|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: To build or not to build
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This comes out of the revivalism/Cwmbran thread.
It's been suggested that churches meeting informally in Starbucks, in pubs or homes and social clubs etc are the 'way forward.'
What are the opportunities and pitfalls confronting such initiatives. How sustainable could they be in the longer term?
Buildings pose problems, of course - maintenance, costs etc. Cathedrals seem to be doing well, though, despite all of that.
This last week I met a vicar of an historic church in a touristy town whose church gains a significant annual income by charging people to climb the tower and look at the view.
Equally, there are historic buildings that are unsustainable.
What are the pros and cons of abandoning buildings and taking to the pubs, clubs and coffee bars?
--------------------
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
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
If you were meeting during their normal business hours, I imagine they could be a bit unhappy with the hymn singing and chap standing up going '...and lastly and sixty-fourthly brethern...'
One solution which seems to be widespread is, rather than invading secular spaces, to be a space which is available to the community for other purposes - this time last week I was at a performance of Fallen Fairies in a modern church building in suburban Edinburgh. I was interested to note the flexible seating, ceiling-mounted lighting rig, stage, wings and convenient kitchen. It was clearly a space which had been designed for multi-functionality.
But I can see that for some this would be a capitulation to The World.
[ 16. August 2014, 19:59: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
I was part of a church that met in a recreation center . We kept putting off building
and eventually the church collapsed . So I believe a church should be in its own facility. There are ways to maximize useage if you are in a big city , space rentals , places for religous education, community
outreach, food/clothing bank in addition to having a dedicated worship space.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What are the pros and cons of abandoning buildings and taking to the pubs, clubs and coffee bars?
What a ghastly idea. People should feel free to be able to have their coffee in peace without being preached at, being asked to be quiet because there's a service on, expected to join in singing hymns, or unable to get their coffee and cake because the place is suddenly filling up with a bunch of people who aren't in a coffee house for that purpose, aren't even interested in it but have taken up all the best seats.
As for the idea of holding a service in a pub, that runs the pretty obvious risk of drunks barging in and heckling, then being annoyed at being told to stop it and some fairly unholy exchanges being flung around.
You might just as well decide to take the pub or coffee house to the church instead and have people arrive to sit in the pews gossiping over a pint or cappucino while the vicar tries to hold a service.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Rent.
In my experience, churches that buy real estate attract all the wrong kinds of interest. Denominations seek to expand their power base by owning the property even when it's local members that have paid for it. And so on and so on.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What are the pros and cons of abandoning buildings and taking to the pubs, clubs and coffee bars?
What a ghastly idea. People should feel free to be able to have their coffee in peace without being preached at, being asked to be quiet because there's a service on, expected to join in singing hymns, or unable to get their coffee and cake because the place is suddenly filling up with a bunch of people who aren't in a coffee house for that purpose, aren't even interested in it but have taken up all the best seats.
I rather assumed that the point was to meet in a meeting room at a coffee house or pub, rather than having evensong at the main bar.
I agree that trying to hold a worship service in the middle of a bunch of people who are trying to do something else is a non-starter. There's a difference between in the public view and in the public's way.
I'm not sure that I see a huge difference between a multi-function room owned by the church, used for worship on Sundays, and for bridge, bingo, coffee-mornings and playgroups during the week, and a hall owned by someone else hired for various secular purposes in the week, and hired by the church on Sundays.
A space set aside for worship is one thing, but if the room is used for many different things, I can't see how it matters who owns it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I rather assumed that the point was to meet in a meeting room at a coffee house or pub, rather than having evensong at the main bar.
I've never seen a coffee house that had a separate meeting room which was available for rent.
