|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: To build or not to build
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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'm with you on this Gamaliel. None o this is new and there's a very real danger that whole denominations are chasing the dragon of a quick fix on new forms of church that aren't new at all.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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!
I bet the fundamental reason they don't is either that the leaders are paid full-time or aspire to be so, because they see the Church™ as the be-all and end-all.
Where I'm at these days is seeking the Kingdom, as instructed by Jesus ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) - and leaving him to build the church (both universal and local) as and how he so wishes.
I think focusing on building a church, let alone church buildings, is a huge and historic misunderstanding of what we should be doing. Ideally, it shouldn't be up to churches to be "missional" (ugh); churches, i.e. gatherings of believers, should be a natural byproduct of believers seeking the Kingdom. I think it's actually quite hard to justify acquiring church real estate through the lens of Kingdom of God values.
Now I am enough of a pragmatist to know that we can't go back to NT times, and realise that there are advantages to being connected to the institutional churches that have grown up (as well as all their earthly assets). But I for one don't intend to lead a church from that perspective again. And quite honestly, this approach doesn't seem to do our local church any harm at all.
[ 17. August 2014, 16:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
So perhaps there is at least some mileage in doing "old church" really, really well?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
A mixture of old church and new church - allow new church initiatives to happen and work, but don't destroy old church while doing so.
If there is no appetite for old church, why are cathedral congregations be increasing?
(Oh, and an answer to what happens with Methodist marriages. The local URC church holds a wedding maybe once every 5 to 10 years, and they borrow things like the wedding kneelers from the CofE to do so.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.
The obvious answer to that is, if you've found something that works for you and the people in your community, stick with it. However, does it hurt you if small groups of people in Dudley or Huddersfield are engaging in monastic cell group church, or an intentional pub fellowship, or whatever? I wouldn't have thought so.
It's true - we're not going to end up with huge numbers of cell group (etc.) baptisms. But outside of Herefordshire and the Surrey Bible Belt, or wherever, that's not on the cards anyway, is it?! But something else might be gained. A Christian witness will be present in areas where the official churches may be winding down, if they're still around anyway.
I think there's a problem in that many of these ventures seem to be occurring in areas where the official churches are already chugging along comfortably, so any new group that springs up is seen as competition, or as a disruption of the current division of labour, or as potential bad PR for themselves. I can understand why some of the commentators here would be unhappy about any of that.
However, I'm thinking more about an urban incarnational ministry in the inner cities and neighbouring suburbs, and in the outer estates. These areas, as 'Urban Church' says, have slipped down the 'ecclesiastical agenda' in terms of mission - and I've seen that with my own eyes. But they do need support. Alternative church groups should seek the goodwill and advice of the official churches nearby, but I'm very doubtful that being under the control (and the roof) of the official churches is always going to be the right thing. It looks less and less like the right thing when these local official churches are often struggling to maintain their own ministries. I can only see these struggles increasing, in many cases.
There's value in developing a theology for these places that isn't necessarily building-dependent.
[ 17. August 2014, 16:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2 - I don't know where you get this idea from that I think everything Anglican is rosy. I don't. I hardly ever attend my parish church these days ... I admire what it does but it ain't really where I'm 'at'.
That said, I'm also very wary of a kind of consumerist approach to Christianity.
I've been at the annual conference of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius this week ... the core of it is made up of old Oxbridge boys on both the Anglican and Orthodox side - although there are some newer voices.
The theme was Monasticism, Marriage and the Single Life ... and there was much discussion about new forms of monasticism, urban monasticism and so on ...
There were some RC priests there too and they had some interesting things to say. There was a trip to the Orthodox monastery at Tolleshunt Knights in Essex and that was fascinating ... some of the nuns there are almost aglow - the presence of Christ with them is palpable.
Sure, we can find Christ anywhere and everywhere and I'm certainly not discounting experimentation.
What does bother me is that some of the attempts to be 'relevant' and experimental etc simply end up reinventing the wheel over and over again.
I really don't know what the answer is for those areas where the church is declining at a faster rate - such as inner city areas like yours.
I think there is scope for base-communities, for the creative use of facilities and so on ... and I'm not necessarily 'against' the sort of vision that South Coast Kevin articulates here - provided it has some ballast from the tried and tested older traditions ... things both new and old and so on.
--------------------
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
To clarify - the thing is, SvitlanaV2, I would be both pleased and delighted if people in Dudley or Huddersfield could make a go of neo-monastic communities or 'Fresh Expressions' or whatever else.
If someone were to reverse the tide in your area by doing something new and radical - I'd also be pleased.
But what I think we're seeing - as you've highlighted yourself - are largely experimental and well-meaning efforts by middle-class Christians in areas where there are already quite active congregations.
I'm sorry, and with all due respect to South Coast Kevin - but the doing church down at Starbucks with your mates thing is a very studenty/post-studenty thing to do. It is very, very middle-class.
There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself ... people who are middle-class professionals can't help being middle-class professionals.
Even if - as I knew one chap do - they deliberately eschew a middle-class professional career in order to work in a petrol station (gas station) they are still doing it in a middle-class kind of way.
