be encouraged to faithfully proclaim the Gospel within the community they are set in, the faithfulness of that church's life will be of no consequence if the parish folds and it's building stands empty for five or ten years.
Really. You really believe that faithfulness to God is of lesser importance than whether a building is being used in 10 years time. Excuse me for profoundly disagreeing with you.
quote:
The message that scenario sends to the immediate community is not one of new hope in Christ, but that the C/E is a relic of history and can be ignored.
Or the message might be seen to be that some are more interested in a building than serving the God they claim to believe in.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
I was also interested in the clergy characteristics which may not foster growth - 'empathy' 'persistence' and 'managing'. Sadly these may be qualities which make a good pastor but perhaps not an apostle/ church grower.
Interestingly that chimes in with these recent observations by the Moderator of my URC Synod.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Hey up, no need to jump down my throat...thank you? We're not at war you know, in fact we haven't even been introduced.
So let me explain Why I said what I said:
Faithfully proclaiming a certain style of Christianity, whilst at the very same time also refusing to allow a new manner of proclaiming that very same truth ...has led to five crumbling edifices littering our community and three of those wrecks are Anglican.
Their continued depressing presence reduces house prices in the immediate area and speak volumes to the community of the state of our established church specifically and Christianity in general.
So excuse me if I count proclamation and faithfulness to be something of a Not Quite Exact Science.
This thread is neatly linking in with the thread about Clergy. On the one hand the cry goes up "Oh Help! We haven't enough Clergy coming through!" while (as has been pointed out on that thread), at each and every deanery pastoral committee folk sit round and scratch their heads as we try to loose yet another .5 of a stipendiary.
But if any one of four neighbouring churches faithfully proclaims the truth In The Manner They Always Have Done, three of those churches will not have another stipendiary minister. Sadly it really is as simple as that.
(come to think of it, even if they do change drastically, two of 'em won't anyway...which gives some convoluted sense to the mumblings at PPC time of " Nothing changes while I'm here, you can do what you want once I'm gone")
The situation is a bitch, but lets not fall out over it eh?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