In any case, if you rent a meeting room, the area won't be consecrated, it'll be a secular area that you've borrowed. Also, one of the good things about a church is that it's often decorated with a variety of religious items that should (in theory) incline the mind towards contemplation of spiritual matters. You won't get that in a pub's back room, and having a gathering there sounds pretty much like going back to those old days a few centuries ago of hiding from public view and surreptitiously holding services quietly so as not to attract unwanted attention.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I have seen:
- a café church set up in the local Costa Coffee - a sort of monthly talk and discussion and "different way" of "being church" - it had about 20 attendees from across the churches in town, met out of the normal opening times and didn't run for more than the agreed sample sessions (4/5?);
- Beer and Bible in one of the local pubs, intended to be a public bible group discussing the Acts with the possibility that others could join in from the bar and see Christians at work in the community. It was established as part of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible a few years ago. In practice, the group met in a private room at the pub and it was no different to a bible study group at someone's home, with an added gimmick and is no longer running;
- Applecart story telling in a pub - again in a room above a pub almost as a private group, and I reckoned everyone else there had been to their own churches earlier in the day. And that no longer runs either, although Applecart do still exist.
However, Holy Joes started off in a pub, although that led Dave Tomlinson to ordination in the CofE and Holy Joes is no more.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm inclined to agree with Curiosity Killed ... these things are gimmicks at worst or well meaning experiments at best.
@Ariel - I don't think those who advocate meeting in Starbucks or in pubs or clubs etc envisage holding traditional services with hymns and sermons etc - nor happy-clappy style services either.
My understanding of it is that they see themselves as gathering unobtrusively over coffee to chat and discuss their own spiritual progress etc ...
There's nothing to stop them doing that anyway and attending more 'conventional' forms of church at the same time. So I'm not convinced what they intend to gain.
South Coast Kevin is a big advocate of this kind of approach so perhaps he can explain.
I remember a quite 'High Church' vicar in a northern town starting a bit of a stir by beginning to hold services in the pub across the road as well as in his church. I'm not sure that initiative lasted very long nor am I sure what it achieved.
People in that town simply rolled their eyes when they heard of it and various non-churchgoers I knew felt that it was somewhat sacrilegious and irreverent ...
My gut feel is that this sort of thing would work reasonably well for a short while with a bunch of mates ... but longer term is unsustainable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Ariel;
quote:
In any case, if you rent a meeting room, the area won't be consecrated, it'll be a secular area that you've borrowed.
Why does the church's meeting place need to be 'consecrated'? It is the church itself, the people, who are consecrated.
Where the church is persecuted, a fixed meeting place can be a problem. 17thC Baptist practice was often to meet flexibly as 'housegroups' which would then get together once a month or so in, say, a sympathetic tavern.
Even where not persecuted, large permanent buildings can be problematic....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think it's both/and and not either/or. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
By observation, churches which start by meeting in school buildings or village halls soon start fundraising so that they have premises of their own. Christians need to worship God by singing his praises and praying together.
For outreach to those in the community who are not yet Christians ready to pray or sing together, informal meetings in cafe's or bars are one way of connecting, as are knitting circles, dance or exercise or film or book groups, etc.
There are of course cross-overs. Cafe church may include prayer, praise and thanksgiving. There are outdoor church services.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
What I could imagine is meeting in an outdoor space sometimes. In a corner of a park for example (if that's possible). It would be a fine line between being present enough as to be noticed and not so loud as to be disturbing. And it would help to have a big flask of coffee ready for people who want to join in.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It often sounds a really good idea. However, I wonder whether it's possibly going to miss something really important, something that is fundamental to the Christian message. If people meet in a cafe, the occasion is likely to be built round people talking about God. That doesn't go far enough. I don't quite see how one brings in the element,
"O come let us worship and fall down: and kneel before the Lord our maker". (from the BCP version of the Venite)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
Another approach is for the church to build itself into a focus of the community, sharing its building, or in extreme cases, giving up its building to the community and continuing to hold its worship services and other functions as it always did.
An interesting model (with the caveat that I haven't been there yet, so no first hand knowledge) is this one: http://standrewspicton.com/. I like the idea, as I think many still like the notion of the church as a home; a place to go to and to do many things, rather than something that ceases to exist on weekdays and reconstitutes itself on Sundays. Perhaps what we should be doing is showing that people are welcome to belong to the church, but that the church also belongs to the people. Then our mission might be a bit clearer, and people will see more sense in contributing to the upkeep.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I used to struggle with the idea of buildings being 'consecrated' but it's less of an issue for me now. Nor do I object to the idea of people improvising and using conference centre rooms, hotel rooms or whatever else.
I do like church buildings as 'sacred spaces' and will often bob into one to look around and to sit in quiet prayer/reflection as opportunity affords.