We are all products of our backgrounds and upbringing.
As ExclamationMark says, there's nothing particularly 'new' in a lot of this stuff.
That doesn't mean that it's 'wrong' or not worth doing ... simply that it doesn't warrant the fuss and hype that is sometimes made about it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
I'm used to church meeting in a house while being part of a larger church that meets in a traditional building (and meeting as part of that wider church once a month or so).
Advantages in my mind of meeting in a house are as follows:
1) Some people attend who would be reluctant to attend in a church building for whatever pre-conceived ideas.
2) To some extent it combats the dualism that can exist between "church life" and "everyday life" - and certainly leads to people being more comfortable talking about God and praying and worshipping in a more everyday environment rather than in a special place.
3) It is easier for teaching and worship to be more interactive.
4) Its easier to be flexible in terms of people don't come along with such a clear expectation of what is going to happen; or they at least have an expectation that things might be different to normal.
Disadvantages:
1) The biggest disadvantage is how to do growth; do you move to more than one house? - if so how do you develop enough leaders?
2) People don't know where to find you so you can only grow through personal invitation or referral not through people just turning up.
3) Some people would probably be more comfortable being invited to a more neutral less personal space.
I tend to think there are lots of different ways of doing church and lots of them have value. Where two of more are sincerely gathered in Jesus' name he shows up....
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To clarify - the thing is, SvitlanaV2, I would be both pleased and delighted if people in Dudley or Huddersfield could make a go of neo-monastic communities or 'Fresh Expressions' or whatever else.
If someone were to reverse the tide in your area by doing something new and radical - I'd also be pleased.
I don't think it's a question of reversing the tide. Small faith communities are unlikely to become huge communities. Success doesn't mean a 'revival' - which neither of us seems to expect anyway. But I don't see that as a reason why some Christians shouldn't give themselves to the work of an incarnational ministry.
quote:
But what I think we're seeing - as you've highlighted yourself - are largely experimental and well-meaning efforts by middle-class Christians in areas where there are already quite active congregations.
[...]
There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself ... people who are middle-class professionals can't help being middle-class professionals.
That conference you mentioned sounded rather middle class, so perhaps you should leave poor old SCK alone! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The problem I have isn't that people are middle class professionals, the problem is that middle class Christians, including those who are training to be perfectly traditional clergy, seem to be increasingly reluctant to be missional in places that aren't particularly nice.
To be fair to the area where I used to worship, it's on the inner city/boho suburban fringe, so you do get some middle class people living there. It's also a place where you get the phenomenon of people who live further away or who move but who come back to worship. The local Baptist church is a good example of a more incarnational environment. But when my church closed it did feel as though the Methodists were retreating to the suburbs further out. The 'alternative' stuff (jazz church, messy church, etc.) is more suburb-based, except for what's been established in the city centre.
The Parish church I attend now is in a more middle class setting, but not in the sense of loads of people being churchgoers. There are also middle class charismatic congregations in rented premises not too far away, but no small group grassroots fellowships that I know of.
quote:
As ExclamationMark says, there's nothing particularly 'new' in a lot of this stuff.
That doesn't mean that it's 'wrong' or not worth doing ... simply that it doesn't warrant the fuss and hype that is sometimes made about it.
Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong people! Or it could be a regional thing. It's certainly not something I hear about, either at Churches Together meetings, or when I bump into Methodists or inner city Pentecostals, etc. Methodists are interested in promoting FEs, but I get the feeling that only initiatives that come from sexy middle class sources are worthy of that name....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, the conference I attended was very middle-class ... and I don't think it would pretend otherwise. The only ones who weren't your conventional middle-class types were the Greeks ... there were a number of them there and there was an attractively raw bluntness about them that you don't get with middle-class Anglicans.
I'm not giving SCK a hard time about his vision being middle-class and studenty in and of itself ... but his vision is pretty middle-class and studenty. That can't be helped - that's where he's coming from.
The Vineyard is pretty middle-class.
The house-churchy thing was more working class and lower middle-class up north and in South Wales than it was elsewhere - but there were quite a number of middle-class types involved with it as well.
As Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist so incisively pointed out, a charismatic is a middle-class Pentecostal.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To clarify - the thing is, SvitlanaV2, I would be both pleased and delighted if people in Dudley or Huddersfield could make a go of neo-monastic communities or 'Fresh Expressions' or whatever else.
If someone were to reverse the tide in your area by doing something new and radical - I'd also be pleased.
But what I think we're seeing - as you've highlighted yourself - are largely experimental and well-meaning efforts by middle-class Christians in areas where there are already quite active congregations.
I'm sorry, and with all due respect to South Coast Kevin - but the doing church down at Starbucks with your mates thing is a very studenty/post-studenty thing to do. It is very, very middle-class.
There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself ... people who are middle-class professionals can't help being middle-class professionals.
Even if - as I knew one chap do - they deliberately eschew a middle-class professional career in order to work in a petrol station (gas station) they are still doing it in a middle-class kind of way.
We are all products of our backgrounds and upbringing.
As ExclamationMark says, there's nothing particularly 'new' in a lot of this stuff.
