|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Criticising Quiet, Respectable Churches?
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
More people play guitar than church organ.
More people think they can play guitar. I've seen a few too many enthusiastic Vicars with guitars that have had their congregation trying to crawl under the pews.
Frankly if I want to do traditional worship well with limited resources I'm going to go for unaccompanied plain chant than turgid organ music.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Agreed. I have endured badly-done worship songs at evangelical places, but it's definitely something Mainline Protestantism seems to struggle with more.
It'd help if people actually sung. Something the charevos get right, that is - if you're going to sing something, sing the bugger!
The inadequacies of the musicians will seem less important, if nothing else, if you're belting away yourself.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Orthodox I know have difficulties with getting a high standard of choral singing/chant at a parish level ... although the music at my nearest Orthodox parish is led by a former Anglican cathedral chorister who knows his stuff.
I've heard some excellent Byzantine chant at one of their conferences, but you need skilled people to pull it off. Otherwise it sounds like caterwauling.
I think it is easier to have a stripped-down worship-band style combo but for some reason those who go in for contemporary evangelical worship styles somehow feel the need to emulate the bells-and-whistles found at the big conventions - Soul Survivor, New Wine, Spring Harvest etc.
I don't know why. It's bloody stupid.
We've just had a music festival here and some of the same bands who were giving it large on stage on the Saturday were playing unplugged acoustic sets at some of the local pubs on Sunday. I wasn't able to get to any of the Sunday sessions but am reliably informed that they were just as successful - in a different kind of way.
So I can't see why it should be beyond the wit of man for parish-level worship-bands to make a reasonable fist of things without pretending to be on the main stage at Let God Break Forth Into Songs of Harvest Triumph or whatever the latest evo-fest happens to be ...
After all, until the Oxford Movement tried to tidy everything up they used to have church-bands or 'waits' with shawms and 'serpents' and out-of-tune fiddles ..
I avoid the more lively 11am service at our parish but I'm told that the music was an out-of-synch awful mess there on Sunday. My wife plays the organ at the 9am service about every 3 weeks or so. She refuses to play choruses on the organ because they sound silly and also refuses to play the silly keyboard thing they have there at the 11am.
I'm sure it'd be possibly to do 'pared down' in a reasonable way in both evangelical and liberal settings.
The trouble is, though, with due respect to our liberal friends, most of the songs in the liberal repertoire are pretty shite.
We often complain here about crappy evangelical worship songs and choruses but some of the liberal material is just as bad.
It's simply platitudinous gob-shittery about all loving one another and being nice to people and how God isn't all judgemental and nasty but actually quite reasonable really ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I remember the days of 'Lord of the Dance' and Taizé music. That stuff seems to have been out of favour for a long time round my way. However, a local Methodist church is about to lay on monthly 'alternative worship' sessions based around Taizé and Iona songs. This strikes me as being 'alternative' in a retro sense rather than a modern sense, but I don't mind a bit of churchy nostalgia of that type, reminding me of my younger days.
Will the average person driving or walking past the church notice board know what Taizé and Iona music is like, and why it should be appealing to them?
BTW, this is a long shot, but has anyone on here used the new Methodist hymnbook 'Singing the Faith'? Putting aside the design and quality of the book, do you think its mixture of older and newer songs is successful? Will it be more appealing to non-churchgoers and other church visitors than Hymns and Psalms was?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I'm not a Methodist but it's the hymnbook we tend to use at SCM events, if we use one. Seems pretty good, standard, MOTR stuff to me.
We use Taizé chanting a lot at SCM things and actually I think they're the most successful music we do - suitable for everyone regardless of denomination (especially if you miss out any Latin ones), easy to pick up, no need for musical instruments or proficient playing, simple but very profound and not banal. I think if such a service was advertised more generally, it might be a success - people are scared off by weird words like 'Taizé' but often find they enjoy the chants once they've experienced them.
We're now quite a mixed group - Methodists and URC are probably the core along with some Anglicans and RCs, but recently we've had a number of charismatic evangelicals join the staff team and intern for us, so music can be tricky to get a good balance (fortunately we have some talented musicians so that side is OK). Strong, belt-them-out Wesleyan and Revivalist type hymns seem to go down the best generally - we are using more and more worship songs, but the problem is that often the non-evangelicals don't know them, while everyone knows How Great Thou Art etc.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Orthodox I know have difficulties with getting a high standard of choral singing/chant at a parish level ...
This could be because most of the Orthodox you know are English. Ask the Welsh or the Scots -- the English don't have the singing tradition like the Celts that surround them.
quote:
I've heard some excellent Byzantine chant at one of their conferences, but you need skilled people to pull it off. Otherwise it sounds like caterwauling.
If you're not a native Greek, you shouldn't even try.
quote:
It's simply platitudinous gob-shittery about all loving one another and being nice to people and how God isn't all judgemental and nasty but actually quite reasonable really ...
Yeah, how dare they think God actually, like, loves us or anything?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the music and style thing, the RCs have been able to pull off folk masses and so on and introduce more 'modern' worship styles into their services because they have a home-grown tradition of doing so - particularly since Vatican II.
There's been a parallel move within Roman Catholicism to the worship-song/chorus thing within Protestantism ... it's just that the rest of us aren't so aware of it because whereas some Protestant hymns and choruses have found their way into the RC repetoire, there hasn't been much of a move in the other direction.
Perhaps not in the UK, but in the US there has definitely been a Catholic —> Protestant movement of music. (No pun intended.) Many songs from the more contemporary, post-Vatican II Catholic repertoire have become standards in mainline Protestant hymnals and in many congregations.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Perhaps not in the UK, but in the US there has definitely been a Catholic —> Protestant movement of music. (No pun intended.) Many songs from the more contemporary, post-Vatican II Catholic repertoire have become standards in mainline Protestant hymnals and in many congregations.