I'll do that in both rural and urban settings.
Of course, I can do the same thing in a park or walking along the street ... it's a both/and thing of course ...
Just this last week I bobbed into the chapel at Little Gidding - somewhere I've long intended to visit given my love of Eliot's poem of that name in The Four Quartets.
I found it very powerful, to be honest. In fact, I burst into tears when I knelt 'where prayer has been valid.'
I felt as if I knew the place already - not just from photos but from Eliot's poem. 'History is now and England.'
The retreat centre and exhibition/cafe at Farrar House was closed due to illness so I had the place completely to myself. I didn't have a copy of the poem with me but to my delight I noticed that someone had left a copy conveniently on the choir stalls ... an old school copy with pencil notes around the edges.
Not caring whether anyone came in, I sat an recited it. It felt almost like some kind of liturgical or devotional act.
Of course, I was responding to my familiarity with the poem, to associations and to atmosphere ... at a deep 'soul' level.
I could easily have done the same thing in my living room at home but it wouldn't have been the same. It was very, very special.
Can anyone relate 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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Rent.
In my experience, churches that buy real estate attract all the wrong kinds of interest.
I think with all the pitfalls that this involves, it still makes quite a lot of sense to buy - as long as you don't make a big thing about it (which suffers from the pitfalls that
Especially if you are growing church you very quickly run out of space for all sorts of things - like childrens groups etc.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Can anyone relate to that?
Yes. Definitely.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Below the Lansker
Shipmate
# 17297
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
17thC Baptist practice was often to meet flexibly as 'housegroups' which would then get together once a month or so in, say, a sympathetic tavern.
In this part of Wales, there are plenty of stories of Baptist churches that began meeting in barns or cow-sheds, but also the impetus to build a meeting-house (rather than a chapel) started very early. However they built and abandoned them as the need developed. They weren't at all sentimental about buildings and it was written into most church constitutions and confessions of faith that there was nothing 'sanctified' or 'consecrated' about the meeting-house itself. It was only in the 19th century that 'meeting-houses' became 'chapels', and it is largely the Victorian legacy that has been frozen in aspic. Somewhere along the line, as a minister once commented, Baptists stopped being a people of the Tabernacle and became a people of the Temple.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think rented spaces or shared spaces can work. Only this week I had a ghastly tale of a painful church split which involved all manner of property problems and real estate issues.
Not nice, not nice at all.
So I can see where Eutychus is coming from on all of that. This isn't restricted to any one tradition either - it happens across the board.
In medieval times, church buildings were multi-functional and served as 'community centres' to some extent as well as gathering places for worship. I certainly believe there's scope for creative use of space.
I'm still interested to hear what might be gained from having a more fluid approach with some sort of gatherings/presence in public spaces ... and how that might work logistically.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I would be interested to know more about the kinds of experiments that have already been done in this area.
How many of the attenders were really "new" to church? How long do these types of thing last for? I've known of a few that have come and gone in a year. Do many really last much longer? And what happens to the people who attend them? Do they ever get incorporated into a "regular" church community?
Having been a member of a church that had no building (we rented a local hall), I am aware of the good and bad points of being building-less. On the good side, you are less distracted by maintenance issues and there is a certain sense of freedom - "if we don't like this place or it gets too small, we can always go somewhere else." In my experience, building-less churches tend to be stronger on the building up of community.
But there are downsides. You have little control over the "worship space". You might be able to put up some posters or banners, but then you have to take them down again each week and that gets to be a pain in the arse. Worship is far more than the words we say or sing - the context makes an enormous difference as well, If you are in a rented hall, you're continually fighting to create an appropriate context for worship.
Like others, I tend to regard things like church-in-the-pub as trendy gimmicks. Far too often, they are done by people who want to catch the latest craze and be thought of as a hip and happening christian. But sometimes, I think that where someone has really thought things through and been really imaginative and creative, they can serve a purpose. I'm not sure, though that they are ever a long term thing.
Idealism says "you don't need a building." Cold, hard realism says "perhaps not, but it's bloody difficult doing anything long lasting without one."
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In medieval times, church buildings were multi-functional and served as 'community centres' to some extent as well as gathering places for worship. I certainly believe there's scope for creative use of space.