That doesn't mean that it's 'wrong' or not worth doing ... simply that it doesn't warrant the fuss and hype that is sometimes made about it.
Maybe the Starbucks type meetings are very middle-class, but I know some thoroughly working-class groups who meet in pubs. However this is done in addition to the main church services (which used to be held in a school hall, now in a community centre - so still without a specialised building of its own).
FWIW this is a working-class charismatic free church in Yorkshire.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Good sensible post from Green Mario.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I don't know much about churches, but I think building or renting depends in part on how many appropriate spaces are available for rent.
I used to joke that in Boston old churches became movie theaters while in New York several neighborhood movie palaces became churches. There is a notable scarcity in some places of meeting rooms available for a workable rent, and the schools are already chock full of after school activities. In some places the slow dying of a Church with a building and a small wealthy congregation may mean they are willing to share the space with new churches with a nominal rent.
[ 18. August 2014, 08:34: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
From practical experience I would say that one of the biggest barriers to effective use and development of existing church buildings is (notwithstanding the very good work that is done) the 'planning system' and assorted associated 'heritage lobby groups' (you know who you are) which can be very good at the 'all care and no responsibility' approach to engaging with reality. Add to that the 'nothing changes here' attitude of some church members and you can find any kind of practical and needful development almost impossible, and/or impossibly expensive.
Unlike our forebears who cheerfully knocked down a wall, blocked up a door, changed the roof pitch, etc. pretty much as fashion or need required, and money allowed, Christians in this country today are often hobbled by a culture that is more inclined to look backwards rather than forwards, and even dealing with today can be problematic.
On the other hand, one of the church buildings I have had the pleasure of helping look after was the product of a very helpful bomb, courtesy of Herr Hitler. After the war the whole community got together and 'bought a brick'. The result was/is a rather humble building, but it is not unattractive, is very easy to maintain because of its straightforward architecture, and basically gets out of the way and allows the congregation to spend its resources on people, rather than 'keeping the roof on'. The building is well used by both the congregation and the local community. A win, I would say.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
From practical experience I would say that one of the biggest barriers to effective use and development of existing church buildings is (notwithstanding the very good work that is done) the 'planning system' and assorted associated 'heritage lobby groups' (you know who you are) which can be very good at the 'all care and no responsibility' approach to engaging with reality. Add to that the 'nothing changes here' attitude of some church members and you can find any kind of practical and needful development almost impossible, and/or impossibly expensive.
Unlike our forebears who cheerfully knocked down a wall, blocked up a door, changed the roof pitch, etc. pretty much as fashion or need required, and money allowed, Christians in this country today are often hobbled by a culture that is more inclined to look backwards rather than forwards, and even dealing with today can be problematic.
On the other hand, one of the church buildings I have had the pleasure of helping look after was the product of a very helpful bomb, courtesy of Herr Hitler. After the war the whole community got together and 'bought a brick'. The result was/is a rather humble building, but it is not unattractive, is very easy to maintain because of its straightforward architecture, and basically gets out of the way and allows the congregation to spend its resources on people, rather than 'keeping the roof on'. The building is well used by both the congregation and the local community. A win, I would say.
Agreed - things like making older churches disabled-accessible or even just putting in toilets is often blocked by heritage groups, not the clergy or church congregations.
SCK - one of the things that concerns me about house churches/churches in secular businesses like coffee shops is that they rather restrict the type of church one can do. What about people who want a sung Eucharist with smells and bells every week?
--------------------
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
SCK can answer for himself, but I suspect he'd say that people who want sung worship with bells and smells can do that in their church buildings ... which will become increasingly difficult to maintain.
You can do bells and smells in hired facilities, of course. I was at an Anglican/Orthodox conference last week and the Orthodox conducted their Liturgy in one of the regular conference rooms.
It can be done, but it doesn't quite 'feel' the same.
I'm sure an RC Mass would work in that context too but it wouldn't feel the same as one in a dedicated building ... but then, there are plenty of open air Masses and Masses in slum dwellings and thatched huts and all manner of other places.
An RC priest told me about a fearsome Irish nun he knows who would round on anyone who said something like, 'Fr O'Reilly, now he says a good Mass ...'
'Brothers,' she would rasp, 'The Mass is the Mass is the Mass!'
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
From practical experience I would say that one of the biggest barriers to effective use and development of existing church buildings is (notwithstanding the very good work that is done) the 'planning system' and assorted associated 'heritage lobby groups' (you know who you are) which can be very good at the 'all care and no responsibility' approach to engaging with reality.
And the "no responsibility" also includes "no contribution towards the costs". That must be an horrendous problem for the C of E in particular, saddled with the upkeep of so many magnificent buildings but dwindling congregations. Tax-free is not a sufficient contribution towards the maintenance of great public assets. And not just for the C of E either, although other European countries seem to manage better. Even here, the Cathedral at Bendigo has been closed for a number of years because money is not available for work essential to ensure safe use of the building.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
From practical experience I would say that one of the biggest barriers to effective use and development of existing church buildings is (notwithstanding the very good work that is done) the 'planning system' and assorted associated 'heritage lobby groups' (you know who you are) which can be very good at the 'all care and no responsibility' approach to engaging with reality. Add to that the 'nothing changes here' attitude of some church members and you can find any kind of practical and needful development almost impossible, and/or impossibly expensive.