It was not uncommon in the late 1980s to hear music by the St. Louis Jesuits sung in low-candle or charismatic Episcopalian services.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.
But it is the only worship commanded by Jesus.
John 4: 23 - 24 -- worship in Spirit and Truth. It isn't confined to the Eucharist - Jesus didn't say only do this in remembrance of me .....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.
But it is the only worship commanded by Jesus.
John 4: 23 - 24 -- worship in Spirit and Truth. It isn't confined to the Eucharist - Jesus didn't say only do this in remembrance of me .....
I think leo was implying not that it was required that it be the only thing done, just that it was the only thing that was required as part of worship; and consequently that it should be central to worship.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Mousethief, I didn't explain myself very well. I'm not calling for wrathful and judgemental songs. It's simply that some of the MoTR and liberal repertoire is pretty banal and doctrinally rather limp.
The point was that here we often criticise the 'Ooh ah, Jesus; Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, We love you Jesus ooh ooh ooh Jesus ...' type of banality of certain strands of contemporary evangelical charismatic worship songs when we also ought to rail against some of the liberal alternatives.
--------------------
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
On the Anglo-Saxon vs Welsh and Scots (or Northern Irish) thing ...
Well, yes, I think you have a point to some extent, Mousethief. I have a cassette tape somewhere (remember those?) with the Divine Liturgy in Welsh.
It came from Fr Deiniol's parish in Blaenau Ffestiniog and wonderful it is too. Russian music and Welsh singing.
Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist (who has sometimes written articles for the Ship) grew up Elim Pentecostal in South Wales and ventured at times into the more uber-Pentecostal world of the Apostolic Church - a pentie denomination that started in South Wales around 1908 in the aftermath of the Welsh Revival.
When he became Orthodox and started attending the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in London, he said that if he closed his eyes and ignored the candles and icons for a moment, he could almost have been back in the South Wales Valleys at an Apostolic service.
Why? Because there are uncanny similarities between Welsh 'hwyl' and elements of Russian spirituality. I've picked this up myself and Fr Gregory (who used to post here) feels the same.
It's not simply the harmonies and basso-profundo (the profundo isn't as profundo in Welsh but there we are) but something else ... something I can't quite put my finger on but recognise when I see it.
That said, most Orthodox I know are English but there are Romanians and other Eastern Europeans at the churches I've visited over the years and they don't particularly seem to sing much.
The point I was getting at, though, wasn't so much about congregational singing as the fact that Orthodox worship does seem to need a skilled cantor and a realitively 'together' choir.
Not everywhere has that. I've known instances of our local Orthodox Church having to get someone in from Leicester to assist with the 'cantoring' or chant in the services because there wasn't anyone available more locally. Leicester isn't unfeasibly far in US terms but in UK terms it's a fair trek.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Mousethief wrote: quote:
This could be because most of the Orthodox you know are English. Ask the Welsh or the Scots -- the English don't have the singing tradition like the Celts that surround them.
I suppose it would be churlish to point out that the generic heritage of the English is on average still mostly Celtic. Yes, I thought so.
But you've sort-of got a point though I'm not sure it's quite that simple.
quote:
The singing.
There was so much singing then,
and this was my pleasure too.
We all sang,
The boys in the fields,
The chapels were full of singing, always singing.
Here I lie.
I have had pleasure enough.
I have had singing.
This is from "Akenfield", and if I recall was the recollection of a very old and now blind agricultural worker about his long life in remote East Anglia (collected mid-20th century). Put it together with all sorts of other evidence about town waits, and choirs of all sorts and it's an argument impossible to sustain, at least till recently. So where did they all go?
I don't actually know the answer to that. Probably it's down to a combination of circumstances. The rise of recorded music and the demise of harmonisation must play a part though other factors are no doubt involved. It takes some time to learn how to sing well.
There seems to have been a renaissance of singing over the last 5-10 years though so hopefully we've seen the bottom of that trough.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.
But it is the only worship commanded by Jesus.
John 4: 23 - 24 -- worship in Spirit and Truth. It isn't confined to the Eucharist - Jesus didn't say only do this in remembrance of me .....
I think leo was implying not that it was required that it be the only thing done, just that it was the only thing that was required as part of worship; and consequently that it should be central to worship.
I believe the Eucharist to be compulsory - any other service like evensong if man optional extra.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that's right, Honest Ron Bacardi.
Communal singing was very popular during WW2, of course, people in air-raid shelters and so on.
Heck, I even know some people who attended the Billy Graham crusades at Harringay in the 1950s and they said that the tube trains were full of people singing hymns. Not all of them were going to the Graham meetings, but they said the singing was contagious and everyone else on the trains would join in ...
Even in stiff and formal 1950s London ...
My guess would be that it died off in the 1960s with the break down of some of the traditional industries - mills and mines often had brass-bands and choirs - and the advent of television from the mid-50s onwards.
Brass bands are struggling now, I've heard and there isn't as much time for music in schools thanks to the Demon Gove.
Choirs are undergoing something of a resurgence - there are several very good ones around here but I'm sure we've reached the bottom of the trough, I'm afraid.
Interestingly, inspired by the TV programme Nashville, there are a number of 6th formers around here who sing like Dolly Parton. Some of them are very good.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
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.)
Except that the churches of non-evangelical stripes who are growing are generally less geographically distributed than evangelical churches. If you do the analysis numerically then the differences are even starker.
This is what I would have thought, yes. But the findings in the report should give encouragement to other MOTR churches that benefit from certain geographical and social advantages, even if these are still waiting to be fully exploited.