In mediaeval times, everyone was (at least nominally) Christian, and everyone attended services in their parish church.
In that case, acting as a "community centre" is not really different from what happens when my church gathers for a communal meal, a concert put on by the young people, or whatever.
In a modern context, when most people in the community have either some other faith, or no faith, and do not attend church, I'm not sure it's quite the same.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
In my experience, "Pub Church" tends more to be akin to theological discussions in a pub, organized by a church group, similar to 19th century European salons.
I have never heard of "Pub Church" displacing the Sunday main worship service. Frankly, that idea reeks of desperation and I fail to see any reverence or sense of holiness that comes with having worship in a Pub.
Holding services outdoors, such as a service surrounded by green space, IMHO can be moving and reflect our growing ecological concerns. I recently attend such a service for Lammas Day when I was last in Toronto.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
A number of options are emerging here:
1. space used solely for church-related events, owned
2. space used solely for church-related events, rented
3. space rented occasionally for church-related events
4. multipurpose space (whether rented or owned) managed by the church
If your church is in possession of (1) I'm not suggesting you should sell up now, but it's not a model I'd adopt given the choice
I used to dream of (4), along the lines of some large US churches (which still seem to fulfil the functions of a community centre in some places): a large auditorium with surrounding offices/small business space leased out to pay for the facility. But not any more.
Like LeRoc, I've experienced (3) and agree it's far from ideal. You quickly tire of packing everything up every Sunday. At the very least you need a permanent church office somewhere. (Also following on from LeRoc, I have on occasion done open air services. Always fun if the weather's right... from time to time).
Our church currently enjoys (2). The advantages I see are:
- in France at least, people instinctively see churches as having their own dedicated facility. Anything else screams "cult". I don't think that mindset is going away any time soon, at least in the provinces.
- while I'm drawn to the idea of allowing multiple uses, in our case this is ruled out by tax law (or we would have to pay tax like a business). We can do things like (free) art exhibitions, but nothing commercial.
- while there are downsides to renting (eg any facility we have ever rented has had a leaking roof that the owner never wants to fix) I remain convinced, having seen what's happened to some other neighbouring churches, that these are nothing compared to the potential hassles of ownership and the potential fallout.
As to the issue of space to grow, having previously led a much bigger church I'm currently of the view that anything bigger than the maximum capacity of our building (about 100 at a push) is too big (at least for anything I want to be involved in). We'll just send any surplus off to plant another church.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The problem with owning buildings is that they're expensive to maintain. The Church of Scotland here has a beautiful Edwardian building that currently requires something approaching half a million spending on it to bring it up to scratch. When the population of the entire parish is well under 1000 that starts to look problematic. Any solution to this conundrum is going to be fairly radical, but congregations with an average age well past 70 are not always good at radical.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Like LeRoc, I've experienced (3) [space rented occasionally for church-related events] and agree it's far from ideal. You quickly tire of packing everything up every Sunday. At the very least you need a permanent church office somewhere.
Yes, there is a significant set-up and pack-away task involved if one rents a space for the main church gathering. But this can help to keep things relatively simple and unfussy, two things which I think are very important (I know others disagree, of course!).
And you can spread the workload out - my church hires a school hall for our Sunday services and each of our home groups (average 10 people in a group) takes a turn on a rota system to be the 'set-up team'. There's a separate rota for someone to be in charge of the process but having each home group take a turn at helping out means everyone who is committed to the church (being in a home group is essentially how our church defines commitment / membership) is simply expected to get involved.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As to the issue of space to grow, having previously led a much bigger church I'm currently of the view that anything bigger than the maximum capacity of our building (about 100 at a push) is too big (at least for anything I want to be involved in). We'll just send any surplus off to plant another church.
Absolutely agreed. I wish more churches and leaders thought like this! As a group (any group, I mean) gets larger the dynamics change, and this should be thought about; leaders of a growing church should be thinking and praying about what to do.
Another example from the church I'm part of - when our home groups get to around 12-15 people, the leaders start to think about multiplying the group into two smaller groups, and about who in the group (or who else in the church) might be ready and willing to lead the newly-formed group. Once a home group gets to 12-15 people, it becomes harder to really know and look after one another.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I wrote a long answer about using a town centre Grade II* listed church for services and being available for the community, but the Ship went down and it all disappeared. I'll just think fate and spare you a repeat.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Seeing as my comment on the Cwmbran thread prompted Gamaliel to start this one, here's a bit more detail on what I meant by meeting as church where people already gather.