Unlike our forebears who cheerfully knocked down a wall, blocked up a door, changed the roof pitch, etc. pretty much as fashion or need required, and money allowed, Christians in this country today are often hobbled by a culture that is more inclined to look backwards rather than forwards, and even dealing with today can be problematic.
On the other hand, one of the church buildings I have had the pleasure of helping look after was the product of a very helpful bomb, courtesy of Herr Hitler. After the war the whole community got together and 'bought a brick'. The result was/is a rather humble building, but it is not unattractive, is very easy to maintain because of its straightforward architecture, and basically gets out of the way and allows the congregation to spend its resources on people, rather than 'keeping the roof on'. The building is well used by both the congregation and the local community. A win, I would say.
Agreed - things like making older churches disabled-accessible or even just putting in toilets is often blocked by heritage groups, not the clergy or church congregations.
Agreed. The Victorian Society has (in my experience) been one of the worst culprits in this regard. Even insignificant Grade 2 churches (of which there are plenty!) can get the full "thou shalt not change" treatment, even when everyone else is in full agreement.
From a C of E perspective, Diocesan Advisory Committees usually need to look at themselves too. Often they may say that they want to be friendly and encouraging but the endless form-filling and bureaucracy stifle all incentive to make even minor changes to buildings. You shouldn't have to cut down a rain forest to remove a single pew to make space for a wheelchair.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - one of the things that concerns me about house churches/churches in secular businesses like coffee shops is that they rather restrict the type of church one can do. What about people who want a sung Eucharist with smells and bells every week?
Oh yes, the venue one is using will of course restrict what one can do, churchmanship-wise. But the idea I was bringing in is intended to bring Jesus and Christian community to people who essentially know and care very little for our faith; and then as they come to be intrigued by Jesus, instead of trying to drag them out of their existing social contexts into our church contexts, we help them set up church (i.e. Christian community) where they already are.
If people like that want to have a sung Eucharist with smells and bells then, sure, that will take more effort (and perhaps be more excluding, which is a problem) than a lower-maintenance style of meeting. But maybe it could be done in a non-conventional venue, if that's what the people involved wanted. No inherent reason why not, AFAICT...
--------------------
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 Oscar the Grouch:
The Victorian Society has (in my experience) been one of the worst culprits in this regard. Even insignificant Grade 2 churches (of which there are plenty!) can get the full "thou shalt not change" treatment, even when everyone else is in full agreement.
From a C of E perspective, Diocesan Advisory Committees usually need to look at themselves too ...
Our building (Grade 2 listed) is under the auspices of the URC. Our local Synod's Listed Building Committee was quite helpful when we wanted to remove some pews. We were more worried at first with the man from English Heritage as he took zillions of photos; when asked, he said, "Oh, I just like taking photos of old chapels"!
We have also received a five-figure sum from the local URC Synod towards stonework repairs - nothing like enough, but it has helped, and we are hopeful of more. However such grants are only given if the Synod feels that the church (congregation) is active and has some reasonable hope of surviving.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
DACs are slow, but not unhelpful. It took a while to get permission to change the (small section of) lead roofing to something less liable to be stolen after a bungled attempt that removed the lead but left it stashed just down the road for later collection, but it wasn't a problem. And mostly they're interested and supportive of changes.
The Victorian Society are a pain, insist things are preserved in aspic and have no money to support anything. English Heritage are mostly helpful - living working buildings are more likely to survive.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sure there must be examples from around the world of RC mission initiatives that have involved the celebration of the Mass - not necessarily in an elaborate form - in shanty towns, in refugee camps and much else besides.
I'm sure that can be done.
I don't have a problem in theory with what South Coast Kevin is advocating but find it hard to envisage how we could set up some form of Christian community without influencing it with our own cultural values etc etc.
What tends to happen, from what I can see, is that in missional contexts the Christian body tends to introduce something that it already does and then that is taken and adapted by the host community.
A good example might be the Melanesian Brotherhood (and sisterhood) in the South Pacific.
Anglican missionaries introduced the idea of religious communities and orders - there was a revival of such orders within the CofE at that time - and this was taken up by the Melanesians and given a particular Melanesian 'twist'.
I heard a talk about it all this last week and was intrigued by how the Brotherhood developed was in keeping with Melanesian cultural norms and so on ...
I don't know why it should always be assumed that a 'pared back' approach is the right one. I've seen footage of Orthodox services in Africa which seem to fit in with the prevailing cultural expressions ... people dancing to the services, African styles of chant and singing etc. Same with RC services in that part of the world. From what evangelical missionaries have sniffily told me, some African cultures love bells and smells and robes and so on ... notice how many African indigeneous churches have taken up on robes and ritual and so on ... often, it has to be said, in a rather syncretic way.
I spoke to an Anglican priest this last week who'd just returned from Ethiopia - he's planning to write a study of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Now that's a very peculiar church from a Western perspective ...
