|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Criticising Quiet, Respectable Churches?
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think the gospel is a surprise to many people - messages like 'forgive those who do you wrong' and 'share what you have in a generous, sacrificial way' are very counter-cultural and thus intriguing, ISTM.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[Crosspost replying to South Coast Kevin.]
And I think you are seriously mistaken.
Are you aware of how many thousand million times people receive these messages as children, along with learning to say please and thank you ?
In everyday life, stories and TV. Along with the stuff about not judging by appearances, and how bullying is wrong.
I think SCK is correct in as muc has the Gospel is (or, perhaps better, should be) surprising. In the Bible, the Gospel seems to be surprising, shocking, delightful, controversial, wonderful, terrifying all rolled into one.
But I also agree with DT those things mentioned by SCK aren't the Gospel in themselves. They're important and I'd say they're part of what our response to the Gospel should be. But I don't think they're the Gospel: for me, the Gospel is what God has done through Jesus Christ and His life, death and resurrection, what God can do and is doing in our lives and in our world, through reconciling the world to Himself "not counting men's sins against them" and what God will do one day making a new heaven and earth where all will be well.
Perhaps part of the problem is not that the Gospel is mundane, as DT suggests, but that we've made it mundane in all sorts of ways. We;ve reduced it to self-help, or something akin to therapy, or hellfire and damnation, or how to live a bit better or be better people - none of which are the Gospel in its fullness.
I think preaching (which, IMHO, is primarily the proclamation of the Gospel) is to a signficant degree to blame, not least because too often it gets reduced to teaching or morality talks or theological or historical lectures (I suspect I'm guilty of all of these). Walter Bruegemann's written about this from a US point of view, saying how the Gospel has become "flattened" and unsurprising - I suspect something similar has happened in the UK.
As someone in my church who used to work in local radio news said to me: news has to sound like news - important and significant. Too often, I don't think the Gospel that gets proclaimed (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone) does sound like news. Or that "good", either.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But I also agree with DT those things mentioned by SCK aren't the Gospel in themselves. They're important and I'd say they're part of what our response to the Gospel should be. But I don't think they're the Gospel: for me, the Gospel is what God has done through Jesus Christ and His life, death and resurrection, what God can do and is doing in our lives and in our world, through reconciling the world to Himself "not counting men's sins against them" and what God will do one day making a new heaven and earth where all will be well.
Agreed, and I like your summary of the gospel, Stejjie. I was just trying to pick out a couple of elements which I think are surprising and counter-cultural.
Doublethink, I do take your point that a lot of the 'moralising' (that word not meant negatively) in the media and public life is close to what one might call Christian morality. But look at the actual behaviour of characters in soaps, public figures, and of the people in most news stories - is there much sacrificial generosity or unconditional forgiveness to be seen? My impression is that it's seen as odd (and newsworthy!) when someone lets a grudge go, forgives someone who's caused them pain, gives away a big chunk of their wealth, and so on.
--------------------
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
|
|
Morgan
Shipmate
# 15372
|
Posted
We have 2 churches, one growing in a slow inch-by-inch way and the other growing more rapidly. I don't think it's about what they offer in the way of music, worship etc. Both are probably MOTR but one is more traditional than the other. The more traditional one is currently growing more rapidly but that has not always been the case.
Talking with those who joined us, both recently and longer ago, there are a few common factors. people found what they sought or what they needed - the type of worship they could relate to,
a peer group(so greater age diversity meant more visitors tended to stay)
Posts: 111 | From: Canberra | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morgan
Shipmate
# 15372
|
Posted
Sorry, premature post and couldn't delete.
Other factors were a place where they felt welcome and a place where God's love was shown both to insiders and outsiders.
The congregations are diverse - AC, evo, charismatic, liberal, opposed to all ideas liberal. But they love and care for one another, recognise their differences but value their diversity.
This is a good part of the reason why the worship is MOTR. It feeds the common need with smaller more specialised worship groups (eg a charismatic prayer service on a mid-week evening, a meditation group on a Saturday morning) meeting more particular needs.
It works for us.
Posts: 111 | From: Canberra | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think I'll start a new thread on the community aspect.
It seems to me that the kind of spirituality that South Coast Kevin values can only be sustained in the context of very close communities and fellowships.
Consequently, this isn't going to appeal to people who don't want that level of immersion in a particular group or paradigm.
I'd also suggest that such an approach - valuable as it is - also cuts across the emphasis SCK wants to bring on a non-service/meeting centred approach.
It NEEDS that kind of approach to sustain itself.
Take away the regular meetings and interaction and the whole thing collapses in on itself.
I've seen this happen time and again to those charismatic evangelical fellowships who went down the 'deconstruction' route (or fad) in the late 1990s.
They all collapsed. I could name names.
What's happened with the new churches and churches like the Vineyard is that they have taken elements which - in historic Church terms - are the preserve of monastic communities and 'base-communities' and made them the 'norm' for church life as a whole.
Consequently they create hot-house atmospheres which some people find attractive and sustaining for a while - but which others eventually 'grow out of'.
I'll meet Kaplan part-way with his rather dismissive view that us post-evangelicals and recovering charismatics are embarrassed about our more adolescent devotional practices - but I don't think that's the real issue.