I can't speak about the CofE's churches, but the future for other MOTR congregations not in these favoured areas does look poor. I keep on hearing disquieting news about the ones I know. I used to think I could join one of them and do some good, but it seems as if my 'help' might just prolong the agony. The fundamental problems (whatever they are...) aren't being addressed.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 16. July 2014, 17:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So how can they be addressed?
Is it even possible to do so?
Let's have some answers. What do these MoTR churches need to do in order to address the issues?
Do they need to become less MoTR? Do they need to emulate churches of different traditions that aren't declining so rapidly?
Exactly what is it that we are asking them to do?
--------------------
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
Practical questions. Good!
The thread has thrown up a number of criticisms of these churches and what they ought to work on. There have been references to, among other things:
/presentation
/music
/preaching
/welcome
/spirituality
/lay empowerment
/(in)accessibility
/outreach
/respectability
/FE
/community
/quality
One could add teaching, youth work, etc. etc. But there's little point in highlighting what needs to be done without asking why those problems aren't being addressed in an effective way already. The issues go back a long way and aren't going to be seriously addressed if that means disrupting and inconveniencing the way of working that people have become accustomed to. Many churches have drifted into maintenance mode and it's hard to break those habits.
MOTR churches often see their job as serving the community, which is understood in a social sense. If a mother and toddler group is run in the church building by a separate organisation it'll be seen as part of the church's mission even though it may not involve any church members or any specifically Christian content. 'Serving the community' in this way is admirable (and pulls in the rent), but it's apparently insufficient in developing the vigour and the worshipping life of a church.
Methodist structure has specific challenges with very few solutions available. Most ministers have to look after several churches, yet studies show that when this happens, churches are unlikely to grow. Growth matters from a pragmatic point of view because more members means more income, and more people to do the work. Methodist churches that can't fill key lay roles are formally obliged to close; the alternative is for ageing and worn-out people to remain in their posts for many years, and this isn't effective either.
The lack of continuity and firm leadership can be addressed if a church builds up its own supply of lay preachers, but smallish churches are unlikely to be able to do this, so their preachers mostly come in from outside. These people come, preach in their preferred way, and leave, and aren't seen as part of the solution for building a strong congregation.
It would appear, then, that too many external controls on a congregation (alongside other relevant factors) can inhibit dynamism. I suspect that the most dynamic Methodist churches are those that defy the circuit model to some extent - which also seems to be the case in the CofE with its parishes. So I suppose the denominations ought to make their structures more flexible. (However, the CofE is unique in not relying much on dynamism, or even on participation, to justify its existence. It's perhaps less urgent for the CofE to 'deal with' its MOTR churches, although, ironically, its resources ensure that it can do more than other denominations.)
There's more to be said, but I think the basic problem is that we're unable to abandon ourselves to a greater yearning for God. Structural and managerial adjustments, modern worship services and fancy presentation alone (even if most MOTR churches wanted and could afford them) are secondary. People have to believe that God matters enough to want to transform their relationships with each other, and to feel driven to share God's message with other people (including their own families). In reality, of course, MOTR congregations have largely accepted that what they have in Christ is mostly of personal interest. They'd like their churches to be better attended and more relevant to the wider society, but there isn't a strong theological impulse to make this happen. And people don't want to put themselves out more than they believe is absolutely necessary.
(It should be said that Methodists don't use the term 'MOTR' of themselves, AFAIK. There's no conscious commitment to this way of being; things have simply developed in a certain way, and now we have a norm that is only sporadically questioned. CofE MOTRers are perhaps more self-aware? If so, this may be a virtue.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Well said, Svitlana. I wonder whether the preaching has something to do with it, if it isn't inspiring the kind of 'on fire for God' attitude that's needed to enliven and encourage and build people up in faith.
ISTM by observation that preaching may in some places be an ego trip connected with power rather than the opportunity to allow God to reach his people through the words.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - I'm quite pleased to see some practical issues and suggestions being bounced around.
However, I find myself with similar questions to those I keep asking South Coast Kevin - undoubtedly irritating him (and perhaps others) in the process ...
And that's what does a 'yearning for God' actually look like? How can we measure it? How can we 'bottle' it - if we were to think of it in those terms?
Does a 'yearning for God' necessarily imply religious 'enthusiasm' of the kind the evangelical charismatics specialise in?
What does it mean to 'abandon ourselves' to such a thing and what impact would that have on our structures?
We can have a 'yearning for God' but we've still got to heat and maintain the buildings, run the circuits, parishes, dioceses etc - if we have such things.
If we don't and have apparently looser, congregational structures, then these take a heck of a long of work and energy to maintain - however simple we try to make them.
It's one thing to say that, 'People have to believe that God matters enough to want to transform their relationships with each other, and to feel driven to share God's message with other people (including their own families).'
But how do we ensure that happens - or encourage it to happen?
I like the quote attributed (wrongly apparently) to Antoine de Saint Exupery:
'If you want to build a ship, don't summon people to buy wood, prepare tools, distribute jobs and organise the work, rather teach people the yearning for the wide, boundless ocean.'
Wuh ...
Spot on (whoever said it) - but it's easier said than done and starts with ourselves of course.
I'm not so sure that CofE MoTRs are more self-aware than, say, MoTRs in Methodist or URC circles - but then, the common perception would be that Methodists and URCs are MoTR in their entirety.
With the CofE - for better or worse - there are extreme wings ... extreme Anglo-Papallist Anglo-Catholics, for instance, who would scare most RCs off ... or extreme Reform types or some of those around the fringes of Anglican charismaticdom (rather than the more moderate core).
In numerical terms, the numbers on the Anglican 'extremes' are very small. It's just that they can make more noise in relation to their actual numbers.