He told me that the Ethiopian Orthodox and the burgeoning Pentecostal groups over there - which now account for 20% of the population - share one big thing in common - they are both obsessed with exorcism and the spirit-world ... that's a big thing in their culture.
What'd be a big thing in other cultures would undoubtedly be different.
--------------------
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
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
Earlier in the year I visited Turkana in the north west of Kenya. Both RC and Anglican churches have built a "proper" church in Lodwah (the county capital) and what a welcome thing that is as the sun beats down and temperatures sore.
But in the rural parishes, communion is celebrated by a robed priest and a handful of people under a cluster of Acacia trees with camels and goats standing by.
Be it Kenya or Kentish Town, I think perhaps culture, money and environment have a large part to play in this discussion?
[ 19. August 2014, 13:29: Message edited by: MrsBeaky ]
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
DACs are slow, but not unhelpful.
My gripe (such as it is) is that DAC's could be more helpful with rather minimal changes to procedures. Individual people on the DACs are (mostly) very nice people. I have had some fascinating and very helpful conversations with DAC members. But at the end of the day, the system is so slow and time-consuming that I understand fully why so many churches choose to circumvent it.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I know of a church which about the mid-19thC built a large building near a town centre. By the 1960s, that building was, well, in need of repair. They looked at the likely bill, and the then size of the congregation – and decided to knock the original church down and sell the site, which is now occupied by offices, though the church is allowed to use the offices' car park outside office hours.
The congregation then moved into what had formerly been the Sunday School, on a site just behind the original building, and they're still there.
Somewhere along the way, and I wasn't around at the time so I'm not sure of the detail, they realised that the location was no longer surrounded by houses and people and had perhaps become non-ideal. One response to this was to look for an alternative building, and one was found – a factory-cum-office building that had been, I believe, used by a maker of nurse's uniforms and similar work clothes. I've seen it, it would have been good, and it was well sited in a mostly residential area which still is so decades later – but they turned it down; too many of the congregation thought it didn't look like a church (which indeed is true). The congregation are arguably still suffering from that decision ….
Hmmm!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - one of the things that concerns me about house churches/churches in secular businesses like coffee shops is that they rather restrict the type of church one can do. What about people who want a sung Eucharist with smells and bells every week?
Oh yes, the venue one is using will of course restrict what one can do, churchmanship-wise. But the idea I was bringing in is intended to bring Jesus and Christian community to people who essentially know and care very little for our faith; and then as they come to be intrigued by Jesus, instead of trying to drag them out of their existing social contexts into our church contexts, we help them set up church (i.e. Christian community) where they already are.
If people like that want to have a sung Eucharist with smells and bells then, sure, that will take more effort (and perhaps be more excluding, which is a problem) than a lower-maintenance style of meeting. But maybe it could be done in a non-conventional venue, if that's what the people involved wanted. No inherent reason why not, AFAICT...
I agree with you in principle, but there's an interesting counter-argument in the form of cathedral worship growing. I think now that cathedrals are seen as tourist attractions rather than churches, people feel more comfortable just wandering in and sitting and listening/watching. What would be your response to that?
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I know of a church which about the mid-19thC built a large building near a town centre. By the 1960s, that building was, well, in need of repair. They looked at the likely bill, and the then size of the congregation – and decided to knock the original church down and sell the site, which is now occupied by offices, though the church is allowed to use the offices' car park outside office hours.
The congregation then moved into what had formerly been the Sunday School, on a site just behind the original building, and they're still there.
Somewhere along the way, and I wasn't around at the time so I'm not sure of the detail, they realised that the location was no longer surrounded by houses and people and had perhaps become non-ideal. One response to this was to look for an alternative building, and one was found – a factory-cum-office building that had been, I believe, used by a maker of nurse's uniforms and similar work clothes. I've seen it, it would have been good, and it was well sited in a mostly residential area which still is so decades later – but they turned it down; too many of the congregation thought it didn't look like a church (which indeed is true). The congregation are arguably still suffering from that decision ….
Hmmm!
Yes. As soon as you put down roots, it becomes much harder to upsticks if the population profile changes.
The very first church I was a member of had been built in the Victorian era and had originally been in the heart of a fairly densely packed residential area. Over time, the houses dwindled, to be replaced by shops and businesses. When I first started attending the church almost no-one attending actually lived in the parish. The vicarage was (and still is) over a mile outside the parish boundaries. And I know of many other churches where the population has shifted, leaving the church in relative isolation.
Of course, not being in the heart of the community you are seeking to serve is not a complete disaster. You just have to work that much harder to make the connections between church and the wider community. And if the church is eclectic - drawing people from a wide geographical area with no great concern to serve a specific patch - then the actual location of the church is almost irrelevant.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I agree with you in principle, but there's an interesting counter-argument in the form of cathedral worship growing. I think now that cathedrals are seen as tourist attractions rather than churches, people feel more comfortable just wandering in and sitting and listening/watching. What would be your response to that?
I find it difficult, to be honest. The very idea of someone sitting on the edge (metaphorically and literally) of a church service / community and not actually interacting with any of the people runs completely contrary to my idea of what church is.