I'm not particularly embarrassed about what I did/got up to in my full-on charismatic days. I was well into it at the time and I can understand why.
But I have no desire to repeat it.
Yes, Kaplan is right that the older mainstream Protestant traditions were always snobby and unnecessarily sniffy towards evangelicals. In many ways I feel that evangelicalism has 'come of age' and has matured a great deal - if that doesn't sound patronising.
In some places it has become the mainstream. In some places it's also the MOTR option.
It all depends on where you are.
--------------------
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
As for the Gospel being a surprise to people.
One would think it is or ought to be. But I'm not sure that this is the case.
What draws people into churches of all stripes isn't the 'surprise' that the Gospel brings, it's personal contact and socialisation.
The Alpha course (irrespective of the content) recognises that.
There may be other aspects that cause surprise and which attract.
Kaplan might appreciate this because I've been unnecessarily dismissive of the Brethren at times, but when I first encountered them I was 'surprised' because they all seemed to be ordinary folk - mostly self-employed - yet appeared to have a great grasp of the scriptures and so on.
Previously, the only people I'd encountered who seemed to know about the Bible and so on were professional clergy - vicars and so on - or the occasional keenie Christian at school.
This impressed me.
However, I was more impressed by my art teacher who was an evangelical Christian and yet knew all about jazz and rock music and who even came with us to some of the punk/new wave gigs we used to attend.
I was amazed that an evangelical Christian could even be interested in such things.
That was the 'surprise' to me.
The content of the Gospel - as it were - was no surprise as I was already familiar with it from Sunday school and church attendance - and the Church in Wales parish I attended couldn't have been more MoTR if it had tried.
There are a whole range of factors involved in any of this.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It seems to me that the kind of spirituality that South Coast Kevin values can only be sustained in the context of very close communities and fellowships.
I honestly think this is the kind of spirituality and community that all Christians are called to. I don't take the New Testament accounts as normative in the details of how the early Christian communities lived, but there is, I think, a clear 'DNA' of Christian community shown in the NT: namely, the committed following of Christ, close and mutually sacrificial relationships with one another, and an outward-looking focus on sharing the gospel with and serving non-Christians. I think all churches should be working on these three areas and if they aren't, then something is lacking.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What's happened with the new churches and churches like the Vineyard is that they have taken elements which - in historic Church terms - are the preserve of monastic communities and 'base-communities' and made them the 'norm' for church life as a whole.
Consequently they create hot-house atmospheres which some people find attractive and sustaining for a while - but which others eventually 'grow out of'.
There can be a 'hot-house' kind of intensity; of that I have no doubt. But such an atmosphere is not healthy, IMO, and is not inevitable either.
Could I also make a plea that you stop using phrases like 'grow out of'? It's such a loaded term. Would something like 'move away from' get across the same meaning without the subtext?
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But I also agree with DT those things mentioned by SCK aren't the Gospel in themselves. They're important and I'd say they're part of what our response to the Gospel should be. But I don't think they're the Gospel: for me, the Gospel is what God has done through Jesus Christ and His life, death and resurrection, what God can do and is doing in our lives and in our world, through reconciling the world to Himself "not counting men's sins against them" and what God will do one day making a new heaven and earth where all will be well.
Agreed, and I like your summary of the gospel, Stejjie. I was just trying to pick out a couple of elements which I think are surprising and counter-cultural.
Doublethink, I do take your point that a lot of the 'moralising' (that word not meant negatively) in the media and public life is close to what one might call Christian morality. But look at the actual behaviour of characters in soaps, public figures, and of the people in most news stories - is there much sacrificial generosity or unconditional forgiveness to be seen? My impression is that it's seen as odd (and newsworthy!) when someone lets a grudge go, forgives someone who's caused them pain, gives away a big chunk of their wealth, and so on.
The news is not a good source of information on common behaviour, and neither is Eastenders.
Nor is the behaviour you describe especially typical of Christians as against other groups.
Lots of people aspire to virtue. Lots of people are kind. Lots of people forgive, sometimes the most heinous things.
And none of, this, nor the outline of the gospel, explain the need for church going and/or worship. For people to attend church you really need to explain that. Eating analogies are not that helpful to those outside the culture.
Its not for entertainment, it not for prayer (as in you can do that anywhere), if your already have a social life it is not obviously for fellowship, it is not obvious why an omnipotent deity would need adoration, to stop it feeling insecure ?
Seriously, what - precisely - is the point of a church service ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Lots of people aspire to virtue. Lots of people are kind. Lots of people forgive, sometimes the most heinous things.
Oh yes, I know Christians don't have a monopoly on those behaviours and character traits. But it makes the news when a bereaved parent forgives the killer of their child. As does the millionaire who gives away half their wealth. These behaviours are held up as noteworthy and admirable, so are they really that common?
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Seriously, what - precisely - is the point of a church service ?
I had a go at answering this question a few years ago - here (it's a bit long, sorry). EDIT - my short answer is that church services are 'for strengthening and helping the believers', drawing from 1 Corinthians 14:26.
[ 13. July 2014, 11:52: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Lots of people aspire to virtue. Lots of people are kind. Lots of people forgive, sometimes the most heinous things.