What I've got in mind is often called 'missional church' and the basic idea is that, instead of doing outreach / evangelism by setting up special meetings and the like, and saying 'come to us', we Christians 'go to them' - we get involved in our communities (neighbourhoods, workplaces, social, educational etc. etc.) and actively seek to show and tell them about Jesus.
Then, instead of drawing interested people out of that community and into our existing church community, we work with them to set up a new church where those people already are; in their home, at their workplace, in the pub where they socialise etc.
Obviously this means doing the church gatherings in a very simple way, so it just doesn't work with some people's conception of what a church service is or should be. I realise that. But one of the driving ideas behind the missional church 'thing' is that most of the time Christians have made church too complicated (so it's hard for people to get involved) and discipleship (the expectations in terms of living a Jesus-imitating life) too simple.
Here is an article that goes into this a bit more.
And Curiosity killed ... ![[Frown]](frown.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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I used to belong to a Baptist church that hired a school hall and operated along similar lines to South Coast Kevin's. It was fine but however simple we tried to keep things there was a lot of setting up and taking down.
There were the chairs, the tea and coffee and doughnut facilities for the break in the meeting for that and there was the sound-system and so on. For some reason they felt the need for a hefty PA system which I think we could easily have done without.
Prior to that, I'd been involved in a restorationist charismatic church which met in a number of venues over the years. It took bloody ages to set everything up and take it down again. When you were on the rota you were at church from quite early in the morning sometimes until well into the afternoon.
Mind you, people who are Orthodox and who go to all the services and so on are probably similarly encumbered and tied up by it all.
I agree with Oscar the Grouch that a building-less church does build a strong sense of community. You have to work together to make it all function.
The downside can be burn-out.
Interestingly, the restorationist church I was part of grew rapidly (mostly by transfer but there were quite a number of converts) in its first few years and went from hired hall to hired hall to hired hall ...
There were attempts to push for church plants and so on over the years but the 'apostles' and elders always opposed that and this caused rifts and splits ... probably a major one every 18 months to 2 years for a time.
Eventually, after many years and lots of splits and hassle, the church acquired a listed church building in a prime location which needed a lot of attention and wasn't designed/set out for its particular style of worship.
Without the resources to do it up properly they soldiered on despite problems with parking, planning permission and all sorts of issues besides. There have been attempts to sell the building or apply for joint usage but nothing has come of it.
The church must have reached a peak membership of around 300 to 400 in the mid-1980s but this soon dropped through a series of acrimonious splits.
There are now around 70 people meeting in a building that they can't get rid of.
They are still expecting revival.
--------------------
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, I cross-posted with South Coast Kevin ...
Yes, I can see the attraction of that kind of 'missional' approach.
What I have yet to see, at least in a Western European context, is any examples of this working in practice.
It sounds like a pipe-dream 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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: Like LeRoc, I've experienced (3) and agree it's far from ideal.
Sorry to disagree with you, but my church does (2). We rent a very old church building. In fact, it is so old the walls are noticably askew. It has pews, so no dragging around with chairs for every service.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I can see the attraction of that kind of 'missional' approach.
What I have yet to see, at least in a Western European context, is any examples of this working in practice.
That's fair enough, but how would you see examples of this working in practice? By definition, it's localised and pretty low-key, so unless you know some of the people involved or are familiar with the location then you probably wouldn't know about such a church.
A couple of examples, though:
Sheffield - a network of missional communities
London
And here is a directory of groups meeting or seeking to start meeting in a simple / missional way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Why does the church's meeting place need to be 'consecrated'? It is the
church itself, the people, who are consecrated.
Because dedicating a space as "set apart" for sacred purposes means that after a while most people will come to it with an appropriate mindset and get more out of it, as the place can also have religious emblems and other items that focus people's minds on the purpose of their visit, and these can be kept in place permanently if wanted. It shouldn't feel as if it's just ordinary and like anywhere else, maybe with posters advertising brands of drinks on the walls, photos of ancient cricket matches and a faint reek of stale beer.