But, practically speaking, if some people gain comfort and draw nearer to Christ through sitting on the edge of cathedral services then [addressing myself here!] that's a good thing, right...? I suppose the only question is the 'opportunity cost' - what else could be done with those resources (people's time, the money involved etc.) that might have more impact in terms of sharing the good news of Jesus?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Our very simple suburban church is open in daylight hours, 7 days a week. Apart from entries in the visitor's book, quick observations by the Rector and Parish Secretary show that many people call in, sit and stay a while. Some are regulars, others less so, but the comments made are very positive. It's worth the security risk to give people a place where they can stop and think quietly, maybe pray, and often gain solace. It's a bit hard to do that if you meet in a roster of houses.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Yes, church here is open during the day during the week, with a prayer board, pens and paper for people to put up prayers, candles to light and space, memorial book open. All of which are used a lot.
This CofE church opens on Sunday evenings even when there isn't a service as so many people walk in to pray and sit in silence, often looking at a cross or carvings of the stories of Jesus, or stained glass ... lots of visual support for prayer - also not possible in non-dedicated places. And the building acts as a signal.
The Elim Church here had a tin tabernacle in a back street which they sold for redevelopment and since have been wandering and have reduced in numbers dramatically. They now meet in a secular hall on Sundays, and the way their finances are going I'm not sure how long that is going to be viable. There alternative place - where they meet on Christmas Day is about to disappear, which will leave them with no place to meet then. They tried for a base in various places to be a presence during the week, but those have all fallen through for different reasons. Not having a base has huge disadvantages.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... practically speaking, if some people gain comfort and draw nearer to Christ through sitting on the edge of cathedral services then [addressing myself here!] that's a good thing, right...? I suppose the only question is the 'opportunity cost' - what else could be done with those resources (people's time, the money involved etc.) that might have more impact in terms of sharing the good news of Jesus?
Who are you to say? You will sow where you will not reap and you will reap where you have not sown. And Christ will have met people where they are and you will have provided a place for that to happen.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think cathedrals are a special case. They promote the brand, so to speak, so whatever's spent on them is hardly considered to be wasted money.
There's an interesting church, charismatic evangelical, not far from me. It rents a school hall for Sunday worship, and owns a large Edwardian house on the same road about a mile down. The house seems to be where they hold their Alpha courses and other activities and meetings.
This is an interesting solution, because it means the members don't have to struggle to maintain a large worship space that's used only one day a week, but they can do what they like on the more easily manageable site they own.
Of course, only a very well attended church in good financial health can do this. Moreover, independent charismatic evangelicals aren't the guardians of anyone's national heritage, so what they do in terms of buildings isn't going to scandalise anyone.
[ 20. August 2014, 12:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's an interesting church, charismatic evangelical, not far from me. It rents a school hall for Sunday worship, and owns a large Edwardian house on the same road about a mile down. The house seems to be where they hold their Alpha courses and other activities and meetings.
This is an interesting solution, because it means the members don't have to struggle to maintain a large worship space that's used only one day a week, but they can do what they like on the more easily manageable site they own.
This is exactly what my church does, and it seems to work very well. It gives the church a space in which it can do some community-focused work and, like SV2 says, it means we're not saddled with the maintenance of a large building.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Who are you to say? You will sow where you will not reap and you will reap where you have not sown. And Christ will have met people where they are and you will have provided a place for that to happen.
I don't think I am 'saying'... I'm just suggesting that the people involved should consider the opportunity cost - when we do pretty much anything in any context there are presumably other things we might have done instead, and it's good to consider which of the options is likely to be best, surely? ('Best' covering a range of considerations.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I didn't mean that in any confrontational sense, and I'd agree with you that we need to think about what we devote resources too and why, but we need to take account of the unquantifiables and also to recognise that much of what we do will be done for a number of reasons.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Oh yes, absolutely.
--------------------
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
@SvitlanaV2 - Would you be so kind as to PM me? I'd like to ask you a quick question, if I may. (Don't worry, it's not a nasty one!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whether we like it or not, though, South Coast Kevin, the reality of it all is that some of those people at cathedral services will be there precisely because they don't want to engage with your particular model of church ...
Many will be refugees from charismatic evangelical parishes or parishes of other churchmanships but which have started to mess about with the liturgy or else try to pressurise them to join this, that or the other rota ...
So they know that if they go to a cathedral service they are pretty much going to be left alone and not cajoled or pressurised in any way.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, simply stating a case.
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that cathedrals are a 'special case' to some extent and that the kind of criteria we might otherwise use doesn't necessarily apply.
As I've said, even though I do jab and jibe a bit, I'm not against experimentation and different ways of doing things per se.
But the fact remains, not everyone wants the kind of very immersive style of church life that you appear to favour. There's a place for it, certainly and I've been involved with stuff like that in the past.
There's some kind of balance somewhere between church life as something confined to occasional attendance at a communion service, say and church life where practically everything revolves around church.
Our local vicar almost appears to want everyone's social life to revolve around the church, for instance. He doesn't say it in as many words but that's the impression I get. Everything becomes a means to an end ... let's have some line-dancing sessions so you can invite your friends, let's have a quiz, let's have a this, let's have a that ...