Oh yes, I know Christians don't have a monopoly on those behaviours and character traits. But it makes the news when a bereaved parent forgives the killer of their child. As does the millionaire who gives away half their wealth. These behaviours are held up as noteworthy and admirable, so are they really that common?
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Seriously, what - precisely - is the point of a church service ?
I had a go at answering this question a few years ago - here (it's a bit long, sorry). EDIT - my short answer is that church services are 'for strengthening and helping the believers', drawing from 1 Corinthians 14:26.
Well most people aren't millionaires and don't have their children murdered, so of course its rare. It is also bugger all use as a model for everyday life.
Your church service answer still doesn't explain how church services accomplish that.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well most people aren't millionaires and don't have their children murdered, so of course its rare. It is also bugger all use as a model for everyday life.
You're right, but aren't they just the extreme version of challenges we all face day to day? Someone badmouths me, cuts in front of me on the road, or whatever - is my reaction to throw it right back at them or do I repay evil with good? Likewise with the generosity question. No, I'm not a millionaire but I have money and possessions; do I give generously and share my possessions, or do I hold on to what I have?
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Your church service answer still doesn't explain how church services accomplish that.
Oh, sorry... I'd say Christians should meet together in order to look after and nurture each other. We also bring from our ongoing interaction with God, hopefully for the benefit of others - we teach one another, we discern guidance from God for and with one another, we encourage one another to live a more disciplined, godly life. Does that help at all?
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Practically no-one gets converted to Christianity by liberal, mainstream Protestantism.
What is this 'liberal mainstream'? ISTM that if a church broadly affirms the historic creeds, it is not liberal, and if it doesn't, then it is not mainstream.
If there are few thriving liberal mainstream churches, that's probably for the same reason that there are few thriving square circles.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[crosspost reply to SCK]
Not really, because it is all couched in Christian jargon.
And I think this is the problem in trying to move from preaching to the converted, to preaching to non-Christians.
[ 13. July 2014, 12:17: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
womanspeak
Shipmate
# 15394
|
Posted
My experience of a AC bush diocese, at the parish level for over 20 years is of a father knows best model which does not encourage daily bible reading or personal prayer, bible studies or prayer groups. Thus the biblical and spiritual growth of traditional attenders is not attended to, let alone discipleship or outreach and evangelism. Rather all resources are focused on maintaining paid ministry and traditional worship services.
At the Australian Anglican General Synod recently country diocese blamed their rapid decline on population drift to the coast. And yet the parishes and diocese which are growing attend to spiritual, biblical, Christian service, discipleship etc etc beyond corporate worship through prayer groups, study/ home groups, service teams, outreach opportunities.
I now worship with the Uniting Church ( formerly Methodist ) where, despite some years without paid leadership, bible study and home groups have sustained and deepened their commitment as a church. Now with paid ministry, many lay people are invited to preach and lead, according to calling.
The packed house this chilly morning ( from 1yr up to 90+) was treated to a warm as toast church thanks to the care of an early rising farmer who came in to turn on the heating at 4.00am! What agape love!
--------------------
from the bush
Posts: 62 | From: rural australia | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@South Coast Kevin, yes I accept that 'grow out of' was a loaded phrase. I thought that as I was typing it and should have edited it, but I left it in.
I apologise for that and withdraw the remark.
Please replace it with 'moved on from' or some other less 'loaded' phrase in your reading/engaging with my posts.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I will start a new thread on the community aspect. If we do take the NT model - or apparent NT model - as normative then it seems to me that it begs a few questions in terms of new church and charismatic church practice just as it does with MoTR practice.
But I'll come back to 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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
My experience of a AC bush diocese, at the parish level for over 20 years is of a father knows best model which does not encourage daily bible reading or personal prayer, bible studies or prayer groups. Thus the biblical and spiritual growth of traditional attenders is not attended to, let alone discipleship or outreach and evangelism. Rather all resources are focused on maintaining paid ministry and traditional worship services.
Sounds awesome! I think focusing our resources on paid staff and making our services happen (inc. building-related costs, if the building isn't much used for social / community activities) is completely the wrong emphasis. IMO this so easily produces that 'father knows best' mentality, where people come to the services to be spiritually fed by the professionals, rather than coming to share and encourage from their own ongoing engagement with God.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin, yes I accept that 'grow out of' was a loaded phrase. I thought that as I was typing it and should have edited it, but I left it in.
I apologise for that and withdraw the remark.
Many thanks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'The Magazine of Christian Unrest' often focuses on the failings of various types of evangelicalism, probably because this is the dominant background of many of the community members. But experience and research show that MOTR/liberal congregations (i.e. my 'quiet, respectable churches') in historical denominations have suffered from more debilitating problems.
I don't think MOTR church problems are more debilitating - to its ministry and raison d'etre - than any other churchmanship's problems. They are different. Of course, like most others here I speak only of my own experience, which has been with both evangelical and MOTR churches, during my adulthood. So I admit the narrowness of my own context.
MOTR churches appeal to certain kinds of people, as do evangelical (or any other specific) kinds of churches. There are two ways in which any church - regardless of 'type' - fails; firstly, in its witness to and use within the community, and secondly, in its nurturing and development of its constituent membership.
So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.