So ... given your average, bog-standard MoTR congregation, then. People who don't want to be put-out any more than they are being ... who pootle along running the sorts of things that any church needs to run itself - how do we create a 'yearning for the wide, blue ocean'?
What can we do to encourage that without:
- Creating a holy huddle of a few 'keenies' who eventually burn themselves out?
- Emulating techniques and practices from other traditions that might be alien and inappropriate in such a setting?
- Coming across as too heavenly-minded to be of any earthly use?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post ...
On the preaching thing. If we are accepting the MoTR-ness of Methodism and the URCs - then I'm not sure it follows that the preaching in such churches is necessarily mediocre or gives an impression of 'take-it-or-leave-it'.
The last few times I've heard Methodist or URC preachers I've come away with the impression that these are people of genuine conviction and integrity, who seek to live by what they preach and teach.
There might be an element among the congregations though, of, 'Oh, that's the minister, they are supposed to be like that.'
Or even, 'They are supposed to be like that on our behalf ...'
Which is sometimes the way Anglican vicars are viewed - the word 'vicar' itself implying such a thing perhaps. I don't need to do religion because there's someone living in the rectory or vicarage who is paid to do it on my behalf ...
To an extent I think we've all been innoculated against too much religion, as it were ...
And that applies both to MoTR and more full-on settings.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Look the theology of my local URC was when I joined wider than that of the CofE. We basically stretched from Humanist to very Conservative CofS (basically similar to Wee Frees but not from as far north as them). I can name the people with those stances.
Outward conformity of worship practices was allied with a huge diversity of theological belief. The Reformed do not do uniformity of belief at all well. We either splinter or find ways to live together with diversity. Remember one theological college produced both John Hick and Leslie Newbiggin.
What you need to realise is that definitely within the URC worship form is deliberately void of theological signalling. It is to that extent like the white washed walls in many older chapels (peace Presbyterians, we are in England now). It is a canvas to be worked by those leading worship not the outline of a painting.
The preacher therefore has significant control of the meaning which is contained within the form. Not as much as many would like to think, for no act of worship happens in isolation from the congregation or wider culture but still it is only within the specific conjunction of that act of worship that the intent is formed.
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I appreciate all of that, Jengie Jon.
The point I was making was that - whatever the theological stance - and I've known URC ministers who run the full gamut - it doesn't necessarily follow that being perceived to be MoTR (which, like it or not, is how the URC and Methodists are generally regarded) - means that the preaching lacks conviction.
I've heard excellent preaching in both URC and Methodist churches.
That's not the issue for me.
As far as the worship goes, though, then that's trickier.
I visited our local URC recently and I was impressed by the obvious sense that this was a community that was sincere, full of integrity and seeking to live by its principles.
However, it didn't have the kind of immediate 'hit' you get from more evangelical charismatic forms of worship, still less the sense of mystery and the numinous.
If I was going to be harsh, I'd say it felt like a committee-meeting with hymns.
The minister had written the communion liturgy and it felt like a lecture - and one with some dubious Christology too ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Bless 'em.
--------------------
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:
'If you want to build a ship, don't summon people to buy wood, prepare tools, distribute jobs and organise the work, rather teach people the yearning for the wide, boundless ocean.'
Ah, I love this quotation too! In Christian terms, I think it means that instead of focusing on growing or sustaining the church, we should focus on showing and sharing how amazing God (the visible image of whom is Jesus) is, i.e. making disciples; and then the church will follow from that naturally.
Of course, this neatly matches Jesus' instructions to his first followers and, by extension, to us. His Great Commission is to 'make disciples', and regarding the church he said 'I will build my church'.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, I missed something out, I meant 'still less the sense of mystery and the numinous that you can sometimes get with more catholic/sacramental forms of worship.'
--------------------
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
Well, yes, precisely, South Coast Kevin.
The question, though, is HOW do we do that?
And also, whether any particular structures can help or hinder that process?
I suspect that all the structures available to us - or all that have been tried or developed during 2,000 years of Christianity - offer both strengths and weaknesses in this regard.
I think the thing that's exercising me at the moment is how far I'm adrift from this ideal personally rather than whether the available structures are fit for purpose ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
But both are linked, of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose I've got this in mind in the 'Ecclesiology and anthropology' thread.
If we have an anthropology that suggests that everyone is damned unless they are offered a chance to repent and turn to Christ, then our ecclesial structures will reflect that - ie. they will be overtly evangelistic.
However, if our anthropology is such that we believe that the church should act as a benign force in society and that this forms part of its evangelism - then the kind of mums-and-toddlers groups run by other people but happening on our premises model is one that will develop.
Of course, I'd go for a both/and approach ... but that's for the other thread.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...And also, whether any particular structures can help or hinder that process?
This is almost exactly the title of the Masters dissertation I'm writing at the moment! So, I'll tell the definitive answer at the end of September, if that's okay...
And it's probably a separate thread, on which I'll chip in if you start one but I probably shouldn't get too distracted by it. I'm on a study day today.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I visited our local URC recently and I was impressed by the obvious sense that this was a community that was sincere, full of integrity and seeking to live by its principles.
However, it didn't have the kind of immediate 'hit' you get from more evangelical charismatic forms of worship, still less the sense of mystery and the numinous.
If I was going to be harsh, I'd say it felt like a committee-meeting with hymns.
The minister had written the communion liturgy and it felt like a lecture ...
Yes, I know what you mean. I think that is quite generally true of churches in the Reformed tradition which tend to decry the visual, sensory and emotional aspects of worship and emphasise the intellectual. The result can inevitably be "worthy", rational and wordy, but unexciting. It also puts a great onus on the "performance" of the leader and preacher (who may or may not be the same person) to "lift" the service - the liturgy itself will probably not be able to do this.