I can understand the motivation and the reasoning but find it all a bit much.
--------------------
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 South Coast Kevin:
If people like that want to have a sung Eucharist with smells and bells then, sure, that will take more effort (and perhaps be more excluding, which is a problem) than a lower-maintenance style of meeting. But maybe it could be done in a non-conventional venue, if that's what the people involved wanted. No inherent reason why not, AFAICT...
Are there any examples of Evensong being conducted in a 'non-traditional' setting? I've become a fan of Evensong. Obviously, there's unlikely to be a choir on hand in someone's living room, but the Magnificat, etc., could presumably be performed on a recording, or a good soloist in the group could do it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sadly, Evensong seems to be dying out.
Around here, Evensong is well attended in rural parishes as it's become a rare treat. It seems to have virtually died a death in the towns, though.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I see no reason why Evensong - like communion - can't be taken out and about. As Mrs Beaky says, out in Kenya etc communion services are held in the open air or under the cover of trees.
Mind you, other than the house-bound or people in sheltered accommodation/old people's homes etc ... I can't see what would be gained by taking Evensong out of a parish church building and into a pub or a community centre. The people who'd generally appreciate Evensong aren't going to be put off by going into a church building.
It'd be interesting to see how Evensong would fare 'out on the road' though ...
I tend to think that whatever style of worship we're talking about, it tends to work best in context. If you took South Coast Kevin's Vineyard church, for instance, and took the worship there out of its context and transplanted it somewhere else - I don't know, in a cathedral say - then it wouldn't quite be the same.
If we were to take church services out 'to the people' as it were, then I can't see why simple liturgical forms wouldn't work - after all, it would give people something to 'do' and say etc.
I don't think South Coast Kevin is envisaging wall-to-wall chorus singing, for instance ...
I'm not entirely sure how he envisages these things, a mix of alt-worship and discussion, I'd imagine - and some alt-worship stuff can be quite liturgical in form.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whether we like it or not, though, South Coast Kevin, the reality of it all is that some of those people at cathedral services will be there precisely because they don't want to engage with your particular model of church ...
Many will be refugees from charismatic evangelical parishes or parishes of other churchmanships but which have started to mess about with the liturgy or else try to pressurise them to join this, that or the other rota ...
There is a little rural nonconformist chapel I know, it nearly closed but was kept open largely by one person's enthusiasm. It only has an evening service. Everything is done "properly" and music is led with an organ.
Attendance has nearly doubled in 5 years (28 people there a couple of weeks ago), in a village which has not seen any new building or vast cultural shift.
So who have joined it? One or two "incomers" (but they have replaced other folk who have died); and several folk who don't like the "loud music" or "informality" of their former churches. One could argue all one likes about these folk being "traditional" or "stuck in their ways"; nevertheless it does fill a niche, just as 8am 1662 HC does for some Anglicans.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And while provision like this might not attract many new people (rather depends on the context and place) it might well stop some of those people from being de-churched. My in-laws are just the sort of people who would appreciate a chapel like this: their Methodist Church closed, the minister of the URC to which they moved is very much a praise-band type who (they say) seems not to understand the needs of a largely elderly congregation, and from having been regular and active worshippers they are becoming semi-detached- not a good position to be in, especially in your 70s and 80s.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - I'd go along with that.
I'd see this sort of thing as a non-conformist parallel with what's been happening in cathedrals.
--------------------
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
If I understand South Coast Kevin correctly, though, I'm not sure he's envisaging the kind of community church plants he's describing as necessarily involving praise-bands and the like.
If I understand him correctly, he'd envisage them as multi-participatory certainly but not necessarily wedded to a particular music style or cultural expression.
The thing is, though, in aiming to be 'relevant' and so on it begs the question, 'relevant to whom?'
I spent 6 years quite happily in a trendy Baptist church plant but was never convinced that it was ever going to be 'relevant' to anyone beyond its core demographic of 20 and 30 somethings ... with a smattering of older people.
When someone told me that they wanted to be 'relevant' to the community, I asked him how on earth guitar-led sub-Vineyard style worship was going to be relevant to an 80 year old lady living round the corner ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That also poses the question as to whether churches should even strive to be relevant, or should take the line of being deliberately counter-cultural (do I hear a Dead Horse begin to stir, or a Can of Worms opening?)
Admittedly, "counter-cultural" does not automatically equate to "old-fashioned".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I would say that the antonym of "relevant" is not "counter-cultural" but "irrelevant".
You can be as counter-cultural as you like, but if you're not relevant (ie - you're not connecting with where people really are), then you're just wasting your time.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
I am someone who is really aware of my environment and so when it comes to worship I am drawn to beauty both man-made and natural.
I know that some other people don't need or want these things.
If the life of a church congregation is both God-ward and outwards in service, then we need different kinds of places to facilitate these things. The communion services outside here in northern Kenya only work because the annual rainfall is so low there. Here in the Rift Valley we have been rained into the church on many an occasion and so all the parishes have tin-roofed churches. (Tangent- I had to stop preaching once as none of us could hear ourselves thinking...)