What is definitely not of help, is when one tradition puts the boot into another tradition. Positive, loving criticism of traditions outside of one's own experience or preference can certainly be achieved, of course. Sometimes, even, a useful objectivity - the 'outsider's' viewpoint - can be gained. But sadly - and I hold my hand up to this - the Christian (though rarely Christlike) tendancy is to look at what the others do, identify what ought to be condemned, but overlook, or omit, the good.
JFTR. In my experience, 'quiet respectable churches' - as a description, are rarely either of those things, when one knows the people, history and situations involved in any depth. As with any church, the label on the tin isn't always entirely accurate!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'The Magazine of Christian Unrest' often focuses on the failings of various types of evangelicalism, probably because this is the dominant background of many of the community members. But experience and research show that MOTR/liberal congregations (i.e. my 'quiet, respectable churches') in historical denominations have suffered from more debilitating problems.
I don't think MOTR church problems are more debilitating - to its ministry and raison d'etre - than any other churchmanship's problems. They are different. Of course, like most others here I speak only of my own experience, which has been with both evangelical and MOTR churches, during my adulthood. So I admit the narrowness of my own context.
MOTR churches appeal to certain kinds of people, as do evangelical (or any other specific) kinds of churches. There are two ways in which any church - regardless of 'type' - fails; firstly, in its witness to and use within the community, and secondly, in its nurturing and development of its constituent membership.
So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.
What is definitely not of help, is when one tradition puts the boot into another tradition. Positive, loving criticism of traditions outside of one's own experience or preference can certainly be achieved, of course. Sometimes, even, a useful objectivity - the 'outsider's' viewpoint - can be gained. But sadly - and I hold my hand up to this - the Christian (though rarely Christlike) tendancy is to look at what the others do, identify what ought to be condemned, but overlook, or omit, the good.
JFTR. In my experience, 'quiet respectable churches' - as a description, are rarely either of those things, when one knows the people, history and situations involved in any depth. As with any church, the label on the tin isn't always entirely accurate! Additionally, MOTR and liberal aren't always two terms which go together, in a church community.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Ricardus quote:
I think it's problematic to assume the best 'way in' to Christianity is by attending services. In the old days it was via catechism and I suppose the Alpha Course is a modern way to reproduce this.
IME the Alpha course comes nowhere near being any type of catechism.
Attending services may not be a way into Christianity, but it is a way into churchgoing. And we have always been encouraged to see public, communal worship as part of our Christian duty - something we inherited from our Judaic roots, I think.
In any case, the 'way in' to Christianity is Baptism... or has that changed?
EE : Our building delapidations 'trust fund' hasn't come by way of legacies, rather we have made it a point to put aside anything extra at the end of the year so that we can afford the odd, cheapish, crisis - such as happens with a 13th century building.
As for explaining liturgy (worship): our service booklets - all home produced - all have an explanation of the structure of the service, etc on the inside cover: for example, that for Matins explains its roots in the first services of the monastic day and the invocation to give thanks for another day, etc. (Rather than filling our O/S booklets with questionable clip art we have aimed to make them user-friendly even to a person not accustomed to being in church.)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm happy to withdraw the remark, Kevin, but I'm afraid I will be pretty robust with you over what I take to be an overly romanticised view of these matters ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But hopefully without causing offence.
I think Anselmina is right. There are strengths and weaknesses with any approach. I'm certainly not advocating a 'father knows best' approach but neither am I advocating an overly pietistic approach that super-spiritualises absolutely everything that happens and which mistakes any nice warm, fuzzy feeling for divine unction.
There's a balance somewhere.
I will start a new thread on the community aspect and checks and balances in that context at some point.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.
Could you give any pointers? Has anyone got any experience to add? It would, I think, be interesting.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Anselmina is right. There are strengths and weaknesses with any approach.
Well, yes. But that doesn't mean all approaches have equal merit, and it doesn't excuse us from trying to find the best approach in any given situation or context.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...neither am I advocating an overly pietistic approach that super-spiritualises absolutely everything that happens and which mistakes any nice warm, fuzzy feeling for divine unction.
No, me neither; at least I hope not! What did I say that made you think I was leaning in this direction?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On the OP, I like to think I've been as cynical, unfair and mean to quiet respectable churches as I have to the various One True Churches and the up in the air junior birdman shacks.
Now, that reminds me of something: Fresh Expressions. 'FEs of church' seem to be a mainstream rather than an evangelical form of intentional evangelistic activity, and that makes them interesting. But although we're often told that FEs are officially a 'good thing', it's much rarer for us hear from a layperson about how important their involvement with a FE of church has been to them. It's good that you're here to bring that perspective!
I'm inclined to think that FEs of various sorts are going to have to become more mainstream rather than always being considered a type of diversification from the norm. Do you think that's likely to happen in the future?
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think MOTR church problems are more debilitating - to its ministry and raison d'etre - than any other churchmanship's problems. They are different. Of course, like most others here I speak only of my own experience, which has been with both evangelical and MOTR churches, during my adulthood. So I admit the narrowness of my own context.
MOTR churches appeal to certain kinds of people, as do evangelical (or any other specific) kinds of churches. There are two ways in which any church - regardless of 'type' - fails; firstly, in its witness to and use within the community, and secondly, in its nurturing and development of its constituent membership.