We live in a much more "emotional" and "feelings" age which may well mean that this style of worship - however much it may satisfy me personally - will not give a spiritual "hit" to many people.
(Would have written this earlier but the phone rang!)
[ 18. July 2014, 10:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Baptist Trainfan, but at the same time this particular church DOES try to engage with the visual, the artistic and cultural etc etc ...
I've given a poetry reading there alongside some other local poets based around some sculptures produced by a Christian sculptor whose work was exhibited there over Lent.
So, on one level, this particular URC congregation does attempt to take a more 'holistic' approach.
I s'pose it could be seen as a bit bolt-on, though, rather than embedded within the liturgy and service-styles themselves.
@South Coast Kevin - yes, I'd be interested in the definitive answer in your thesis.
Intriguingly, Justin Lewis-Anthony, the chap I cite on the other thread on Ecclesiology and Anthropology doesn't rate Viola. He sees him as outside the 'mainstream' of Christian scholarship ' - we are not talking mainstream Christian scholarship here!' he quips in a footnote.
It's prefaced, 'With the greatest respect to ... Mr Viola ...' which, of course, is short-hand for, 'Without any respect whatsoever for Mr Viola ...'
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The context is Viola's claim, echoing Austin-Sparks of the Honor Oak Fellowship, that:
'We cannot obtain anything in our New Testament as the result of human study, research or reason. It is all the Holy Spirit's revelation of Jesus Christ.'
Mr Viola, he says, would not approve of his (Lewis-Anthony's) own book on church ministry ...
Ok, so there could be some smug intellectualising going on here, but Lewis-Anthony regards Viola and others as promoting ideas 'in which anti-intellectualism becomes the defining NT marker of an authentic church.'
I think there's something in this. However, as Baptist Trainfan reminds us, the classical Reformed tradition can run to the opposite error and reduce worship and preaching to some kind of academic exercise, the presentation of a set of propositions that are to be apprehended intellectually.
In some Baptist circles I've heard what I call 'tick-box' prayers. I find myself listening to them an thinking, 'Right, we've had the atonement ... [tick] ... we've had the Incarnation ... [tick] ... we've had the need for us to be doers of the word and not hearers only [tick] ... we've had ...' etc.
The Orthodox Liturgy is pedagogic - it's essentially a 3D representation of historic Creedal Christianity as apprehended in the Eastern section of the Roman Empire. But somehow it transcends that ... although they'll readily admit that it can be florid and turgid in places.
I think that both Reformed and MoTR forms of worship can be transcendent too ... but they've got to try a lot harder in order to achieve 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 Gamaliel:
Intriguingly, Justin Lewis-Anthony, the chap I cite on the other thread on Ecclesiology and Anthropology doesn't rate Viola. He sees him as outside the 'mainstream' of Christian scholarship ' - we are not talking mainstream Christian scholarship here!' he quips in a footnote.
I'm not all that bothered about whether this or that person is outside 'mainstream Christian scholarship', however...
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, so there could be some smug intellectualising going on here, but Lewis-Anthony regards Viola and others as promoting ideas 'in which anti-intellectualism becomes the defining NT marker of an authentic church.'
I have recently been coming to the view that Viola's approach is somewhat anti-intellectual, rather than merely putting intellectualism in its right place, in harmony with revelation from the Holy Spirit. I think the approach of people like Greg Boyd, Alan Hirsch, Brian McLaren and Neil Cole (not saying these people agree with each other, not at all) is significantly more rigorous and intellectually sound.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the preaching thing. If we are accepting the MoTR-ness of Methodism and the URCs - then I'm not sure it follows that the preaching in such churches is necessarily mediocre or gives an impression of 'take-it-or-leave-it'.
The last few times I've heard Methodist or URC preachers I've come away with the impression that these are people of genuine conviction and integrity, who seek to live by what they preach and teach.
There might be an element among the congregations though, of, 'Oh, that's the minister, they are supposed to be like that.'
Or even, 'They are supposed to be like that on our behalf ...'
Which is sometimes the way Anglican vicars are viewed - the word 'vicar' itself implying such a thing perhaps. I don't need to do religion because there's someone living in the rectory or vicarage who is paid to do it on my behalf ...
To an extent I think we've all been innoculated against too much religion, as it were ...
And that applies both to MoTR and more full-on settings.
Being genuine, having conviction and integrity, seeking to live by the preaching and teaching, are all necessary components of leadership, I agree. There may also in some cases be a sense of status and entitlement which attaches self confidence to the words said or written in such away that it leaves out the humility of seeking God's guidance through the Holy Spirit, and being sure that God's will is being done.
3 pictures:
Unless God is the architect, the builders labour in vain.
It's natural for people to keep trying to be in control, to go our own way and to try to harness God. God won't be harnessed.
Our own recipes will only ever give us mediocre results.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@South Coast Kevin - yes, fair enough.
@Raptor Eye, I'm not sure that cases where there's a sense of status and entitlement only applies to MoTR or 'respectable' churches.
That's a danger, surely, in any church?
As for the humility of seeking God's guidance by the Holy Spirit ... some of those who make the most noise about doing such a thing seem the least humble to me.
I've heard of an instance where a charismatic vicar suddenly left the meal table saying that he'd been prompted to ring a certain individual ... only to come back crestfallen a minute or two later saying that the phone was engaged.
How do we ensure that God's will is being done?
How do we know that we are being guided by the Holy Spirit?
How can we tell - in any fool-proof, 100% cast-iron way that the fruit of our labours is based on a God-given 'recipe' as you put it?
I'm sorry, but this all sounds like overly pious cant to me.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Raptor Eye, I'm not sure that cases where there's a sense of status and entitlement only applies to MoTR or 'respectable' churches.
That's a danger, surely, in any church?