So I think every local church needs to consider what serves them best and that might include a variety of approaches. Back in the UK I attend a Cathedral but there are also small groups for contemplative prayer and Bible study which meet in people's homes and well as many buildings in the Cathedral close that are used for a variety of events.
I have several friends who are priests who have the joy of wonderful, beautiful buildings in which to worship and have also fund-raised to build a parish centre to facilitate things like toddler groups.
Newer churches might well utilise coffee shops/ pubs/ homes and hire a place for Sundays- not my personal preference but to all intents and purposes perhaps not that different from how my priest friends use their churches?
It's the content and style of services and small group meetings that I think shows more of difference rather than the actual choice of building.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I see no reason why Evensong - like communion - can't be taken out and about. As Mrs Beaky says, out in Kenya etc communion services are held in the open air or under the cover of trees.
Mind you, other than the house-bound or people in sheltered accommodation/old people's homes etc ... I can't see what would be gained by taking Evensong out of a parish church building and into a pub or a community centre. The people who'd generally appreciate Evensong aren't going to be put off by going into a church building.
Your last sentence is an assumption; we don't know if there are people out there who would appreciate Evensong, but who wouldn't feel comfortable entering a very imposing parish church and mixing with a very 'churchy' demographic in order to participate in it.
More importantly, though, as a form of outreach 'living room Evensong' would have to offer more than simply a beautiful worship service, but also a supportive community for the target group. In fact, the supportive aspect is likely to be much more meaningful to many people than the precise style of worship. And as the 'target group' I'm not thinking here of the middle class professionals with their (supposedly) wonderful lives but of people who are likely to have greater difficulties. Reaching out to them and then ministering to them in a home fellowship would take more than buying some new cushions and a few CDs of medieval church music.
Remember too that developing alternative sites for worship doesn't necessarily mean deliberately ignoring a perfectly nice church building with a perfectly decent congregation. It could mean planting a fellowship where there's no church at all. It could mean that the only church in the vicinity is in poor condition. It could mean that none of the local churches have the interest or the manpower to engage in outreach, or at least not the kind of work that's being proposed.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed, Mrs Beaky.
The thing is, however we 'do' church that's going to determine what we actually offer people.
That's a truism and bleedingly obvious but it's worth pointing out.
So, if a relatively sacramentally/High Churchly inclined person is going to 'plant' something or attempt to 'connect' with people beyond the walls of their church in a way that involves worship and so on ... (rather than community engagement in other ways) then it'll inevitably carry that flavour.
If SCK and his pals attempted to church plant tomorrow, they would be offering Vineyardy flavoured material and assuming that people want the kind of informal, relational and interactive approach that this involves.
What neither would do - I suspect - is go out and find what the community actually want in terms of spiritual activity - do they know what they want until they see it? - and offer that.
It's easy to say, 'We'll just offer them Jesus' but how does that work? What does it look it on the ground?
We can't divorce ourselves from culture or history. We are what we are through a whole range of influences and developments.
None of us operate in some kind of spiritual vacuum.
It's easy to say, but perhaps what we should be doing is finding what is already of Christ out there and working with that. What that is or might be ... well, answers on a postcard please ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[/b]
Your last sentence is an assumption; we don't know if there are people out there who would appreciate Evensong, but who wouldn't feel comfortable entering a very imposing parish church and mixing with a very 'churchy' demographic in order to participate in it.
More importantly, though, as a form of outreach 'living room Evensong' would have to offer more than simply a beautiful worship service, but also a supportive community for the target group. In fact, the supportive aspect is likely to be much more meaningful to many people than the precise style of worship. And as the 'target group' I'm not thinking here of the middle class professionals with their (supposedly) wonderful lives but of people who are likely to have greater difficulties. Reaching out to them and then ministering to them in a home fellowship would take more than buying some new cushions and a few CDs of medieval church music.
Remember too that developing alternative sites for worship doesn't necessarily mean deliberately ignoring a perfectly nice church building with a perfectly decent congregation. It could mean planting a fellowship where there's no church at all. It could mean that the only church in the vicinity is in poor condition. It could mean that none of the local churches have the interest or the manpower to engage in outreach, or at least not the kind of work that's being proposed. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I was making an assumption. The thing is, we are all making assumptions. We none of us have any idea what it is that people 'out there' want in terms of worship services, styles of worship etc etc .
My guess would be that many of them don't want any of that at all. What they might appreciate, though, is some genuine interest and love and care without any particular strings attached.
You were asking the question whether living room Evensong would work. I was simply offering my opinion - which was that I doubt that it would - in and of itself.
Any form of outreach or 'fresh expression' or whatever we want to call it is obviously much more than a few scatter cushions and CDs of medieval chant ... or guitar-led choruses or meditation style services or whatever else.
If that's all it is, then that's all it is.
Whatever our tradition and personal tastes/preferences we should be looking to offer something holistic that expresses the love of God in some way ... that doesn't necessarily involve church services of course. It's what we do outside and beyond the services and meetings that's important ...
Of course, it's a both/and thing.
I've got absolutely no idea how one goes about planting churches and so on - and I've involved with a few attempts to do so.
--------------------
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