So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.
[...] In my experience, 'quiet respectable churches' - as a description, are rarely either of those things, when one knows the people, history and situations involved in any depth. As with any church, the label on the tin isn't always entirely accurate! Additionally, MOTR and liberal aren't always two terms which go together, in a church community.
I accept that the terminology I used was very rough and ready. This was out of necessity; I didn't want to go and find a catalogue of qualifiers and scholarly explanations before getting into the discussion!
'MOTR' presumably means different things in terms of theology and worship, depending on whether you're in the CofE or in some Nonconformist setting. But the defining feature is perhaps an emphasis, conscious or not, on moderation. Individual members and clergy might be anywhere on the liberal-evangelical spectrum, but a MOTR church will tolerate or even champion that diversity so long as doctrinal conflict is studiously avoided.
My reference to 'quiet, respectable churches' was meant to indicate churches that don't engage in effervescent worship or take a highly controversial position on particular doctrines and issues. I'm not trying to deny the reality of cantankerous church members or lively church feuds in MOTR congregations!
The problems of MOTR churches are 'debilitating' in the sense that such churches have shrunk and closed more extensively than other types of church over the past 50+ years. This is obviously more of a problem in some areas than in others, and among some denominations to a greater degree than others. I don't deny that such churches still fill a need for some people.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We can none of us see ourselves as others see us, South Coast Kevin. I wasn't suggesting that you are overly spiritual or too heavenly minded to be any earthly good. You are an astute and thoughtful chap.
However, the paradigm you're working within is a very pietistic one. There's nothing wrong in that, of course, provided the pietistic aspects are balanced out with other emphases.
I'm not saying they aren't.
But I do think that there is a fundamental flaw in the model/s of discipleship that you propose and advocate here.
You - rightly - stress that 'being church' isn't all about meetings and services nor signing up to particular statements of faith without any correlating attempt to live those out in practice. Spot on.
However, I think that the style and flavour of spirituality that you value - and I don't think it's wrong of you to value it - almost inevitably and invariably leads to more meetings, more services, more living in one another's pockets and less engagement with society than you might wish.
I'm sure it is possible to develop 'gathered' and 'intentional' communities that are in the world but not of it ... but a key feature of any congregational or 'grass-roots' structure is that it is very, very labour intensive. It takes a lot of effort to keep such shows on the road.
Before you know it, almost every waking moment that isn't spent working or attending to necessary duties/family life etc is spent in a churchy kind of way.
That's fine for monastic style and base-communities. I'm not sure it's entirely helpful for everyone else - save as something to dip into every now and then.
That was going to be the thrust of my new thread. But it looks like I've started it here.
--------------------
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
Meanwhile, to cut back from my tangent to the main discussion from the OP.
I think SvitlanaV2 has defined MoTR in a very helpful way now just (as we'd say in South Wales).
The emphasis on moderation and restraint is a two-edged sword. It provides little for people to rally around, other than moderation and restraint.
Although they are at different ends of the ecclesial spectrum in many ways (although there are uncanny similarities at times) both the Orthodox and the evangelical charismatic churches have grown because they stand for something definite. They nail their colours to the mast.
I think there is a case for a 'radical middle' and that moderation and restraint needn't imply 'beige' and colourless. But it's a difficult act to pull off. I don't think many MoTR places do so successfully.
I certainly don't want things to be 'beige' and colourless. Nor do I want limp and pious platitudes. At the same time, I no longer want to knock around in circles that spiritualise absolutely everything that happens and which kid themselves into thinking that they're making a huge difference and impact by chucking cliches and charismatic jargon around whilst hardly anyone outside of their own circles are even aware of their existence.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'MOTR' presumably means different things in terms of theology and worship, depending on whether you're in the CofE or in some Nonconformist setting. But the defining feature is perhaps an emphasis, conscious or not, on moderation. Individual members and clergy might be anywhere on the liberal-evangelical spectrum, but a MOTR church will tolerate or even champion that diversity so long as doctrinal conflict is studiously avoided.
For example, I would have thought that the majority of Methodist and URC chapels, and of country Parish churches, are fairly MOTR. Most Baptists tend to the Evangelical and informal (if not charismatic). Some Anglicans are either Evangelical (of various ilks) or "High" - but perhaps this is more of an urban phenomenon.
The question your last sentence raises, though, is whether the MOTR position does imply a certain doctrinal or liturgical flexibility, or whether it in fact denotes a certain rigidity of its own? "The intolerance of tolerance", anyone?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think there is a case for a 'radical middle' and that moderation and restraint needn't imply 'beige' and colourless. But it's a difficult act to pull off. I don't think many MoTR places do so successfully.
This crossed with my last post - I love it and agree absolutely!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[...] There may be ways of doing the same for the 30-50 age group, with the right will and attitude, without necessarily bringing in drums and guitars (which are not to my taste btw). [...]
Bring on the drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works. Too many moderate and liberal churches treat in inaccessiblity as a virtue. Not long ago, in true Father Ted fashion, the bosses at Southwark boasted that their priests wore black socks! That'll show those uppity evangelicals.