As for the humility of seeking God's guidance by the Holy Spirit ... some of those who make the most noise about doing such a thing seem the least humble to me.
I've heard of an instance where a charismatic vicar suddenly left the meal table saying that he'd been prompted to ring a certain individual ... only to come back crestfallen a minute or two later saying that the phone was engaged.
How do we ensure that God's will is being done?
How do we know that we are being guided by the Holy Spirit?
How can we tell - in any fool-proof, 100% cast-iron way that the fruit of our labours is based on a God-given 'recipe' as you put it?
I'm sorry, but this all sounds like overly pious cant to me.
Yes, the status thing might and does apply elsewhere, but it may well be one of the reasons that motr churches are lacking something.
I do agree that some people are ready to make a big deal about their guidance from the Holy Spirit, which might loudly point to themselves rather than quietly indicate the Holy Spirit.
I've seen your story about the phone call before. If the phone was engaged, it doesn't necessarily imply that the prompting was false. In fact, it might affirm it, if more than one person were prompted to contact someone in need.
To answer your questions:
We know whether Gods will is being done by the results, and sometimes by affirmation given to us by God. The latter may come in various forms, as we might expect.
We can't tell 100%, nor should we, as there always must be room for human error. But as we learn to listen to God's guidance through the Holy Spirit and recognise God's promptings, we may put them into practice and see the results, i.e. ever more evidence of the fruit of the spirit seen in greater numbers of people.
I don't know why you have a problem with piety. Surely devotion to God is required so that we serve God humbly.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't have a problem with piety, Raptor Eye. I have a problem with pietism and super-spirituality.
And I have a problem with the kind of special pleading that suggests that the minister in the story was responding to the prompting of the Holy Spirit rather than indigestion, hubris or simply too much cheese the night before ...
But our respective mileages might vary.
If the prompting of the Spirit had been genuine then would the guy have needed to act in such a 'look at me, I'm responding to the Holy Spirit and coming to the rescue as God's man of faith and power for the hour' kind of way?
--------------------
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
Also, I still fail to see how power and status are more of an issue in MoTR churches than they might be in more 'committed' or non-MoTR churches.
On the Catholic side the non-MoTR churches can suffer from a 'father knows best' attitude.
On the charismatic evangelical non-MoTR side they can suffer from an 'elder/pastor knows best' attitude.
I really don't see how the status thing is more prominent in one and not the other. It could apply equally to both MoTR and non-MoTR settings.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What does a 'yearning for God' actually look like? How can we measure it? How can we 'bottle' it - if we were to think of it in those terms?
Does a 'yearning for God' necessarily imply religious 'enthusiasm' of the kind the evangelical charismatics specialise in?
What does it mean to 'abandon ourselves' to such a thing and what impact would that have on our structures?
We can have a 'yearning for God' but we've still got to heat and maintain the buildings, run the circuits, parishes, dioceses etc - if we have such things.
If we don't and have apparently looser, congregational structures, then these take a heck of a long of work and energy to maintain - however simple we try to make them.
Firstly, I don't think you can put a 'yearning for God' in a bottle and sell it! If you could, it would already be done! And you probably can't define it too closely. It's more a case of 'I'll know it when I see it'.
Also, if highly intentional church communities are hard work it should be said that maintaining church structures is also very hard work, and fewer and fewer churchgoers want to participate in it. I don't think the outcomes are considered to be worth the effort required. This is more of a problem in Nonconformity than in the CofE, I think. Anglicans on this website don't seem to complain that getting people do 'do things' in church is hard, whereas Methodist church leaders routinely complain about this. It's practically part of the job description.
quote:
So ... given your average, bog-standard MoTR congregation, then. People who don't want to be put-out any more than they are being ... who pootle along running the sorts of things that any church needs to run itself - how do we create a 'yearning for the wide, blue ocean'?
What can we do to encourage that without:
- Creating a holy huddle of a few 'keenies' who eventually burn themselves out?
- Emulating techniques and practices from other traditions that might be alien and inappropriate in such a setting?
- Coming across as too heavenly-minded to be of any earthly use?
Not much will happen if congregations just want to stay as they are. You can't cajole people into changing (or perhaps you can if you're a very unusual breed of minister or preacher, but do we want more of those?) But I suppose that those MOTR churches that already benefit from good resources, are in nice areas, have access to desirable schools, exist in small, close-knit communities where newcomers feel they have to join the church in order to belong, and offer pleasant opportunities to network at a high level professionally and socially, will continue to offer something that people see as beneficial. Any combination of these factors will help, I should think. The Holy Spirit is working in these churches, I'm sure.
The prognosis for Nonconformist MOTR churches in particular is poor otherwise. Since the CofE has more resources, perhaps its future will involve investing more heavily in FEs, maybe even allowing tiny MOTR congregations to die in the meantime, because it's often easier to create enthusiasm and commitment in new ventures than to convince people in established churches to reinvent themselves. I can't see how the Methodists and the URC will have the people or the funds to do this on a greater scale than is currently happening, and in the meantime they're closing far more churches.
Interestingly, if CofE evangelical congregations have influence out of proportion to their numbers - and so presumably on MOTR congregations as well - this seems not to be the case in Methodism. The 'Methodist Recorder' doesn't highlight 'evangelical' congregations and analyse the pros and cons of their influence. Cliff College is known to have something of an evangelical identity, but it hasn't become the evangelical 'voice' of Methodism (and indeed, it's website hardly mentions the Methodist Church). I doubt that many Methodists in the circuit here could even name a Methodist evangelical congregation if asked. As a result it seems unlikely that MOTR Methodism is going to 'learn' from evangelicals.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course I don't believe that we can 'bottle' these things ... it was a figure of speech.