I have heard of a group that meets in a cinema on Sunday mornings but that always says "fringe" to me - a small group who aren't established enough to have their own premises and are struggling financially, and as Eutychus mentioned, with overtones of "cult". I've no idea whether their services involve Communion but hard to feel reverent in that kind of setting. I can see how settings other than specifically church ones could work but those that are designed primarily for entertainment will inevitably infuse at least an element of their own atmosphere into the proceedings.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Why not have both? My church is fairly traditional, and meets in a very prominent building in the centre of town - everyone knows where we are, and the doors are open every day, for services and also for quiet reflection.
But, in addition to this, there is a twice-a-week meeting in the pub, to which anyone can come and ask whatever questions they like. It is a small but growing number, who seem to find it a helpful addition to the more formal services. Of course, people who don't come to formal services are also welcome.
It's the church which uses a variety of approaches, both in the church and out in the community, which is most likely to thrive in the future. And, if the time comes when buildings are too expensive to maintain, other cheaper alternatives are already up and running, rather than having to invent them at a time of crisis.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair points, South Coast Kevin, but some of the directory entries sound a bit like the same-old, same-old only with a 'let's all meet in our lounge' flavour.
Perhaps I've been round the block too many times.
I do think it is possible for some of the more sacramental style churches to operate quite simply - and I think we will see more of that in the future.
There are also urban monasteries in an RC context which are operating in quite simple ways - although there is an issue with the lack of 'vocations' here in the West ... although 'vocations' are flourishing in other parts of the world.
I'm not writing off the concept of 'simple church' or 'organic church' entirely ... but I've yet to be convinced.
The Sheffield model is an interesting one but it is connected with some quite large Anglican, Baptist and house-church outfits that hae existed in the city for quite some time ... so it's effectively a network linked to already existing/functioning larger scale operations.
That might represent a helpful model, though.
--------------------
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
Although (1) and (4) do exist, I can think of a couple of examples locally, I suspect that there's another category that's a mixture of the two. Here the church building is Grade II* listed, which limits what can be done to convert it to a multi-use space, but it is used for concerts, exhibitions, the annual horticultural show, election hustings* and other annual events. During the week coffee is served on market day, a children's theatre group meets, there's a toddler service, there are other groups who use the space.
There's also offices, in what was the curate's house next to the church and a church hall slightly further away where one set of Rainbows, Brownies and Guides meet, dance classes and a whole lot more.
In fact the church building and church hall have more groups meeting there than the purpose built town council offices, hall, kitchen, bar and committee room which is almost opposite the church rooms. To the extent that the town council building is going to be redeveloped and the offices relocated.
The current plan is to redevelop the site of the office to create an adjoining church hall with offices and decent kitchen and toilets rather than the rather primitive facilities that exist. That would include selling off the site of the church hall, provide for all the other groups using the church and to allow for somewhere to provide refreshments after funerals, baptisms and small weddings. But the largest part of the building will still be the worship space.
* Hustings may not be possible in the future as the CofE will not allow churches to be used as a platform for the BNP
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Ariel;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Why does the church's meeting place need to be 'consecrated'? It is the
church itself, the people, who are consecrated.
Because dedicating a space as "set apart" for sacred purposes means that after a while most people will come to it with an appropriate mindset and get more out of it, as the place can also have religious emblems and other items that focus people's minds on the purpose of their visit, and these can be kept in place permanently if wanted. It shouldn't feel as if it's just ordinary and like anywhere else, maybe with posters advertising brands of drinks on the walls, photos of ancient cricket matches and a faint reek of stale beer.
'Sacred purposes' raises a few questions of its own about the nature of what a church does.
I agree a bit about places with posters and such; I think when the old Baptists met in an inn there wouldn't be such distractions. But in my experience that also applies to the modern equivalent which would be to rent a 'function room' rather than the main body of a pub. In terms of community, a community centre would probably be closer now to the tavern back then.
Even where the old Baptists did have a 'meeting house' it would be simpler than traditional churches (fewer religious emblems for starters); reflecting a different idea of 'sacredness'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, that's fine for the Baptists. Not everyone shares the more minimalist Baptist view on 'sacredness' though.