There's no reason that other traditions can't emulate the evangelical success story, but they'll need to go for it wholeheartedly.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Bring on the drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works. Too many moderate and liberal churches treat in inaccessiblity as a virtue. Not long ago, in true Father Ted fashion, the bosses at Southwark boasted that their priests wore black socks! That'll show those uppity evangelicals.
There's no reason that other traditions can't emulate the evangelical success story, but they'll need to go for it wholeheartedly.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I'm not closed to any ideas, whatever's right for the time and for the people we're trying to reach out to - as long as we are all aiming to reach out and to grow, every little might help.
The reluctance to do so for some may arise with the possibility of a new venture causing some to leave, without attracting newcomers. Perhaps maintaining the status quo is sometimes seen as the safest option?
The following questions have raised themselves: If we're listening to what God is telling us to do and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, won't the churches inevitably grow, whatever the churchmanship? Does lack of growth show that people are standing in the way of God's will?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Not quite sure from your post, Byron, whether you think that quote:
drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works
= accessibility. If you do, why do you? I imagine that there must be a lot of people who find those as off-putting as, I don't know, Prayer Book Mattins or the Tridentine Mass- and some who find PBM or the TM a good deal less off-putting.
I think the important thing is, as yyou suggest towards the end of your post, to do whatever you do wholeheartedly. I think that people are much more likely to respond positively and inquiringly to anything that is done enthusiastically and with commitment and with a sense from those doing it that it matters. And that can even include Prayer Book Mattins as well as your quote:
drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works
.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not convinced, Raptor Eye, that 'following the guidance of the Holy Spirit' leads necessarily to church growth. It could lead to martyrdom.
It could also lead to some places closing down.
Besides, I'm not entirely convinced either that 'God's will' is some kind of narrow, razor's-edge thing that we have to struggle and strain to discern.
As St Augustine of Hippo put it, 'Love God and do what you like.'
The point being, of course, that if we love God that what we like to do will gradually confirm to his will anyway ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Steven Croft's book, Jesus' People: What the Church should do next queries the use of the business models of growth for churches. He suggests that Jesus compares himself to the vine and that might be a more helpful model, with time to lie fallow, that we should allow branches to die away and other branches to grow.
I've also read people saying that when they saw something lying fallow it was often growing internally - the congregation were growing spiritually - and when they then acted again, what grew from that fallow period was more powerful and stronger than anything that had gone before.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The following questions have raised themselves: If we're listening to what God is telling us to do and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, won't the churches inevitably grow, whatever the churchmanship? Does lack of growth show that people are standing in the way of God's will?
I wouldn't put it this starkly, but I understand where you're coming from. IMO people have genuine free will to live in harmony with or contradiction to God's will so, even if we do all we can, people might still reject Jesus.
Or many people might come to faith through the efforts of the folks in one church, but they might decide to get involved in other churches. So the churches that are growing (numerically speaking) might not be the churches with the people actually doing most of the witnessing.
(I think the above is absolutely fine, by the way; I'm not complaining! My church manages a debt counselling centre and plenty of the people who come to faith through that work don't end up in our church. Which is not a problem at all.)
--------------------
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
The debt counselling thing is worth doing in and of itself. If people benefit from it in terms of dealing with debt, then great.
If they come to faith through it and go to another church somewhere then that's a bonus. If they come to faith and attend your church that's an even greater bonus.
But none of these outcomes are guaranteed. All you can do is is lay on the debt counselling service as faithfully as you can. The results are God's business.
--------------------
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 Baptist Trainfan:
I would have thought that the majority of Methodist and URC chapels, and of country Parish churches, are fairly MOTR. Most Baptists tend to the Evangelical and informal (if not charismatic).
I agree. It would be interesting to know how this Nonconformist parting of the ways happened, but maybe that's for another thread.
quote:
The question your last sentence raises, though, is whether the MOTR position does imply a certain doctrinal or liturgical flexibility, or whether it in fact denotes a certain rigidity of its own? "The intolerance of tolerance", anyone?
I think it's an intolerance of open conflict. You can be anti anything you like, so long as this doesn't impact negatively on the overall balance of the church. IOW, you probably have to keep your views to yourself, unless you're attending a no-holds-barred private meeting, perhaps at Conference.
For example, a Methodist minister once told me about a male churchgoer, a Methodist, who disapproved of women clergy. When his church's female minister is due to preach he doesn't attend worship. This behaviour is tolerated because the man obviously doesn't try to disrupt worship, or 'convert' anyone else to his views. Moreover, Methodist pulpits are occupied by someone different every week, so if you have a problem with a particular preacher (or type of preacher) you just have to look at the plan to see who's due, and then skip church that day or morning and turn up at another service to listen to someone else!
[ 13. July 2014, 21:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not convinced, Raptor Eye, that 'following the guidance of the Holy Spirit' leads necessarily to church growth. It could lead to martyrdom.
It could also lead to some places closing down.
Besides, I'm not entirely convinced either that 'God's will' is some kind of narrow, razor's-edge thing that we have to struggle and strain to discern.
As St Augustine of Hippo put it, 'Love God and do what you like.'
The point being, of course, that if we love God that what we like to do will gradually confirm to his will anyway ...
Discipleship is surely about following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to martyrdom if it comes to it, so that God's kingdom grows?