On the differences between the Methodists and Anglicans on this score, I think one of the key differences is that many evangelical Methodists jumped ship a while back. There are still independent Methodist churches in the North of England that aren't part of the 'official' Methodist body.
Whereas, for whatever reason, evangelical Anglicans have managed to stay put in larger numbers - even if, like the Reform lot they disparage episcopacy and dioceses ...
Or, like the charismatics they take a pick-and-mix approach to which aspects of Anglicanism they run with and which they can conveniently ignore.
I think the decline of MoTR 'non-conformity' is a sad one - but I'm not sure there's one single ro simple reason for it.
It's not as if the services are particularly inaccessible, for instance.
I suspect it's partly because they don't deliver an immediate 'hit' in the way that evangelical or charismatic churches do.
Let's face it, if you go to a church and people are waving their arms around or engaging in bizarre behaviour such as lighting candles and kissing icons then it's a pretty good indicator that these people believe something rather out of the ordinary ...
If you go to a service where people sing hymns rather decorously and someone in a suit or Geneva gown lectures at you about how important it is for us to all love one another - then you're not going to get the same kind of impression.
But there'll be much more to it than 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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Perhaps the answer is that MOTR churches can come across as demanding little or nothing of you beyond attendance.
Perhaps those attending evangelical churches do so because they relate to the way things are done and at a time when there's a lot of pick and choosing, there's a stability in evangelical certainties. It may be a life cycle stage thing.
No one seems to have picked my point up from earlier: Jesus wasn't considered respectable in His own day - why do we strive to be so and to keep those churches which value this above everything else? Isn't a better mark of God's respect to be hated, not accepted, by the world?
[ 19. July 2014, 06:27: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think there's a lot in that, ExclamationMark.
I think it is partly a life-cycle stage thing, too. When I was a single young man churchy things occupied almost all my waking hours outside of work.
These days, I'm involved with a lot more things and church is one among various commitments/involvements.
I probably attend church services less than I have ever done since my evangelical conversion at the age of 19.
And I'm certainly not involved with house-groups, prayer meetings and the like.
On the aspect of the churches being prophetic gadflies, not being 'respectable' and so on ... it strikes me that in their different ways both the liberal and evangelical ends of things are rolling with the zeitgeist and both are wedded to the Spirit of the Age.
Both run the risk of being widowed to it in the next.
On a practical level, I'm intrigued as to what we would have to do, ExclamationMark, to be hated rather than respected (or ignored) by the World?
Indifference seems the default position of the unchurched and 'the World' if you like.
It's the old thing about, 'If I help the poor I'm considered a Saint, if I ask why there are poor in the first place I'm considered a Communist.'
If churches (of whatever stripe) support same-sex marriage or women bishops or some other cause that may be considered 'trendy' and liberal, then that gets the thumbs-up from trendy liberals but the thumbs-down from conservatives.
Conversely, if churches take a very conservative line on various DH issues they are seen as out of touch and irrelevant.
Nobody objects if churches run soup-runs or foodbanks (other than certain very Conservative types who think that anyone accessing such services must be some kind of feckless scrounger).
And MoTR churches are involved in these initiatives just as evangelical ones are.
I don't think that MoTR churches 'strive' to be respected or respectable. What I think happens is that they become so by default - and also because they want to avoid the kind of extremes that occur at the more 'committed' end of things.
I think you're right that we need to be distinctive and demonstrate values that are at odds with 'the world' as it were ...
But I'd be interested in practical suggestions on how we might achieve that.
Being deliberately arsey isn't going to get us very far.
Also, other than arcane forms of religious discourse, there's nothing particularly distinctive about what we do.
For instance, church people went on the anti-Iraq War March. So did humanists, atheists, communists, Buddhists, Muslims, people of all faiths and none ...
What was so distinctive about the church's contribution on that issue?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If churches (of whatever stripe) support same-sex marriage or women bishops or some other cause that may be considered 'trendy' and liberal, then that gets the thumbs-up from trendy liberals but the thumbs-down from conservatives.
Conversely, if churches take a very conservative line on various DH issues they are seen as out of touch and irrelevant.
And if you are being criticised by both sides simultaneously there is a good chance that you may be doing something right.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I would agree EM and Gamaliel. It's hard to build community in a church where showing up on a Sunday is the only requirement. In the MOTR-A-C churches I usually attend (I identify as A-C but don't always live where there are any - no longer living in Northampton) there's very little going on during the rest of the week except things aimed at very specific groups eg parent and toddler groups, uniformed groups, Mother's Union, choir etc. No home group/cell group except in Lent, no church weekends away etc etc - while I wouldn't go back to that type of church, evangelical churches I've attended before always had so many things you could join in with and therefore things that helped build community. A weekly Eucharist is not exactly individualistic but you can't discuss things except at the end over bad coffee - whereas a cafe church Eucharist would make a big difference. MOTR churches often hold classical concerts or organ recitals, but it's hard to build community when you're sitting there quietly listening to quite a niche form of music.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure. There's always a pay-off and nowhere's perfect.
Every rose has got a thorn and the taller you are, the longer the shadow you cast. And, as the African proverb delightfully goes, the higher the monkey climbs up the tree the more you can see its arse.
The downside of many MoTR or more sacramental churches can be the lack of a sense of community.
With some of the more full-on charismatic evangelical churches the community aspect can be overwhelming or suffocating ...
There's got to be a balance somewhere.
--------------------
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 balaam:
And if you are being criticised by both sides simultaneously there is a good chance that you may be doing something right.
Fallacy of the excluded middle, I think.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course I don't believe that we can 'bottle' these things ... it was a figure of speech.