I don't have an issue with groups of all churchmanships using community centres and so on. Some of the more sacramental groups, though, will only meet in a building if it has been 'consecrated' in some way for public worship.
Of course, in times of necessity - war, persecution etc etc - such groups will improvise.
It all depends on the context and the tradition.
--------------------
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 was part of a church that considered moving from a building that was too expensive to maintain into a rented space. Finding suitable spaces in the area was a challenge, but the bigger problem, IMO, was the reluctance to gird ourselves up for the change of culture that would be required. I.e. we weren't willing to worship at another time of day. Neither did members really want to worship somewhere that didn't 'look' like a church. We could have shared space with another church, but this had complications of its own.
The other issue, as has been mentioned, is the extra work required to prepare the rented space for worship. I think the charismatic churches can deal with this better because they have younger and more enthusiastic members; in small MOTR congregations this work will fall on the same few people who also have lots of other things to do. Also, without addressing the change of culture required you can end up with a hired building and a congregation that is less and less inspired to come to worship because it doesn't 'feel' like church as they know it.
For established congregations to transition in this way - and especially if the transition involves doing worship very differently as well - must require a certain spiritual mindset, a vision to be achieved other than just saving money, a committed and knowledgeable minister, a willingness to learn from others, the right sort of community setting.....
New church plants are a different matter altogether.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I don't think Costa customers would like our incense!
Seriously, I used to 'assist' at an 'Agnostics Anonymous' which met in the upstairs room of a pub quite central to the city. It was a good space and we has good discussions - evangelistic but not too pushy.
We did alternate Mondays - the other Mondays the same room was used by the local humanist group - that was good too but they were far more pushy.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
How would you do a funeral service in a coffee bar or pub?
[ 17. August 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: Chamois ]
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
You'd hire a conference hall. Or, indeed, since no one is suggesting that all traditional church buildings should or could be demolished or converted, you could hire a church building.
My position is that diversity is important, but I don't see enough diversity. There are lots of denominations, but on the ground, to the ordinary visitor of attender who's not expected to be knowledgeable about how everything works, the distinctions often seem small and insignificant.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's because the distinctions are small and insignificant.
You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the services at our local Methodist church, for instance, to those at the URC around the corner.
Equally, unless you were one of the cognoscenti you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference, I'd imagine, between a Coptic or Oriental Orthodox service and an Orthodox one ...
Back in the day, I could detect nuanced differences between, say, an AoG, an Elim and an Apostolic church meeting ... not that I ever belonged to any of those groups but I knew sufficient about them to pick up some cues.
These days, all three tend to be similar in feel - as indeed do most of the 'new churches'.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
How would you do a funeral service in a coffee bar or pub?
You could do a memorial service just as easily as you could do any other sort of service, with similar formatting. If you have a separate room where you're able to worship, then you'd do a standard memorial service. If yours is the "deep theological discussion" in a common area, then the memorial would look more like a wake, with mourners sharing memories of the deceased over coffee or beer. An actual funeral (with casket), though, might be unsettling for some patrons.
That being said, special services-- weddings, funerals, baptisms-- are often held off-site for a variety of reasons. One large church I've attended has so many weekend services that they do no weekend weddings, almost all their members' weddings are performed at other local venues. It's not uncommon for funerals to be held at mortuary chapels rather than in the church (although I personally don't care for either). Churches that baptize by immersion but don't have a baptistry will often hold baptism services at someone's home with a pool or at the beach.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
And I don't know if (in England) you could register a secular venue such as a village hall for solemnisingreligious weddings, anyway. Seems a bit of a grey area legally, as far as I know.
Easier to go to the Register Office and then just bless or celebrate it within the Christian fellowship.
[ 17. August 2014, 14:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's because the distinctions are small and insignificant.
Indeed. That's my point. And it seems to be totally out of keeping with this diverse, postmodern, hybrid society that we're all hearing about.
I've just started reading a book called 'Urban Church', some of whose contributors feel that the very fragility of some of the exploratory, vulnerable and tentative models of church might be what's required in a fast-moving society; that even the 'failures' might have valuable lessons to teach. These new models should make no pretence of offering inherited forms of church that will exist in the same form for generations to come, but should envision themselves as doing something different, while being humble enough to learn from others.