It's not about doing what we like and expecting the Holy Spirit to follow us and make us like doing what God wants us to. It's about allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us into God's service, even though this will involve doing what we don't want to do. Check out Jonah.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not quite sure from your post, Byron, whether you think that quote:
drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works
= accessibility. If you do, why do you? I imagine that there must be a lot of people who find those as off-putting as, I don't know, Prayer Book Mattins or the Tridentine Mass- and some who find PBM or the TM a good deal less off-putting.
I think the important thing is, as yyou suggest towards the end of your post, to do whatever you do wholeheartedly. I think that people are much more likely to respond positively and inquiringly to anything that is done enthusiastically and with commitment and with a sense from those doing it that it matters. And that can even include Prayer Book Mattins as well as your quote:
drums & guitars, snazzy audio-visual, the works
.
There are of course people who find that style of worship offputting, but the runaway success of charismatic evangelicalism suggests that it attracts more than it repels.
There's nothing to stop moderate and liberal churches from accommodating the needs of both camps with different services. Right now, there's often nothing for those who'd be attracted by a liberal service in a modern style.
Where's the liberal version of Spring Harvest, Willow Creek, HTB, Mars Hill (the Seattle one)? There's Greenbelt, I guess, but it's not tied to all the networking that evangelicalism excels at.
The rich and popular churches call the shots. If liberals and moderates want a place at the table, their brand needs the mother of all revamps.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I think what the Augustine of Hippo quote is getting at is that, as we are increasingly transformed into the likeness of Jesus, the more what we want to do will reflect what God would have us do.
Good trees produce good fruit, freshwater springs produce fresh water, and all that...
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
There are of course people who find that style of worship offputting, but the runaway success of charismatic evangelicalism suggests that it attracts more than it repels.
Not really. To know that, you'd have to look at the number of church shoppers who tried charismatic evangelical services, and see what percent stuck around, and what percent fled in horror. It could be that only 5% stick around and the rest are so put off they become Buddhists. Mere success of the sort you tout proves nothing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Our faith is, ISTM, centred on a person, not on a series of activities as such.
Surely it's centred on three persons in one substance?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
There are of course people who find that style of worship offputting, but the runaway success of charismatic evangelicalism suggests that it attracts more than it repels.
Not really. To know that, you'd have to look at the number of church shoppers who tried charismatic evangelical services, and see what percent stuck around, and what percent fled in horror. It could be that only 5% stick around and the rest are so put off they become Buddhists. Mere success of the sort you tout proves nothing.
Of course it doesn't prove anything, it's suggestive, not a controlled experiment.
People do of course go out the back door, but the numbers stay up.
The success factor touted by many evangelicals is their orthodoxy, but if that were it, you'd expect to see exclusive brethren rake them in. Perhaps correlation isn't causation, but what would liberals & moderates have to lose from incorporating elements from a winning formula?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Integrity? Sincerity? The people they already have?
It's only a winning formula if you believe that is the right way to do things. I couldn't lead worship in a charismatic or evangelical style, and I would feel deeply uncomfortable, not to mention dishonest, trying.
[ 13. July 2014, 21:56: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Practically no-one gets converted to Christianity by liberal, mainstream Protestantism.
Liberal mainstream Protestants have almost invariably either grown up in their denomination and stuck with it, or have “moved on” from the evangelicalism through which they were converted.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the Ship's so full of ex-Evangelicals (and I think you're right about that) then I wonder if Evangelicalism needs to ask itself why that's such a big category. Ex-evangelicals who are now liberals are only one group of ex-evangelicals. Don't forget the ones who no longer identify as Christian at all.
Even if liberalism only exists as a place where evangelicals go when they aren't evangelicals any more, does that mean it's of no value? Would you rather folk left the church altogether when they can no longer stomach evangelicalism?
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Kaplan - I can name converts to a MOR church: through pastoral work around funerals and weddings, through outreach work with a midweek toddler service; through having open doors for events and being available for the town as a space; through being an open door for prayer and to light candles; through quiet support and invitations; through working with schools; as pastoral visitors in the homes for the elderly and hospitals providing prayer and services. None of that is aggressive evangelism.
The aggressively evangelical Elim Pentecostal church is the one that is dying on its feet, for all the handing out of tracts and aggressive in-your-face evangelism.
The stats I've seen show that evangelical churches do tend to be better at making converts, but not to the extent that they make up for overall decline. Of course, there will also be evangelical churches that are declining, and non-evangelical churches that are growing, depending on a variety of factors.
It could be, of course, that the factors which help evangelical churches to grow aren't necessarily an offshoot of their evangelicalism, but more of a reflection of something else. This 'something else' could be harnessed by other kinds of churches.
The CofE's Church Growth Research Programme of 2012/13 finds that theological tradition isn't a key factor in church growth. (See the end of the report.) This is good news for people who prefer to see churches of any kind thrive rather than diminish, and I've noticed that there are some evangelicals in this group.
News reports of declining churches surely offer bad PR for all kinds of churches, and I suspect that the Independent evangelicals I know about would on the whole rather see successful MOTR and Anglo-Catholic CofE churches than de-moralised ones, if only because the CofE is meant to represent everyone, and you always want your representative to put on a good show. This is probably more important in a highly secularised country (especially one with a state church) than it would be elsewhere.