Of course it's a figure of speech, and I assumed that you were trying to make some kind of a point by employing it. For example, sometimes churches are accused of looking for a pre-packaged quick fix to help them overcome the problems they have. My response was made with that kind of thinking in mind. Otherwise, I don't know what you were getting at.
quote:
There are still independent Methodist churches in the North of England that aren't part of the 'official' Methodist body.
The Independent Methodists have joined the Baptist Union, I believe. But I was thinking about the evangelicals that have remained within the parent body. For example, there's the Headway group that began in the 80s and is now known as Methodist Evangelicals Together. But if you're not part of a circuit that has any kind of openly evangelical presence you won't know much if anything about this group. That bespeaks a lack of Methodist evangelical influence.
Rev. Rob Frost (d. 2007) is the big name I'd heard of with regards to recent Methodist evangelicalism, but I don't know to what extent he made waves within MOTR Methodism. Hardly at all in the circuit here, I should think.
quote:
I think the decline of MoTR 'non-conformity' is a sad one - but I'm not sure there's one single or simple reason for it.
It's not as if the services are particularly inaccessible, for instance.
What's spiritually helpful to one person may be spiritually 'inaccessible' to another. Nonconformist MOTR worship suffers from a 'middleness' that isn't even subversively hybrid or interstitial in the postmodern fashion. It's not distinctive enough to be 'accessible' in a world where you have to be able to create a buzz to get people's attention.
I agree with the comments made here that MOTR road churches expect too little in terms of spiritual engagement. However, I should perhaps mention a successful venture developed by one circuit I know. 'Heretics Anonymous' is a forum in which Methodists (and others) can meet up to discuss aspects of the faith that they find difficult to accept. The concept could be adapted for the CofE and other denominations.
Ultimately I think the Methodist Church and URC are going to be reabsorbed by the CofE, which has the appeal, the resources and the cultural heritage to tolerate high levels of a MOTR ethos without being completely dominated by it. Mergers don't halt church decline, of course, but at least the smaller churches will have access to CofE money and expertise.
BTW, is the CofE showing signs of wanting to develop more FEs? Maybe they represent the future of MOTR worship.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. Being deliberately arsey isn't going to get us very far.
2. Also, other than arcane forms of religious discourse, there's nothing particularly distinctive about what we do.
1. Oh well, I don't know - depends whose buttons you push and what about ....
2. I agree totally
3. Practical suggestions ..... a few for starters. Depends how off the wall you want to be
in this neck of the words there are 2 sitting MP's with small majorities - numerically small enough to be shifted by the number of people attending churches in the town. Get together and put out a manifesto for the politicians to adhere to our don't vote for them: this manifesto to recognise people not problems or issues
Ditto the town councillors (much smaller shifts required)
Food bank great but it's pretty acceptable.
Churches to work together: look at existing fellowships - are there are money drains that won't ever turn the corner? Close and sell. Make giving to diocescan/central funds not mandatory but voluntary based on real need and funds available
put the same energy into helping others as we do for fund raising and maintenance
Strive for town wide acceptance of living wages not just minimum wages. Begin with the big employers e.g the Council
Embrace the needs of the travelling community, asylum seekers, the trafficked teenagers I see on street corners at night. Walk on the streets, talk to them, buy them coffee - look in the eyes of an eastern European teenager waiting to be picked and tell her that she is loved. See in those eyes your own daughter: see Christ.
Be generous with everything with have
Grace - no other religion has it
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The downside of many MoTR or more sacramental churches can be the lack of a sense of community. With some of the more full-on charismatic evangelical churches the community aspect can be overwhelming or suffocating ...
I'd guess that there is some sort of social class issue here - there is a certain stratum in society that looks towards an organization such as a church to provide social network and community. Go a bit 'higher', and people tend to form their own networks of friends, centred on the private social group, not on any sort of public organization - even if the people they meet at church happen to form part of that network. Hence, even at church, they would naturally socialize with their own social group, rather than identify with and socialize with the generic member of the congregation.
I may be over-generalizing, but it's my impression that it's the non-conformist and evangelical churches that fall more into the first category, and the MotR Anglican (at least in England) that falls into the second.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry Holy Smoke, I don't agree with that analysis at all.
On the whole, the church is pretty middle-class here in the UK - other than in ethnically-defined circles.
There are some exceptions, but not many.
@ExclamationMark ... interesting suggestions. I'm uncomfortable with the one about developing a critical-mass in order get MPs in marginal seats to conform ... that sounds rather like blackmail to me and rather the sort of tactics that US Tea Party and Religious Right activists use.
I'm sure that's not what you are suggesting at all, though.
The other examples, about reaching out to migrants, asylum seekers and people who're being trafficked ... well, yes - but I don't think that'll get you a great deal of opprobrium.
Sure, the UKIP crowd might have something to say, but I don't think most people - other than the most avowedly racist - would have any problems at all with churches trying to treat people on the margins of society as real human beings ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I once heard an Imam give a talk in which he alluded to the claim that only Christianity has a concept of grace.
His Anglican vicar friend had pointed this out to him. So he went away and thought about it. He'd come to the conclusion that Islam did in fact have a concept of grace and he gave some examples from Islamic teachings to back this up ...
Whether this would have passed muster as far as you or other Shipmates are concerned is a different issue - but he'd clearly thought about it deeply and been able to find parallels and possible equivalents.
All that said, whether or not grace is a distinctively Christian concept or can be found in other forms elsewhere, we still need to demonstrate it.
@SvitlanaV2. I hadn't realised Rob Frost had died.
He was quite well known across evangelical circles in general ... perhaps more so than in his own Methodist context.
I hadn't realised that all the Independent Methodists had been absorbed by the Baptist Union. I could certainly see some going in that direction - or towards the FIEC (Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches) - but on the whole, I suspect the FIEC would be rather too Calvinistic for them.
Are you sure there aren't any who remain independent?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