I can't speak for parts of the country have had their fill of 'alternatives' and now just yearn for the order and beauty of traditional Anglicanism, but the point is that change is now part of our modern condition, and I can't see how discouraging alternative grassroots initiatives now makes sense. We need more. My city needs more.
Again, I can't speak for other regions, but when neutral sociologists as well as worried evangelicals and respectable CofE bishops project that on current trends churchgoing will collapse to a miniscule level in just a few decades, I can't look around me and say, 'No! That's not going to happen 'round here! We can carry on as normal, more or less.' In many places, we need people who are willing to develop small, local kinds of Christian witness, giving of themselves, raising money for causes that need it, but not seeing every little donation swallowed up in maintaining buildings that will soon be closed anyway.
[ 17. August 2014, 15:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've just started reading a book called 'Urban Church', some of whose contributors feel that the very fragility of some of the exploratory, vulnerable and tentative models of church might be what's required in a fast-moving society; that even the 'failures' might have valuable lessons to teach. These new models should make no pretence of offering inherited forms of church that will exist in the same form for generations to come, but should envision themselves as doing something different, while being humble enough to learn from others.
Yes, this is where I'm at. Why should we expect church structures and institutions to last for decades and centuries? Maybe the pioneering of new, culturally relevant expressions of church, with all the churn that inevitably goes with that, is the best way of making disciples.
I think it would be far healthier if we became less attached to our forms of church and more attached to Christ himself, and through him, to one another. IMO church institutions and structures are just tools, and when the tools have outlived their usefulness (and can't be repaired) we should replace them with new ones.
--------------------
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
I don't think there are 'parts of the country' that yearn for the order and dignity of traditional Anglicanism ...
Perhaps Herefordshire is closest to it.
I spoke to a vicar from that county this week and he says it's like 1937 there. It is always 1937 in Herefordshire ...
I do think, though, that there are people - myself included to a certain extent - who are somewhat jaded with the constant novelty seeking and rearranging of the deck-chairs ... which is why I'm drawn to more traditional styles of worship.
That said, it doesn't mean that I'm not open to those been applied or worked out in new contexts and in new ways.
Whatever tradition we're into and wherever we find ourselves, Christianity is relational.
I'm not dismissing some of these more experimental forms out of hand ... we're in a post-Christian context and that requires wisdom and fluidity.
Nor do I think that the failures of some of these experiments are necessarily a bad and terrible thing either - we can learn from them.
People can get hurt though. But that can happen anywhere. 'Aslan isn't safe.'
--------------------
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
There are two big problems with wanting to throw everything out and change everything:
- There is an expectation of what church looks like from films and books, and not finding that anywhere is even more alienating for seekers who come with something in mind;
- Some consistency on how services and churches work means that churches are more accessible for many people - because they recognise the words, they know the words of the hymns, they can be told what to expect in advance for a service.
This is not saying that all churches should look the same, but that we should not throw out all traditional churches.
As a question, are numbers increasing where churches are universally changing to modern praise bands and worship?
To echo what Gamaliel's question on the Cwmbran thread, how much collateral damage of people walking away is happening? And also this homogenisation of church services is reducing choice, which is what Svtlana82 is saying.
Are people working on an assumption that because they find traditional worship unhelpful everyone else must do so too?
As a side comment, Gamaliel mentioned that at the height of the Welsh revival there were 60 baptisms in 18 months. The local CofE church baptises more than that in a year, and the majority of those are adults or older children.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Come, come Kevin ... you know that the 'old wine is best'
And there are those who would say that because the Church is the Body of Christ and connected to the Head, then to reject Church in the 'traditional' and sacramental sense is tantamount to rejecting Christ ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Now, I'm not saying that ... but I am wary of the constant experimentation because I think it can lead us away from Christ rather than towards him ... put a bunch of people in Starbucks and they'll come up with a kind of corporate, carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity.
--------------------
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
That was 60 baptisms in 18 months in one particular Baptist church, of course - where the policy would have been only to baptise adults/believers.
I can't remember the figures for the years before and after the Welsh Revival - but I think it was something between 6 and 12 baptisms a year.
--------------------
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