[ 13. July 2014, 22:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Integrity? Sincerity? The people they already have?
It's only a winning formula if you believe that is the right way to do things. I couldn't lead worship in a charismatic or evangelical style, and I would feel deeply uncomfortable, not to mention dishonest, trying.
OK, what d'you mean by a charismatic evangelical style? Let's break it down.
Worship songs, good AV, dramas/ dance: can't see why any of these would raise issues of integrity. They're stylistic choices.
Ditching robes? Trickier, but if you have a liberal theology, it ought surely to be negotiable. There's plenty wiggle-room between grand ecclesiastical tat and a televangelist suit.
Healing, tongues, the Jesus salute: not essential!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
People do of course go out the back door, but the numbers stay up.
Are numbers all that matter? If the people who go out through the back door have been so maltreated and abused that they have given up on God and Christ altogether, the fact that the numbers stay up could be a sign of diabolical favor, not divine.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is this 'liberal mainstream'? ISTM that if a church broadly affirms the historic creeds, it is not liberal, and if it doesn't, then it is not mainstream.
The operative word is "broadly".
Originally? Theoretically? Officially? Eclectically? "Dependswahtyoumeanby"ly?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In any case, the 'way in' to Christianity is Baptism... or has that changed?
The way in is Christ. Baptism says you are "in" - it doesn't "make" you anything, it affirms your status.
In any event, ISTR that Jesus was hardly considered respectable in his day - so why are we so anxious to achieve a status he didn't have?
In fact, if we are perceived as respectable and are accepted, then might it be said that we are not being radical enough? Have we then so conformed that we can no longer transform?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin's explanation of what Augustine was getting at is pretty near to the mark I think (and not just because it accords with my take on it!) ...
I think I either didn't explain myself properly or you got the wrong end of the stick Raptor Eye.
That said, I don't see that finding God's will and being guided by the Holy Spirit necessarily involves having to sign up to the whole charismatic kit and kaboodle - at least not in the way it is popularly articulated on the contemporary charismatic evangelical scene.
@Byron - I think more liberal and MoTR places could adjust their presentation style. Some have already, to a certain extent.
FWIW - and I don't class the Orthodox as MoTR - I once attended a day's conference of a particular Orthodox deanery. They had plenary sessions, break-out-sessions, discussions, PowerPoint slides the whole thing ...
If it hadn't looked like a Hogwarts convention you could have easily have mistaken the talks/presentation and business-y bits for any evangelical conference.
But when it came to Vespers ...
No mics, no gizmos, simply a profound and pregnant silence that led into the unaccompanied chant and the hair standing on the back of my neck ...
The cheerful bonhomie of contemporary charismatic evangelical worship suddenly felt as vapid as could be ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Integrity? Sincerity? The people they already have?
It's only a winning formula if you believe that is the right way to do things. I couldn't lead worship in a charismatic or evangelical style, and I would feel deeply uncomfortable, not to mention dishonest, trying.
OK, what d'you mean by a charismatic evangelical style? Let's break it down.
Worship songs, good AV, dramas/ dance: can't see why any of these would raise issues of integrity. They're stylistic choices.
Ditching robes? Trickier, but if you have a liberal theology, it ought surely to be negotiable. There's plenty wiggle-room between grand ecclesiastical tat and a televangelist suit.
Healing, tongues, the Jesus salute: not essential!
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I'm also puzzled as to how the visible gifts of the Spirit, pretty much the central theme of charismatic worship, can be considered optional extras.
The major damage to my integrity would simply be that this is not how I approach God. "Enthusiasm" does not work for me and I would feel a fraud attempting to fake it in order to get bums on seats.
You're going to have to explain what definition of liberal you're using which means you don't have any principles or any sense of a right way to do things.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So for those who are particularly called to worship/minister within the MOTR millieu, it certainly would be worth analyzing the particular failures of the MOTR way of doing things. Some excellent posts here, do just that.
Could you give any pointers? Has anyone got any experience to add? It would, I think, be interesting.
As I said, some excellent posts here already have done that. In terms of adding my own experience, I think I would be inclined to say that MOTR churches - because they seem to attract a fairly wide range of individual, spiritually and religiously - can find it hard to focus on a coherent image, or present a 'brand' product (pardon the language!), which others who are perhaps quite sure about what they want from their religious experience either find it hard to buy into, or actually turn away in disgust.
Eg, if I want an exuberant, cheerful, demonstrative experience of worship, and my personality is such that I don't tend to find that easily in pointed canticles, or a sung eucharist, or people uniformly reciting the same words at the same pace every Sunday, I might feel that such worship is neither joyful, nor cheerful - dead, even.
So some MOTR churches - I suppose I'm trying to say - don't appear to easily put on the menu of their worship-window on a Sunday morning, everything that is actually - and perhaps quite healthfully - available in the kitchen.
Also, I don't think it's entirely a cliche that many MOTR churches find it hard, in their church councils, to engage with spirituality and mission; finding it easier to talk about maintenance and buildings. Again, perhaps a result of the diffuseness of a wide-ranging group of individuals with no one guiding personal characterstic of religious preference.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
